💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › u › Total_FLOSS › 21351 captured on 2024-12-17 at 16:01:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: "Atheism and Rabid Atheism"
@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!
Oct 30 · 7 weeks ago
🚀 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.
Atheism and Rabid Atheism — 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...