💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › s › Atheism › 21388 captured on 2024-12-17 at 15:56:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Locking a heated debate is stupid. Here is the really short summary of the whole ordeal:

Summary of the discussion in @stack his thread between him and me:

@Stack posts, claiming he is atheist but thinks people shouldn't degrade religion or theists
People, including me, react.
I state that religion stands apart because it doesn't follow logic.
He states that logic isn't required and that it does not make religion "bad"
I disagreed because acting(belief) with a lack of logic causes complications.
Logic is discussed as being subjective
I stated that I see it as a concept that is connected to causality/reality
He practically ignores it
I used flat earth as an example of illogicalness that not even its believers can reason trough.
He says: flat earther model could be correct when described as certain observer, as described in relativity theory of albert einstein. He uses nice arguments about projections and transformations.
Sadly for him, I know these terms and eventually turn his argument upside down, by stating that to make a sphere into a thick plane, the entire geometry of the universe has to change, while that isn't neccesary for the thick plane that already is one (geometry doesn't need to change for it to be a plane). He didn't respond at that thing anymore.
I ask him to follow scientists reasoning towards belief and see if they proceed to be logical. (He never listened.)
He gets fed up about me using logic, I explain again my "concept" which would also kind of sustains itself. He calls it word-salad and didn't ask for more info, smart as he is.
He still has to defend his claim that religion doesn't require logic. After cluttering the debate with how I am stupid and dumber then religious nuts while he "knows his stuff" and stating: "religion can't be disproven + religious books with errors don't impact validity of religion" I start asking really simple questions...
Like "If errors in religious books don't matter for validity of religions, which are based upon those, what is religion?" and "what is the informational purpose of religion if god cannot be disproven, what extra information do you get?"
He responds with "religion is more than books" (such a stupid answer, the validity is about the whole story, often provided by books), misunderstanding the 2nd question and foolishly comparing faulty religious statements with faulty aristotle statements as if science claimed aristotle is absolute truth.
"He is kidding" when asking me to disprove god, says I'm too dumb to understand, tells me to try. His scenario's: omnipotent (can do everything) and other stuff like sleeping 10000 years.
I start to completely demolish his argument step by step, telling how god could then create a stone so heavy he can't lift. Which isn't possible because god supposedly can do everything.
He said I must be a troll and says I live in another universe and am so stupid. He locks the thread while not even responding to my efforts to keep it friendly.

Just imagine someone being this "good" at debating, claiming me to be dumb and can't debate, only to end up with his holy-grail argument completely destroyed once he asked me to do it. (I had litterally asked the paradox under the "questioning religion" post in his presence and he didn't realize?)

@stack you are a straight-up halloween joke for intelligence in general. Please understand, it's okay to be incorrect, but this is just so incredibly stupid and dumb. You started good, but ended up like your own trash-talk about me.

I do wish you the best, don't take it personally and continue on, we should talk about Linux sometime, maybe we can agree! Happy halloween!

Posted in: s/Atheism

🌲 Total_FLOSS [mod]

Oct 31 · 7 weeks ago

4 Comments ↓

🌲 Total_FLOSS [OP/mod] · Oct 31 at 12:12:

@wasolili

To reply on your last post, the point is: if god is just a man singing a melody, why call him god?

Gervais once said: Its difficult to disprove someone weared blue pants, but when you claim those blue pants created the world, you have reason for doubt.

🚀 yingfan · Oct 31 at 13:35:

I have question for @wasolili :D

My understand on schrodinger cat is as follows :

There are different intrepretations of superposition and yes, Schrodinger made that to show problems with Copenhagen intrepretation.

But as far as I know, Copenhagen interpreation is still being taught and considered plausible by many quantum physicists. It is very heavily debated but has never been proven wrong (which is common in theoretical physics). Along with that, people had applied the interpreation back to the thought experiment as it is a good setup to think and discuss about super position.

The question from me: How/when is Copenhagen interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat thought to be wrong or laughable?

Sorry for being offtopic btw, but there is not Science/Physics subspace. This is my second day on this BBS. Still figuring out how to use lagrange/amfora/bambodilo and this BBS itself lol

🚀 yingfan · Oct 31 at 14:22:

@Total_FLOSS

I'll try to chip into the discussion on a more abstract level to see if it is more agreeable to you,

- Atheist's and believer's do not share the same axiom under most circumstances. Believer's axiom is the existence of almighty god. This often causes debate to end up in unncessarily loop.

- One of atheist's axioms is generally formal science (i.e. logic and pure math). It contradicts directly with believer's axiom above as they believe god created these laws of nature.

- Generally speaking, religion's fundamentall view on good/bad does not contradict with atheism's though. Very often it is the certain group of people who abuse the religion for their own good (e.g. poilitical control). This is why fundamentalism in religion is getting popular again as people see the problem with some traditional sects.

- Even Nietzsche who famously declared god is dead, still has concern that without religion's guidance, morality on society will fall. IIRC, Nietzcche has no answer to what/how to replace religion's role as the guide to morality.

🌲 Total_FLOSS [OP/mod] · Oct 31 at 16:45:

@yingfan

Nice post.

I do agree with you here.

Atheists tend to experience the world as to how we find answers to questions, even about other celestial things that are floating billion miles away. When a religious person calculates or reasons himself to an important discovery, he becomes part of that same scientific progress.

Most axioms of populations (atheists and theists included) tend to favor social traits because otherwise humans cannot coexist. So yes, "you shall not kill eachother" is a trait shared among most groups and friendships, because killing eachother most likely ends up losing everything. However, we do see that sometimes religion is the cause (or used) for killing.

There is however a deeper level, which most atheists seem to ignore. I try to reason using that deeper level.

I have tought up of a new way of describing it.

An atheist tends to observe the world and recognize a certain predictability. This predictability somehow passes trough every single layer of our reality.

On one hand, atheist or scientists or theists try to capture this predictability in rules, laws or unchangable books.
On the other hand, it is also a concept, and this concept is where logic taps some of its meaning from. (If logic is the right word for it.)