💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › s › Atheism › 21048 captured on 2024-12-17 at 15:56:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I consider myself an atheist.
My position needs no defending or preaching. I can see benefits of blindly believing in a higher power of some sort, as well as the obvious dangers of the "God made me do it" excuse.
It is always a disappointment when someone I admire go full mental on the subject. You can't use reason on those who blindly believe.
As for the evil of religion... If you look carefully, the real harm comes from _rabid_ interpretation, and the act of forcing it down other people's throats (or generally causing harm to others).
It is sad to see people I admire fall into rabid atheism. For instance, the anti-religious cruzade of Richard Dawkins. As I and many others see it, his desire to start reality-TV-worthy fights signals a weakness -- only those who are not certain act that way.
Although I personally lack the religious gene or meme, as Dawkins popularized the word, before the internet and making an ass of himself... Many people I love seem to get something they need from various religions, and I am happy for them.
I am concerned that many people are jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon lately, mostly out of ignorance. Just like the Bible some time ago, the Koran can be used as a weapon of oppression. But so can a version of "The God Delusion". There are psychopaths out there very skilled at turning suffering into hatred.
And so, while I will never be a believer, find myself quite interested in a variety of things people believe, and trying to understand why, rather than dismissing it as bunk or fighting to disprove it. I am not afraid of catching it.
Oct 20 · 8 weeks ago · 👍 dragfyre, luddite, yingfan
🔒 Locked
I'd counter and say that the real harm is the tame followers. They are the ones who fund religion. They are the ones who make up the massive numbers causing ridiculousness of belief in a magical being seem commonplace and rational. Those same people say things like "Jesus loves you" while skipping the silent part that is actually demeaning. At least with the rabid theists you can call a spade a spade because they say all the bad parts out loud.
I heard a great metaphor once. The quiet theists are like the accountants who cook the books for the mob. Yeah you aren't the thugs roughing up people and doing the hits. But without cooking the books the government can't easily take down the criminal organization.
I don't see that being possible with atheism.
@stack Your comment related to US politics was unpublished due to CoC. Please take that discussion to the appropriate subspace.
Well the problem I see is the "belief". I don't believe in God personally, I've had experience with God or what I call consciousness. Believing just because people say it's true will lead to a lot of harm, one way or another. And a religion or a anti religion, or a science, or a media or politicians that wants you to believes without you having any sort of experience is a sign that there is something wrong with that information being passed down. This is especially true of religion, where the personal experience is at the heart of the spiritual journey. It's important to be atheist until you have your experiences, and stay curious without closing off part of your reality because someone said so.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 22 at 16:00:
I am an atheist asswell. My view on the world is based upon logic. This is why I have issues with people who really believe in something like god.
Because they don't act rational in such situations. They don't think rational, they are willing to believe something thadt has no foundation. They cannot step out of that mindset, which becomes clear once you really have a detailed discussion.
But yet their actions impact others. They might not think so, but it is the case. The lack of tought experiments when teaching children for example.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 22 at 16:06:
extra note,
The lack of belief does not have to be preached, indeed. But logic should prevail right? There are countless indications that the koran or bible is just illogical, starting with how god is sitting on a cloud.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 22 at 22:12:
Yeah, I can see how indoctrination of children may be an issue. However I think it only happens in extreme cases -- consider that even atheists tell their children that Santa Claus is coming to bring Christmas (!) gifts ... Human children can generally figure things out for themselves once they get older.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 22 at 22:17:
@Total_FLOSS, obviously many details are not meant literally... Although, today we talk about nearly-omniscient AIs in the cloud. Maybe the Bible is just a little ahead of its time :)
But seriously, I think ancients referred to some unreachable dimension as the sky... Today in modern physics we talk about ridiculous dimensionality, or magical 'fields' in which particles that do not exist in any normal sense interact...
Logic is also a belief, it's limited to the understanding of the world around us, which is incomplete. If we were to understand the world completely, a true logic might prevail, but as long as we are exploring this world, logic is as subjective as believing in God.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 22 at 23:25:
Generally, the belief with the most party tricks should prevail. Unfortunately, suffering unites people around odd ideas and awful people.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 23 at 07:14:
The issue is, people believe that a literal book is the source of absolute truth, how can it be absolute truth if it can be misinterpreted to oblivion?
Santa Clause has only a symbolic meaning towards atheists, they tell heir children about it in a way that doesn't harm them (if they are good parents). Unlike believers, who apply their saint stories upon all of the world, including making their children believe the nonexistend punishments.
Mythical AI on the <loud is a really fun take on god. Ill keep it in mind.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 23 at 09:48:
I don't see logic as belief, it is a concept that follows consequences. We don't know all of logic, but the logic that we know works because it is logical. Logic can change however, if the situation changes.
It would be ilogical to jump of a building to fall to the ground, but if we have inventions to easily survive it, then sure we can just jump.
But your logic and my logic is different from how I perceive the world. If logic is subjective, and depends on how we perceive the world, then it relies more on a set of belief, or a define perception of reality. I think we would like logic to be outside the realm of belief, that logic is the 'truth' but the world we live in is too subjective to have a logic system that is outside a belief system. And I'm not trying to convince you about logic, I just find it quite interesting how a lot of us would like to be outside 'belief system' but we simply step into another one without realizing it.
@stack
Although, today we talk about nearly-omniscient AIs in the cloud. Maybe the Bible is just a little ahead of its time :)
While i get that this is a little tongue in cheek, this is the type of view that always grinds my gears. The idea that religions can just retcon in any idea they want. You know some day when aliens land on this planet and tell us they have been guiding us for centuries there will be a ton of theists who will claim "see that was the god i was _really_ talking about."
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 23 at 19:02:
@jecxjo: adaptability is a survival characteristic of religions. I will again point at the christmas tree so many atheists are happy to put presents under for their children. The tree comes from really old religions that Christianity simply absorbed.
As for the aliens... One way to look at it is that the Bible, and pretty much all religious tracts are about non-humans with better tech.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 23 at 19:46:
@daruma
But your logic and my logic have points where they are the same: things that noone cannot even think of denying if they want to be logical. Or the things that we physically are able to do. And some of those physical things apply to all.
One example is how the earth is flat. Not many people think its logical, but those that do, fail at this subject with their very own handmade logic.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 23 at 19:49:
@jecxjo
I always think of religions as the greatest co-opting mechanisms of civilization. Everything can be claimed by religion as being the result of the cause of their claims as stated by the religions.
I expressed it in a weird way but I hope it is accurate :)
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 23 at 19:53:
Even worse:
An alien invasion could be possible due to the theists seeing aliens as their messiah or savior. This could be simply exploited and those willing to put aside their logic, will fall for it.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 23 at 20:46:
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of 'different logics'.
Things are either provably true, false, or there is not enough information to make a conclusion.
As an atheist, I cannot logically say that God does not exist, as it is not a provable statement. I can reasonably say that it is so unlikely that I can live my life as if there is no God. I will also not win the lottery. A zealot will live as if God exists. It's a subjective choice. Neither is correct or incorrect.
The flat earth examples are also foolish. Earth may very well be considered flat, but that would make all kinds of computations inconvenient. Occam's razor suggests a better way to model our environment, one that makes it much easier to compute satellite orbits and track celestial bodies. Otherwise, there is nothing inherently incorrect about choosing a different frame of reference or geometry. Logic however does not change. Most people can reasonably live day to day as if the earth was flat, without complications, and they are not wrong.
You could even fully believe that the earth is a disk and the south pole is a weird stretched singularity, but for convenience of computation, use a spherical mapping, as a tool. You would not be wrong.
Quantum mechanics is over a century old, yet we still teach kids about atoms that are like little solar systems. It works for physics, chemistry and 99.99℅ of anything we encounter in real life, so we go along, because the alternative is really complicated and not at all intuitive. You can see how a farmer who spent his whole life on a farm could prefer a simpler description of his environment which satisfies all his needs.
You can have radically different conceptual representations of things that are complicated -- all within the same framework of a consistent logical system. It is not necessary for one to be incorrect or false, or have 'different logic' for them to work out.
Many intelligent people have found a way to keep faith without having 'different logic'. Religion is about comfort, not optimal description of the world, and science has little to say about religion except in specific instances.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 24 at 21:01:
@stack on the first point, I agree.
The rest? No not really.
As an atheist, I find it illogical for god to exist, as I don't see him, I don't see angels with rings above their heads, I don't see horses with wings and etc. Really not difficult to disprove.
A flat plane lacks points that a sphere has, due to its definition of flatness. You can't view the earth as a flat plane and still get correct calculations. That is foolish :-D
Atoms are shown with pictures of little balls. But everyone knows that is innaccurate. And they don't claim it to be. It is just an illustration and it isnt totally correct, as that should also teached. But in general the lessons aim to be correct.
And yes, many scientists WERE theists, in a time were they were FORCE(FE)D to be one. But that does not uphold logic during their belief in God. Contrary to many theists claims, believing for own statisfaction is not untied to real-world consequences.
And logic is based upon real world consequences, which doesn't care that much if someone believes or not.
But it is important to note:
I do NOT claim that atheists follow logic at all times, that would be really extraordinairy. Atheists can still act or think illogical =owever they see fit.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 24 at 22:53:
Now you are saying complete nonsense!
You can't see God, so that is your 'logical proof' that God does not exist?
Can you see atoms, or black holes? Do you trust Hawking more than the Pope? Clearly you haven't thought this through, and are embarrassing yourself.
You are comletely incorrect about mapping transformations. There are dozens of common mapping transforms. We've used paper maps for centuries with pretty good results.
A geocentric or even flat earth reference frame is just a transformation. What flatearthers get wrong is not that the earth is not flat, but their stupid insistence that everyone else is wrong. If they just stated that they prefer a flat mapping of whatever shape the Earth is, no one could object.
Please think at least a little before writing. You are becoming a perfect example of someone who is not intellectually secure in their position, and needs to prove that everyone else is wrong!
Not to add oil to the fire, but logic is a very wide catch all term. The way 'logic' is used in this discussion seems to point that logic is universal and always right, as if logic was the holy grail of truth, as if you only need logic to live your life. Now replace the last sentence with God, and see how logic, used wrongly is just another belief system. To have 'logic' you use a language and sets of rule created by humans, which creates a system or belief. Maybe more verifiable belief, but still a belief as we don't fully understand the world around us.
I personally feel that we put too much trust in this 'logic' everything has to 'make sense'. I think life doesn't make sense
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 25 at 20:36:
@stack
Okay let me clarify it for you:
I say that I don't see god, and do you know what they say god is? It is a man floating on a cloud. Right? have you ever seen soneone floating on a cloud? Did you ever see something floating on a cloud? How would that work when everything else falls down? That is the point.
But you only look at the "I don't see god so he doesn't exist" part instead of the entire "I don't see god's description and I don't see winged horses etc" statement. I was refferring to alot more then you tought.
Flat mappings lack information of representations of a sphere right? Right? And you sound really really foolish here, let me clarify:
Because, a projection only projects certain information. But not all. A flat projection won't explain a single thing about gravity or whatever, and it can't. But it has to, in order to be valid. You can't say "The earth is flat because I like to project it that way" because the earth is much more then a shape. It includes thermodynamics and gravity and interactions, and ALL THOSE CALCULATIONS fail when used for a flat surface (projection).
Just read my posts better because I am way ahead of your thinking. But lets keep this thing logical. We talked about religion, then I gave an example of how flat-earth is illogical and then you said "it could be a logical truthfull projection" and then I said "No because all calculations (Of the mechanics) would be faulty"
And that is were you misreaded my comment I suppose. Lets go back to the original stuff of logic.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 25 at 20:49:
@daruma that is totally fine.
I think logic is somehow based upon causality, which is universal.
Anyway, with logic, I mean the concept of acting (doing, thinking, perceiving etc.) in accordance to the consequences of causality and to sustain the very same concept of logic (which as far as we know is only attainable by living beings) sortoff.
And no, logic does not loop to itself as definition here. I mentioned 2 parts here that make up of it. The causality and the "selfsustainingor producing" part.
It find it a really difficult concept to explain. But it proves itself. I like such logical stuff.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 25 at 21:05:
This is also why I keep hammering on the "They can't even explain it with their own logic" part.
Because they simply can't. They rely on the unknown to defend the claim of a connection and representation of a source of absolute truth. Which is already paradoxical in its own way.
(In my opinion)
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 25 at 21:25:
As Einstein has shown, there is no preferred frame, and the math works out whether the earth is in the 'center of the universe' or spinning around a star in the corner of the Milky Way.
A mapping or a projection by definition maps every point. Math. In fact, a flat map of the world, in many common projections, has extra space that the globe does not. But that doesn't matter.
You are digging a deeper hole for yourself with your 'proof' that God doesn't exist. You simply cannot prove it, even to me, who does not think that god exists! Just because no one has seen God is simply not proof! No one has seen the atom either.
Treating religion with contempt only shows ignorance. You do not need to be stupid or forced into believing in some higher power. It doesn't need to be a bearded old white man on a cloud -- that is a caricature.
Particle physics has been in the toilet this century, producing nothing. The current quantum models are just about as fantastic as gods in clouds, involving mysterious fields in which magical particles interact instantly at infinite distances once entangled, often in 11 dimensions, some rolled into microscopic tubes.
My point is that you, and an intelligent religious person _can_ agree on absolute logic. It is popular to treat believers as idiots, but based on some remarks here, some of you have more garbage in your heads than the most backward devout religious nut I've ever met!
Only a fool will argue that there is or is not a God, as there is no logical proof either way. To a religious person, faith is proof enough. For a logical person, it is not something that can be done. Please don't embarass yourself! And don't think you are better, because you clearly do not understand physics, mathematics, logic, and do not have God on your side:)
I think "God exists" is not well defined.
Furthermore, use of logic depends on the axiom and on what kind of logic; there isn't only one kind; you have to know which kind is applicable. And, some things won't be known, and sometimes you will have to aware of hidden assumptions, goals, etc.
But, people do good things with religion and with non-religion, and people also do bad things with religion and non-religion.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 26 at 16:16:
@stack You say that a vearded white man in the clouds is "just a caricature". But we are talking about religion here and religion depicts god in this way.
And my whole entire point is that the way god IS DESCRIBED IN religion, sitting on clouds surrounded with angels with rings above their heads and winged horses, is illogical. What do I need to say to make you understand that?
And no, transformations of a 3d object into 2d space absolutely lacks information. YES, a 2d representation into another 2d projection won't lose information but this is litterally another thing.
Please stop with that...
We are talking about a globe, a sphere, that we have to transform into a fricking pancake!
@stack
And your last point is a nice one. But that is the underlying philosophical question on which I have the opinion that there is a certain concept (that we probably think of as logic) that behaves the way I described in previous posts.
And your last statement about "faith is proof for people believing in god, while lohical people do not find this possible" Please elaborate because it might clear up alot of this stuff.
@stack
Also, I propose this:
Shall we write down what we think eachothers statemens mean?
In order to ensure we understand eachother correctly.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 26 at 16:44:
@zzo38
"God" is really flexible. But I argue that that is actually not the case. Religion depicts and describes god, there are alot of paintings and there are troves of information that actually describe god. For example, "Jesus was god in flesh" depicts god as jesus.
So now we have a description we could perform logic upon. For that, we could look at what they claim jesus did. Walk on water for example. So how would this be posssible? One option is asking
"is jesus made of wood?" "no".
"did jesus use waterski's?" "no"
"what did jesus do to walk on water?" "No idea"
"So how do you know it happened?" "because uhhhhhhhhhh god"
Their logic stops at that point.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 26 at 19:45:
No flat earther believes that the eath is a plane with no thickness! A mathematical transformation of the globe surface can map perfectly onto a 'pancake' surface, or your favorite map-of-the-world shape. And give it some thickness, topological features, mountains, whatever. The point is that it's not a sphere.
And I will again refer you to the mathematical concepts of mapping and projection. There is no problem here, except that you want to believe that flatearthers are really stupid (some of them are, but that does not make you correct!).
The old man in the cloud is a caricature. No 'religion' depicts God that way. You are showing ignorance (not an insult, a statement of fact based on your writings!) Many religions do not allow pictoral depictions of God. Are you talking about renaissance art? Political caricatures and anti-religious propaganda? Illustrated Bible for 7-year-olds?
I wish you all would stop it with the 'different logic' of religious people. That is your crutch, and a demonstration of unpreparedness. There is simply no contradiction between reasonable (as in non-psychotic) belief in some higher power and logic. As I've stated before, there is no logical argument to prove the non-existance of God, so a religious person does not need some convoluted 'different logic' to reconcile their belief with reality. Apparently, you do.
Again it smacks of the desire to treat believers as idiots -- they don't use the same logic. It is a dangerous way to think, and shows a weakness. There are plenty of people much smarter than those at this forum, myself included, who believe in some form of a higher power or afterlife, and not because they were forced (another propaganda point).
I feel like I am trying to have an ontological discussion with an 8-year old. So I will bow out.
I urge you to learn a few things about this subject (and logic, mathematics and physics as well, your knowledge is weak). Religions and religious texts have inspired for millenia, and served as a foundation for modern sciences. Rather than mock it, take a closer look, unless you are so insecure that you just want to repeat stupid things others say.
Although we're not getting anywhere, it is still an entertaining discussion. But I'll follow stack's lead and bow out too.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 27 at 11:37:
@stack alright. Think of me as 8 years, but you consistently ignore some points. For record, I don't claim to be winning this debate now that you bow out.
You almost sound like a theist this way.
I accept theists, but their worldview is just different in a way they themselves can't reason. And then they resort to "unreasonable abilities". But this worldview impacts everyone somehow. So it should be reasoned to the same extend the impact is reasoned right?
But how do we even know anything about god is true if it doesn't need reason? Do you know the argument of epicurus? If god good and able, if not etc... It illustrates this really good.
So one last question:
What aspects of a religion are relevant to prove god's existence? If you by definition cannot disprove god, what role plays religion?
How I see it is that
Religion only gives us handles to DISPROOF claims of God.
You claim total warping of geometry could be seen as a different viewpoint and relatively equally valid as any other, including a sphere. Correct?
Here is the thing. Even then:
So in the end, both shapes are the same, BUT THE FRICKING UNIVERSE IS NOT!
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WITH
"THE CALCULATIONS WON'T WORK OUT."
Please pleasee, understand this.
And for anyone ese to not understand, okay. But you? I expected more of you, the way you're talking.
But still it's okay
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 27 at 11:56:
@daruma @stack
It can be a heated discussion because god's concept sits deep and religion makes it confusing.
But in the end, discussions help alot with understanding. I see that @stack knows alot about physics theories etc, if I didn't know about them I could have learnt alot.
I am sounding so arrogant, egoistical X-D, my excuses. But it is just to illustrate the importance of discussions and how information exchange is vital for knowledge.
So, thanks for participating everyone and feel free to discuss alot more!
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 00:54:
@stack
Why do you keep insisting on me being in the wrong when you first have to prove that it is wrong?
stop portraying religion as evil cuz others see it as good
My opinion? they believe its good but that belief is just as baseless.
there is no "universal logic" cuz nature phenomena work in strange ways in layers like quantum.. relativity etc
But it's still real. It happens. I addressed this in a previous comment. I think of logic as this "reality coupled with sustainability priority" concept. If that is not what it means, then a new word should be made for this concept. Everytime I use the word logic, I refer to this concept.
religion shouldn't be taken literally
How can we disprove religion if we are not allowed to take it literally??? It's a cat and mouse game where the answer on any inconsistency is "it isn't meant like that" or "it is misinterpreted".
If you critisize someone's opinion, please show that it is not correct.
You just say: "Religion should not be seen as bad because I say so." And when I explain that religion is not based upon logic and therefore religion is illogical but still has consequences that are thus rather dictated using a book then "logic". you say "but that is for you, for someone else it can be or isn't needed." And I have to explain how I see the concept of logic as something that is coupled with reality. But then "reality is illogical too" at which point I think "Sounds stupid cuz reality happens, it may seeem illogical, but the fact it exists and happens shows that it is logical.
But you just won't understand my explanation of this. You even skip it. And then you say I am stupid cuz I keep on defending my claim that you haven't disproven.
These don't seem like particularly useful questions to be honest.
Meaningful against certain forms of Christianity, but nothing else.
Total_FLOSS [OP/mod]·
@hyol
It is for laying the foundation for detailed questioning. Like a detective.
With these questions, they start to use reasoning and eventually to the point where they cannot continue. I see it as one of few ways to constructively deconstruct their beliefs.
Your questions (good ones), leave to much room for them to give vague answers. And talk around it.
That is what often happens. A general response when someone really wants to know the reasoning, is a kinda interrogation.
(edited)
I think that people need to have a name for things, especially those we do not understand. In math we use variables.
I too wish we would get away from picking on extremely literal takes of the New Testament.
Do we have issues with Rastafarians? Zen Buddists? Jain's?
Yes lots of people do take it seriously (or show their kids) which is not great. Especially in the middle east and in cults. But just wait for those questions to appear because this thread just exists for a day.
All things aside, lets keep it focused on actual straight up questions. Keep in mind that I will compile a list out of these, so entire monologues in this thread are not preferred.
I think that we should talk about what happened to you, Total_FLOSS, that you are so completely hung up on the idea that you must disprove the evil religions who are questioning you and trying to subvert your actions.
Maybe you had a bad priest or something.
There are so many different belief systems. Many don't want you at all -- like the Jews. Other don't really care about converting you. This is not an on-the-level discussion.
Maybe you need a shrink.
Please not here.
And anyone can look up my comments and see that I just use pure logic (aka everything we see in the world) to reason my opinion. First disprove these in the previous post (where you ironically said to bow out, and now you wanna start all over again?)
— — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[stack drops the mike].
— 🌲 Total_FLOSS [OP/mod] · 16 hours ago:
@stack
I changed my last comment to not sound "harsh" on religion.
But people can critisize religions, just like how they are tormented in hell for NOT believing religions like christianity. This is not all fun and games where eachothers feelings stay unquestionable, religion had a lasting (often cruel) impact on people's everyday lives because things were unquestionable.
Atheists are still a small minority in the world, do you realize that?
And my point is that, in the end, it all could have been prevented by people questioning their own belief. Then they could see the paradoxes, inconsistencies and how it is just unlikely.
This is my last comment from me about this, for more discussion go to the previous post please. And also, atheism is bigger then a simple discussion here. So don't take such discussions too personal and try to participate if you like.
These comments are moved from the "questioning religions" post to the prior post from Sir @stack himself, in order to keep it clean.
Why do you need to disprove (or prove) religion if you do not take it literally? Religion isn't scientific and shouldn't be taken too seriously, but some people do. That doesn't make it worthless. Good things can be (and are) done with it anyways (bad things also can be (and are) done with it anyways). There is a possible criticism of religion, and also criticism of certain ideas; e.g. if they do state one thing precisely, literal and must be truth, you can argue against it specifically, please.
I am nontheistic. So I am neither atheist, theist, deist nor agnostic by definition. Arguments by Richard Dawkins and alike evolve around theistic or deistic relgions only. Which very often has no common ground for me to argue against/for. Feel so left out :P
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 10:07:
@Yingfan
Can you describe to me what nontheistic is in essence? The tought that you are neither atheist nor theist is confusing to me, because one is just the lack of the other. Are you in the middle?
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 10:20:
@zzo38
Religion claims to solve important questions and thus have alot of significance. I can disprove that claim. Religion also "defines" good and bad without rationality. But good and bad are for a reason, so it MUST be reasoned, because why would you not?
And good and bad things can be done with every idea, but those that alter the good and bad to be unreasonable are just of a different magnitude.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 10:36:
@zzo38
In other words,
Religion "isn't meant to be taken literally."
means that
"god is pure love, you can go to heaven, god created the earth, you should not sin, etc..."
Also isn't meant to be taken litterally.
No big religion or religious person would accept the latter. That is the problem right there.
(yes I use christianity as example cuz it is the biggest one out there. Don't judge me for it please.)
@Total_FLOSS Nontheism is a category of religion that doesn't believe in almighty god(s), though higher beings (such as deities) may exist. These religions do not have creation stories like the abrahamaic religions that you're more familiar with. Examples of some popular religions in this category are Hindhuism (not all sects though), Buddhism and Jainism.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 16:08:
@Yingfan
Doesn't that mean that you are still a theist, only not a monotheist?
And what religion do you believe in?
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 30 at 19:19:
@Total_Floss, since you keep writing and erasing posts, I will have the courtesy of a response, at least to what you left here.
I do not have the time, energy, or desire to educate you on the subject of philosophy, sciences, logic and history, which you desperately need if you want to start debates like these. You are an ignorant person, which is not an insult -- you don't know any better and it can be fixed with some effort and desire to learn. But you do not have the desire to learn, instead you have lots of hubris, and continue spouting nonsense even though I've tried many times to point you to the right direction.
You use the word logic, which I challenged a few times now. Your arguments however are classic fallacies (I sent you a wikipedia link), demonstrations of what logic IS NOT. Your 'logic' goes like this: "Jesus could not have walked on water (because he was not made of wood), therefore religion is all lies". This is just completely idiotic. You finally admitted that to you logic is "reality coupled with sustainability priority", which is just word salad! And you say weird things that are basically 'logic is things I see, and religion is clearly not that'. You can imagine what I am thinking now.
You are not even wrong.
Have you come across that expression? You should have by now. It means that what you are saying is so idiotic that there are no actual questions that can be discussed, and arguing to show that it's incorrect makes one an equal fool.
But here I am, because what you are saying is so monumentally moronic that I cannot believe that you won't stop and think for a minute.
Please do not misquote me. I never said things like "stop portraying religion as evil cuz others see it as good" or "There is no universal logic cuz nature phenomena work in strange ways etc". I don't use the word "cuz", but more importantly, it's pretty much the opposite of what I said, and it shows that you are so beligerant that it doesn't really matter what I say.
You just say: "Religion should not be seen as bad because I say so." And when I explain that religion is not based upon logic and therefore religion is illogical but still has consequences that are thus rather dictated using a book then "logic". you say "but that is for you, for someone else it can be or isn't needed." And I have to explain how I see the concept of logic as something that is coupled with reality. But then "reality is illogical too" at which point I think "Sounds stupid cuz reality happens, it may seeem illogical, but the fact it exists and happens shows that it is logical.
Again, I never said that! Not only that, your explanation that religion is not based upon logic is sheer nonsense. Your idea of logic is insane, anyway. I did say that no logic is needed anyway to a religious person, and I also said that there is no contradiction between religion and logic unless you really want to show off by proving that fairy tales meant to inspire and provide long-forgotten moral clues are "illogical".
You equate logic (in some perverted form) with "reality". Again, since you may believe in science, I will point out that currently the science of physics states that the universe is not real locally, that is objects do not have physical qualities that are independent of observation. Chew on that for a bit:
You ask a moronic question "How can we disprove religion if we are not allowed to take it literally?". Gah. First of all, you cannot disprove religion. Learn a few basics about philosophy and logic.
Even if it were possible to disprove religion, whatever that means, you are certainly not equipped to do so.
...at which point I think "Sounds stupid cuz reality happens, it may seeem illogical, but the fact it exists and happens shows that it is logical.
I couldn't have finished better. Substitute "Divine" for logical, and you have a perfect rant of a religious nut.
P.S. I will not participate in this topic, because I am really tired of using actual logic, stating facts, and trying to encourage a real conversation, when you don't know the first thing about this and are not willing to invest a even couple of hours on Wikipedia, because like most ranting lunatics, you know you are right. Remind you of something?
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 22:11:
@stack
Please do it
For now:
jesus wasn't made of wood (to walk on water) so ALL of religion must be lies immeadiatly.
?
I actually already accounted for that misconception and formulated my comment especially in such a way to prevent it, but it didn't work appearantly. I Said and MEANT this:
Religion describes events (eg christ walking on water) and all those described events can (INDIVIDUALLY) be disproved by applying logic upon each single one of them. ONE INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLE IS: (Jesus walking on water example, questioning it using logic: "is jesus made of wood?" no? how could he float? "did he use wateski's?" no? but how then? ...)
I didn't know you actually were too dumb to realize that. Maybe you are just too tired. I am asswel, BECAUSE I HAVE TO FORMULATE MY MESSAGES TO BE VERY CLEAR, TO PREVENT YOU FROM MISUNDERSTANDING SUCH BASIC STATEMENTS.
I create this subspace about atheism in general and you start with how you don't like people who critisize religion. I discuss how religion is untied from logic and thus has special status and you go "Logic isn't needed and noone can disprove it" (giving examples of logic/rationality/whatever deducing theories) You really think quantum physics is illogical or irrational?
And sorry if I misquoted it, but it is essentially what you claim.
This debate essentially is about wether religion is illogical, disprovable and "deserves some disapproval". He says no, I say yes, cuz of the faulty foundation.
For a change, lets start with the things we like from eachothers arguments? We shouldn't be divided..,you are doing a good job on it.
I show efforts to turn this right. Are you willing asswell? I will create a new post with the question "What stuff can help the act of debating?".
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 22:18:
@stack
Also, claiming
"Keep writing and erasing posts"
Is totally untrue! I moved that discussion to this thread without losing any comment!
Also, I never erased any comment except for the ones under that other post/thread!
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 30 at 22:25:
This is not a debate! In order to debate one must have debating skills, understand logic and fallacies, and pick debatable subjects.
One must also understand that some things cannot be 'disproven', and religion is one of them. Repeating that it makes no sense to you just shows your ignorance. Showing errors in books is far from 'disproving religion'. Enough!
Not only is debate not possible, but I am ashamed to participate in this. Most religious nut ravings make more sense than this pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
We agree that we are not believers, and that's about it. You want to preach -- go ahead.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 22:50:
okay okay listen here is my question @stack.
I think religion only gives us handles to DISPROOF claims about god.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 23:13:
@stack
?
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 30 at 23:31:
Let me google that for you:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements[1]—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacredness,[5] faith,[6] and a supernatural being or beings.[7] [Source: Wikipedia]
Are you sure you want to 'disprove religion'? Do you want to force people to believe in things you think are right? WTF are we even talking about?
As for the purpose of religion... Where do I begin? Again it is a personal thing, different to different people. For most it's comfort of knowing that life is not total shit, and there is something better. For some it is spiritual, for others, it's the ritual. Some use it as a form of therapy or guidance. Whatever, who cares. Why do you have such a problem with it?
There are religious books, but again, who cares? Some are stupid and full of contradictions, but again, it does not mean anything! There are many stupid scientific books full of errors, and proving that Aristotle made an error does not 'disprove science'!
Forget religion. Try this -- prove that God does not exist. (I'm really kidding, but since it's not obvious to you, I will expand on this). Let's define God as some supernatural being, with some powers greater than human. What powers? Who knows. But you want to debate it, so...
How do you prove that something does not exist? Using real logic, like they teach in 7th grade geometry to make proofs. Not some crap you make up.
1) Assume the opposite. Assume God exists.
2) Show that God's existence is incompatible with our world. Preferably with a repeatable experiment.
If you cannot see that, here are some thoughts:
I could go on forever, and break all your attempts to prove the non-existance of God.
That is why only fools debate or try to prove such things. Science wisely stays away from things that are completely pointless and not possible to prove or disprove.
OK?
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 30 at 23:43:
@stack
1. Religions do not pop-up and spread out of nothing. Masses do not suddenly settle upon a common story. How does this common story get spread? What is inside this story? Hmmmmmm...
2. You didn't get it. I am talking about the informational aspect. If god's presence is not disprovable (enough reason to believe, for theists) what extra information do they need from religion? What tells it them? Something else that is not disprovable? Or just a sidestory for the views and rules?
3. Disproving aristotle is not disproving science because science does not claim aristotle's statements to be the absolute truth. Not that difficult to understand huh? Atleast for me...
4. Okay this one is pretty straightforward:
Do you see just how easily I demolished that little brain-tought of yours?
Funny that you didn't even think of that well-known stone paradox beforehand.
Cheers, wasted enough time now.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 30 at 23:46:
No.
@Total_FLOSS
No. The two major differences:
1. There is no creator being.
2. The "higher beings" that i mentioned do no dominate/control human lifes. Think of them like how would insect think of humans.
Expanding on pt 1, these higher beings may had created some stuffs in certain nontheistic religion, but human (nor the world) does not owe our existence to them.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 00:12:
@stack
What you mean with
"No"
?
That is a really vague short answer for someone who usually posts detailed walls of text and claiming how stupid someone else is.
Something happened?
@Total_FLOSS
1. Spread of religion is studied by anthropology (science). Not sure why are you asking it here.
2. Why believers need extra information do accept their belief?
3. > science does not claim aristoteles his book is absolute truth.
Do you refer to science as the scientific facts we know today, or the scientific method. Most branches of science (mainly empirical science) can't demonstrate absolute truth anyway.
4. You are doing another fallacy by using the unliftable stone debate. Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Doesnt that break your common logic yet it's a scientific thought experiment?
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 00:24:
@yingfan alright, so not every polytheistic religion fits the bill of the nontheistic concept?
Are those beeings you mentioned humanoid? Are they like a guidance?
And if they don't dominate human life, how powerfull are they then, or are they like other humans? Like, odin is really powerfull in the norse mythology. But I don't know if it qualifies your definition.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 00:25:
@yingfan
So really it doesn't matter how it is studied because the fact is that the books are central to the religion because that is how religious claims are spread.
I frankly don't understand why stack mentioned science in the first place, because science is not religion so comparing a scientific book with a religious one is just sooo...
funny fact: gravity kinda kills schrodingers cat. It is a quantum phenomena where things can reach a superposition. But this phenomena only plays at quantum scales. Also, there are oofcoourse ways to "measure" the cat. Simplest being a "meaaw" sound that you hear.
And, quantum mechanics states:
The quantum state is only known when a measurement takes place
Guess when the cat is killed? When the system measures the quantum particle. (measuring all the time and immeadiatly)
@Total_FLOSS
Not going to go deep as it differs for each religion.
@Total_FLOSS
Not going to go deep as it differs for each religion.
It's not a clear cut for Norse mythology as there was a "world" that already existed before ours.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 01:32:
@yingfan okay
@Total_FLOSS
I have to assume that you don't fully understand the Schrodinger's cat experiment.
1. Gravity has nothing to do with the experiment.
2. The ability to observe the state of the cat is never a problem. But it was designed so the state of the cat is to be visually observbed.
3. The cat can be observed to be killed *OR* alive. It is a random event.
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 02:03:
@yingfan
I do know about the experiment.
Cat in the box, radiating decaying stuff in a llittle chamber, once system detects particle, cat dies. If not, cat doesn't.
However, the first measurement already took place inside that box when the detector happened to register the decay.
So it is already measured.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 31 at 02:21:
Another total miss. Exactly not what the experiment is.
I think he is a troll -- no one can be wrong that often and insist on blabbering on and on!
🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod] · Oct 31 at 02:22:
@stack just shut up, I litterally destroyed your "not disprovable" tought experiment.
@stack,
Also, keep in mind that I added GRAVITY in the picture. I'm not as stupid as you.
@stack and if you didn't realize, I was oversimplifying the experiment cuz I don't want to spell it out in details.
@yingfan oh yeah norse mythology has like a tree with branches to 9 planets or something.
🚀 stack [OP] · Oct 31 at 02:46:
Oh my god. What universe do you live in? I am putting you on my shitlist so I don't have to get notified with your nonsense.
🐦 wasolili [...] · Oct 31 at 02:49:
old man in cloud is a caricature
to be extremely pedantic: Exodus does depict god as being in a cloud at times (such as describing his gab sessions with moses with something like "a cloud descends upon the tent and God goes in and talks face to face with Moses). elsewhere in the pentateuch God is described as basically just some dude (like when renames Jacob to Israel), and god is obviously older than anyone else, so "god is sometimes an old guy in a cloud" is a biblically accurate statement.
of course floss is being unfairly simplistic by reducing God to "just an old guy in a cloud" so stack's underlying point still stands. (this pedantic comment is motivated solely by the "I recently read some of an annotated scholar's bible and must share that pain with others" foundation)
schrodinger's cat
the whole cat thing is a joke. literally. schrodinger never meant "the cat is both alive and dead." he meant "people who misunderstand quantum mechanics would say the cat is both alive and dead, but that's wrong and absurd, come on class, lets laugh about it"
that is ironically misinterpreted by people trying to pretend to be more knowledgeable than they are is some grade a irony
as for the broader topic at hand: I'm in line with stack's OP. I'm an atheist but I mostly don't care.
as for all the talk "disproving" religion: Total_FLOSS, you are objectively wrong to think you can disprove theism. Most theistic belief systems are based on unfalsifiable premises. for example: i worship a deity that i named Cooler Satan, and Cooler Satan's whole thing is that he's a diety who makes no effects on anything that people can observe. prove he doesn't exist. or maybe go for a challenge that's even more straightforward: prove to me that nobody whistled the first 8 measures of Giant Steps at any point in the year 200a.d.
but the good news is that you don't need to disprove religion. you're getting hung up on semantics arguments about logic/proof/"reality" and that always just ends up at "you can't know anything for sure"
you really only need to focus on whether or not a conclusion is well reasoned. for example, it's reasonable to believe nobody whistled Giant Steps in 200 a.d. because the melody is unique and theres no records of sinilar melodies from pre 200ad, so it'sezceptionally unlikely someone just happened to whistle the exact tune by chance. it's not disproven, but it's unreasonable to believe it happened.