NationStates Jolt Archive

Plain and simple for all of you


THERE IS NO GOD!!!

Even if he did exist, which he doesn't, he would be one apathetic and sadistic jerk.

Whether or not you believe in god, Edwinasia's logic is quite phail.

By that same logic, one could say Stalin does not exist:

1) Deluded neo-Stalinist: Stalin was a good person
2) Everybody else: We don't think Stalin was a good person because he killed all those people
3) Stalin doesn't exist

Wait... what?

Alas, it is.

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on how sound it is. Whether there's no, 1 or 50gogool atheists, theism still remains a positive claim, and thus require evidence, or it should be dismissed.
Likewise, atheism is only a positive claim, in a world where divinity demonstrably exists, and only require evidence in such a world. This isn't such a world. Atheism requires no evidence.

You argument consists entirely of two logical fallacies; shifting the burden of proof, and appealing to popularity. There's a reason it's called "fallacies". Wikipedia can explain why. I don't think I'm enough of a pedagogue to do it politely.

I think you're focusing too much on the section in which I reference the relative popularity of religion. That was only a side note to my point. Please re-read. The logic I refer to is NOT based upon the popularity of either point.

Plain and simple for all of you


THERE IS NO GOD!!!

I never used to believe in trolls, either.. but what can ya do?

I never used to believe in trolls, either.. but what can ya do?To state a truth is not trolling, no matter how big the letters.

To state a truth is not trolling, no matter how big the letters.

Ahhhh I understand now. If the single, flame baiting, non-backed up stating an opinion only without any sort of discussion happens to agree with what you believe, it's held to a much lower standard. If, on the other hand, it doesn't agree with you, then it's subject to scrutiny.

And yes, had the post been as mindless as that but asserting the opposite, I'd still see it as trolling.

I think you're focusing too much on the section in which I reference the relative popularity of religion. That was only a side note to my point. Please re-read. The logic I refer to is NOT based upon the popularity of either point.As far as I can tell, you made two arguments to support your point. One involved shifting the burden of proof, the other appealing to popularity. If I'm missing something, please clarify.

Ahhhh I understand now. If the single, flame baiting, non-backed up stating an opinion only without any sort of discussion happens to agree with what you believe, it's held to a much lower standard. If, on the other hand, it doesn't agree with you, then it's subject to scrutiny.

And yes, had the post been as mindless as that but asserting the opposite, I'd still see it as trolling.I don't believe things. Believing is a fundamentally flawed concept. Believing means to pretend and assume that something is true without bothering to actually looking into the matter.
And I don't see how that is flame baiting any more as all those believers who annoy with their absolute statements. Just face it, the Christian God is a lie.

I don't believe things. Believing is a fundamentally flawed concept. Believing means to pretend and assume that something is true without bothering to actually looking into the matter.
And I don't see how that is flame baiting any more as all those believers who annoy with their absolute statements. Just face it, the Christian God is a lie.

So your argument is:

That post wasn't flamebaiting, therefore, God doesn't exist...

As far as I can tell, you made two arguments to support your point. One involved shifting the burden of proof, the other appealing to popularity. If I'm missing something, please clarify.

I said that in the absence of proof one way or the other, to take up an absolute position on either side is an act of faith. I didn't support that with the example you're accusing me of, I used an analogy involving Pluto.

The reason I mentioned the popularity issue was to point out that it's rather goofy to arrogantly presume that somehow your position is the default without considering the possibility that you might be missing out on something, but that was a side note.

I propose a deal with you: I'll endeavor to be more clear in the future if you'll endeavor to read more carefully. Fair enough?

Is it actually fun or in any way edifying to post in threads like this one with the equivalent of "nuh-UH" over and over again? Has anyone ever been convinced of anything as a result, other than the argument itself is pointelss in such a forum? Just curious.

So your argument is:

That post wasn't flamebaiting, therefore, God doesn't exist...No. God doesn't exist, thus the post cannot be flame baiting. And if it should be causing flames, it's not the poster's fault, but those's who can't accept reality.

I said that in the absence of proof one way or the other, ...Well, while there is no proof for either position, there is abundance of evidence against the biblical god (or rather for alternatives to the biblical god, while there is only one dusted and weird text to make the claim for the biblical god).

No. God doesn't exist, thus the post cannot be flame baiting. And if it should be causing flames, it's not the poster's fault, but those's who can't accept reality.

If I tried to get away with distorted reasoning like that...

Well, while there is no proof for either position, there is abundance of evidence against the biblical god (or rather for alternatives to the biblical god, while there is only one dusted and weird text to make the claim for the biblical god).

That's your opinion.

I propose a deal with you: I'll endeavor to be more clear in the future if you'll endeavor to read more carefully. Fair enough?I promise nothing! Muahahaha!
... OK, OK, but I'm not gonna take English lit classes unless you're paying.I said that in the absence of proof one way or the other, to take up an absolute position on either side is an act of faith.I don't think you can back that up. Most outspoken atheists do not reject divinity because they're biased against the concept in some fashion, they reject it because it, as far as can be determined, is a pointless superstition that flies in the face of reason. If it wasn't, or if it somehow stops being the case, I fail to see any evidence to suggest the vast majority of atheists wouldn't instantly reject atheism and become theists of the relevant type.

Thing is, atheism isn't a belief or a belief system, it is the lack of belief. All you need to convert an atheist, is to convince him, and all you need to convince him, is evidence. Just like I unfortunately need evidence to convince the online population to gimme their monies for added penis inches. I know, it sucks that people, however fucking gullible, just aren't gullible enough. But I digress.

My point is this makes your claim a hasty generalization, if not an outright strawman.I didn't support that with the example you're accusing me of, I used an analogy involving Pluto.I didn't say you did. I said your arguments were basically 1: shifting the burden of proof (meaning us that make no claims, should present evidence for.. Well, I dunno what). 2: Appealing to popularity (meaning it is somehow arrogant to be unconvinced of something thoroughly unconvincing, just because some other people are convinced by something thoroughly unconvincing).

I didn't even address your claim that one should assume the existence particular unknowns, just because one isn't all-knowing. I really don't want to address that, because it's silly and this is serious threads. By the way, did you remember to walk your pet pelican today? - Not that I know you have one, but I don't know that you don't, so I'm certain you do.. Or something.The reason I mentioned the popularity issue was to point out that it's rather goofy to arrogantly presume that somehow your position is the default without considering the possibility that you might be missing out on something, but that was a side note.But whoever said we didn't? That we reject divinity, in no way means we're completely, utterly certain we cannot be wrong.

Some concepts of divinity can be tossed, of course. The Biblical God, for example, conflicts with objective reality. Same goes for a deity like Thor. There just aren't any big, hammer wielding fuckers thundering through the skies during thunder storms, or at least not during all thunder storms. Thus Thor is fiction. You can move the yardsticks, of course, by redefining your favourite deity to conform with reality, but making shit up to cover for the fact that the other made up shit didn't stick, doesn't exactly improve credibility.

My point, of course, is that it isn't arrogance on our part. It's downright delusional arrogant foppishness on the part of the theists, that they think we're naive enough to buy into their tall tales. Not that I'm offended or anything. I'm so used to people insulting my intelligence I've become immune. I should be offended though. No doubt about it.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

1) A bunch of my friends claim I'm perfect.
2) My actions declare that I am not.
3) I don't exist.

Finally, the proof that I don't actually exist. I've been waiting for this for so long...

1) A bunch of my friends claim I'm perfect.
2) My actions declare that I am not.
3) I don't exist.

Finally, the proof that I don't actually exist. I've been waiting for this for so long...

It is very liberating, isn't it?

No. God doesn't exist, thus the post cannot be flame baiting. And if it should be causing flames, it's not the poster's fault, but those's who can't accept reality.

Both truth and falsehood can be flamebaiting, just FYI.

Saying that God doesn't exist in particular, however, I'm not sure why anyone would think that was flamebaiting. Maybe if it were laced with other personally offensive material, I guess.

It is very liberating, isn't it?

I'm like, free as the wind blows, man. Whoa.

I'm like, free as the wind blows, man. Whoa.Uhm... Excuse me, is this your leaf?

http://www.hswines.com/_images/wineleaf.jpg

Uhm... Excuse me, is this your leaf?

http://www.hswines.com/_images/wineleaf.jpg

Nah. Mine is waaaay bigger than that.

Nah. Mine is waaaay bigger than that.I demand pix!

his he unethical or are wee unethical, remember what is ethical (as well what is right and wrong) is only what a society finds benificial to them at anygiven time. the nazis in germany used to be good but since they lost and america finds they evil everything they stood for (not just the holcaust(bad i know)) and besides ethical is relative and just depends on how you look at something.

I demand pix!

Well, ok.


Much bigger pix... (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bigwineleafdv1.jpg)

Heh, I actually considered editing my post. Then again, I didn't even manage to post a pic of a fig leaf, so I guess I'll just have to cope with being made of 100% phail.

Heh, I actually considered editing my post. Then again, I didn't even manage to post a pic of a fig leaf, so I guess I'll just have to cope with being made of 100% phail.

No indeed! You just worked as the straight man in this particular joke. We have to have one, or there is no set up! You did just fine!!!
:fluffle:

No indeed! You just worked as the straight man in this particular joke. We have to have one, or there is no set up! You did just fine!!!
:fluffle:Brilliantly absurd choice of words. Now I spilt coffee all over myself, damn you! :p

Brilliantly absurd choice of words. Now I spilt coffee all over myself, damn you! :p

I do what I can. *bows*

Nope. Get out while you can. :D

Righto!

*goes back to sleep*

Hello?

God doesn't exist but the fictive boring creature hates gays and probably you.

Stay on track, ladies.

1: To believe in something. requires faith with lack of evidence
2: To not believe in something with lack of evidence, does not require faith

This is true, but there is a difference(and a subtle one I admit) between a non belief, and a belief in the non existance.

Some atheists, certainly believe that there is no God. These atheists can be said to hold a faith based belief.

I don't believe things. Believing is a fundamentally flawed concept. Believing means to pretend and assume that something is true without bothering to actually looking into the matter.
And I don't see how that is flame baiting any more as all those believers who annoy with their absolute statements. Just face it, the Christian God is a lie.

I don't believe you.

All of us hold beliefs, we all believe things. I for instance believe your assertion that the Christian God is a lie.

Is it actually fun or in any way edifying to post in threads like this one with the equivalent of "nuh-UH" over and over again? Has anyone ever been convinced of anything as a result, other than the argument itself is pointelss in such a forum? Just curious.

Yeah sure, it is fun, and people do get swayed by arguments all of the time.

God Doesn't Exist And Neither Do My Parents Or Government Right On Man

Hello?

God doesn't exist but the fictive boring creature hates gays and probably you.

Stay on track, ladies.

She can't hate gays if she doesn't exist.

Your argument has only proven the imperfection of god, not her non-existence.

For instance, someone proposes that you are a decent person. I then disagree with them and counter that you are an asshole. This merely creates a conflict with the claim on the part of Person A of your attributes, it does not call into question your existence.

Similarly, Christians claim their god is great. You disagree, and find said deity to be an asshole by what is written about the figure. You have merely called into question the decency of this being, not god's existence.

Religion is for people who get afraid of reality. nuff said

Religion is for people who get afraid of reality. nuff said

Bwahahahaha ohhh really!

Bwahahahaha ohhh really!Yes, really.

Yes, really.

Bwahahahaha ohhh really!

No wait, we can probably keep that up all day.

Why do you say so?

Bwahahahaha ohhh really!

No wait, we can probably keep that up all day.

Why do you say so?

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People)

Extreme arrogance, egocentricity, emotional immaturity, irrationality of those pretending to be rational. I don't understand ignorants who believe in science so much that they don't even notice that most scietists actually BELIEVE in God. I'm not going to defend that belief but come on... what problems do you have that you are inclined to enforce your own vision of world on others? Everyone has gods (be it money, quarks or Jesus) but you belive in yours so much that you act as priests: JOIN OUR ENLGHTENED FAITH IN BRAIN or be stigmated as naive and dogmatic.

The worst thing is that there's no way to change your behavior. Inquisition of science. Wonderful!

"Whoeverfights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not becomea monster."

ARGH! Not another troll religious thread...

ARGH! Not another troll religious thread...

Is there any other kind?

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People)

Heheheh so coz wiki sez so then?

Heheheh so coz wiki sez so then?

ief wiki sez thein itz troe

It are, btw, the words of some K. Marx

Extreme arrogance, egocentricity, emotional immaturity, irrationality of those pretending to be rational. I don't understand ignorants who believe in science so much that they don't even notice that most scietists actually BELIEVE in God. I'm not going to defend that belief but come on... what problems do you have that you are inclined to enforce your own vision of world on others? Everyone has gods (be it money, quarks or Jesus) but you belive in yours so much that you act as priests: JOIN OUR ENLGHTENED FAITH IN BRAIN or be stigmated as naive and dogmatic.

The worst thing is that there's no way to change your behavior. Inquisition of science. Wonderful!

"Whoeverfights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not becomea monster."

Faith and belief in God is irrelevant to acknowledge scientific fact.

So what if the scientific community has those who believe in God? These individuals don't let their faith hurt progress; or at least not let it interfere.

Many of us don't need any kind of "god". This is the type of people we are. We cannot make that "leap of faith". There is no evidence that justifies that blind faith for those of us who find it silly to believe in such trite things.

Your so-called "enlightened brain" sounds like a waste.

ief wiki sez thein itz troe

It are, btw, the words of some K. Marx

A witty saying proves nothing.

ief wiki sez thein itz troe

It are, btw, the words of some K. Marx

Ohhh so coz Mr Marx said it it must be true?

The thing being this stance is pure opinion. If even one person of religious faith can claim to be quite alright with reality then it dissapears in puff of smoke.

You don't get it, don't you? It's not about ideology but your attitude. Being arrogant and intolerant, laughing at things you don't understand... It reminds me one internet discussion when some guy said that LOVE as deep emotion is a waste of time and people that fell in love are stupid and naive.

Religion is not about rationality and world don't end on logics and rationality. Even in quantum mechanics linear logics fall apart.

You don't get it, don't you? It's not about ideology but your attitude. Being arrogant and intolerant, laughing at things you don't understand... It reminds me one internet discussion when some guy said that LOVE as deep emotion is a waste of time and people that fell in love are stupid and naive.

Religion is not about rationality and world don't end on logics and rationality. Even in quantum mechanics linear logics fall apart.

The difference lies within the fact that quantum mechanics is a testable theory, whereas the 'god' concept lacks the very testable elements. So even if the linear logic does fall apart eventually at some point in a scientific theory, at least there IS proven and tested evidence that got us there.

A witty saying proves nothing.It should if you're one of the religious "But disbelief is belief" loons of this thread. After all, according to those little geniuses, it takes a leap of faith to dismiss a positive claim, provided it isn't back up in any way what so ever.

Then again, if you're not one of those, you'll have to admit your little witty saying's scarcely better. After all, it rather depends on what the witty saying is, no?

But carry on. This is funny shit.

You don't get it, don't you? It's not about ideology but your attitude. Being arrogant and intolerant, laughing at things you don't understand... It reminds me one internet discussion when some guy said that LOVE as deep emotion is a waste of time and people that fell in love are stupid and naive.

Religion is not about rationality and world don't end on logics and rationality. Even in quantum mechanics linear logics fall apart.

Yes, people in love are really somehow stupid. We do amazing dumb things to get laid.

But limerence doesn't last for ever. After 6 - 8 months it's over and rationality returns...

Being religious doesn't work like that.

Extreme arrogance, egocentricity, emotional immaturity, irrationality of those pretending to be rational. I don't understand ignorants who believe in science so much that they don't even notice that most scietists actually BELIEVE in God.

Care to point out one of those "ignorants"?


I'm not going to defend that belief but come on... what problems do you have that you are inclined to enforce your own vision of world on others? Everyone has gods (be it money, quarks or Jesus) but you belive in yours so much that you act as priests: JOIN OUR ENLGHTENED FAITH IN BRAIN or be stigmated as naive and dogmatic.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp, but there are those of us who don't have any God or gods. There are those of us who do not worship anything. There are those of us who don't feel any particular desire to do so.


The worst thing is that there's no way to change your behavior. Inquisition of science. Wonderful!

Clarify please.


"Whoeverfights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not becomea monster."
Ok. Done.

You don't get it, don't you? It's not about ideology but your attitude. Being arrogant and intolerant, laughing at things you don't understand...

So if I understand superstition, that would make it okay for me to laugh at it?


It reminds me one internet discussion when some guy said that LOVE as deep emotion is a waste of time and people that fell in love are stupid and naive.

Emotions aren't good or bad. It's what we do as a result of our emotions that can be good or bad.

Feeling love isn't good or bad, in and of itself. Some people do horrible things because of love. Other people do amazing and wonderful things because of it. It's what we do with our feelings that matters.


Religion is not about rationality and world don't end on logics and rationality. Even in quantum mechanics linear logics fall apart.
Religion is absolutely about rationality and pragmatism. Religion exists to serve human needs.

Your personal FAITH may simply be an irrational emotion. That's fine. We all have at least one or two irrational emotions bopping around inside us.

Rightly I have no idea where you get the idea that God is no good. If your talking about all the evil their is in the world or what but There is a God, trust me, whenever I ask something I always get a responce... Mostly it just God swatting me along side the head saying "You asked for it dumbass." And the reason there is evil in the world is because God gave us Free Choice. I respect your opinion but please come up with better arguements.

Proving that science is a belief is like proving that God doesn't exist. You won't convice it's followers unless they are open enough to actuly listen what you are saying. Unfortunetly most people engaging in such argues are not even interested in listening. They just need to make fun of others or show off how inteligent and elaborate they are.

I'm aware that my effort is worthless.

Extreme arrogance, egocentricity, emotional immaturity, irrationality of those pretending to be rational. I don't understand ignorants who believe in science so much that they don't even notice that most scietists actually BELIEVE in God.

No, not really.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Proving that science is a belief is like proving that God doesn't exist. You won't convice it's followers unless they are open enough to actuly listen what you are saying.

"Science" is not a belief. It is possible for somebody to "believe in" science the way some people "believe in" God, of course, but it's possible for a person to believe in just about anything that way.

Science itself is not about belief. Science is simply a process for gathering information about the natural world.

One of the cool things about science is that it will work whether or not you believe in it. You don't have to believe in penicillin for it to work on you.


Unfortunetly most people engaging in such argues are not even interested in listening. They just need to make fun of others or show off how inteligent and elaborate they are.

I'm aware that my effort is worthless.
You're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm inviting you to engage and respond in a mature manner, and instead you're just babbling some random self-pitying nonsense. Yes, THAT effort is worthless, but you could also do something worthwhile instead. Don't choose to be worthless and then cry about it around here...nobody will care.

Science itself is not about belief. Science is simply a process for gathering information about the natural world.
It's a method. With superstitions and theories. It's based on materialism and rationalism. Both are world-views and to some extend ideologies. Science is a paradigm and as such is a belief. At least materialist belief.

One of the cool things about science is that it will work whether or not you believe in it. You don't have to believe in penicillin for it to work on you.
It's like meditation, yoga or magical rites - you don't believe in them and they work on you. What's the differents in validity?

You're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm inviting you to engage and respond in a mature manner, and instead you're just babbling some random self-pitying nonsense. Yes, THAT effort is worthless, but you could also do something worthwhile instead. Don't choose to be worthless and then cry about it around here...nobody will care.
It's because you demand to accept rational and logical world-view and arguments. I've just said that I KNOW that world is not rational and logical. If it would then quantum mechanics wouldn't be full of contradictions.

If "mature manner" means accepting your patterns of discussion and reasoning then that is exactly what I meant when I was talking about arrogance.

It's a method. With superstitions and theories. It's based on materialism and rationalism. Both are world-views and to some extend ideologies. Science is a paradigm and as such is a belief. At least materialist belief.However, the scientific process is fed by external information (e.g. observations, examinations, tests), while faith relies entirely on what happens inside minds.

It's like meditation, yoga or magical rites - you don't believe in them and they work on you. What's the differents in validity?

I defy you to prove that magical rites actually work.

The difference lies within the fact that quantum mechanics is a testable theory, whereas the 'god' concept lacks the very testable elements.
While the ability to rest and repeat tests is a fundamental mark of the scientific method, not all scientific ideas are indeed testable. The physics within black holes, for example, cannot be tested. Numerous theories about intersecting universes, which are an attempt to explain a non linear acceleration of the universe, are also near impossible to reliably test. It took many decades before a reliable test for Eistien's general theory of relativity could be positively tested.

That said, testing is good. It is the scientific method. The lack of test, however, should not be seen as an indication of weakness or a suggestion of possible error. Theories about the state of the universe before the big bang (contrary to popular thought the "big bang" is really the moment the universe became large enough to go from being opaque to transparent) as well as theories about quantum mechanics within black holes, to general string theory are, while theories, equally valid as all other theories.

It's a method. With superstitions and theories.

Wrong. Some scientists may have personal superstitions, but science itself deals exclusively with the natural world. Science does not have any superstitions or any supernatural elements built in.


It's based on materialism and rationalism. Both are world-views and to some extend ideologies. Science is a paradigm and as such is a belief. At least materialist belief.

That is true; science can only function if a certain set of assumptions are accepted from the beginning.


It's like meditation, yoga or magical rites - you don't believe in them and they work on you. What's the differents in validity?

I don't even know where to start with this.

Short answer: testability. Show me a testable, falsifiable hypothesis about "magical rites" that will allow us to establish that they work as claimed.


It's because you demand to accept rational and logical world-view and arguments.

Stop telling me what I think, please. It's a waste of your time.


I've just said that I KNOW that world is not rational and logical. If it would then quantum mechanics wouldn't be full of contradictions.

So because you don't understand something, or because humans do not yet understand it, that must mean it's "irrational"?

The arrogance is breathtaking.


If "mature manner" means accepting your patterns of discussion and reasoning then that is exactly what I meant when I was talking about arrogance.
"Mature manner" means stop tossing around random insults and assumptions, and stick to actually contributing something meaningful to the discussion. You're doing better now, thank you.

While the ability to rest and repeat tests is a fundamental mark of the scientific method, not all scientific ideas are indeed testable. The physics within black holes, for example, cannot be tested. Numerous theories about intersecting universes, which are an attempt to explain a non linear acceleration of the universe, are also near impossible to reliably test. It took many decades before a reliable test for Eistien's general theory of relativity could be positively tested.

That said, testing is good. It is the scientific method. The lack of test, however, should not be seen as an indication of weakness or a suggestion of possible error. Theories about the state of the universe before the big bang (contrary to popular thought the "big bang" is really the moment the universe became large enough to go from being opaque to transparent) as well as theories about quantum mechanics within black holes, to general string theory are, while theories, equally valid as all other theories.
(Bold mine)

Yes and no. The lack of any means to test a hypothesis or theory doesn't automatically mean it's wrong, but it does reduce its scientific value a bit because it's stuck at the speculation phase. Speculation is fun, but we scientists like to be able to do something with it.

I defy you to prove that magical rites actually work.
Well... I know it works. I tried it. I believe in my experience and senses more then in books.

However, the scientific process is fed by external information (e.g. observations, examinations, tests), while faith relies entirely on what happens inside minds.
1. Everything relies entirely on what happens inside minds. Everything comes through your senses, process of interprentation. Science has proven that from milions of impulses coming to your brain less then 40 is recognized by your councisness. Yes, we use machines but WE are their creators.
2. Tell what is external and what internal? Everything happens in brain so it's not an argument.

Well... I know it works. I tried it. I believe in my experience and senses more then in books.

That's nice, but it's not what you were asked.


1. Everything relies entirely on what happens inside minds. Everything comes through your senses, process of interprentation. Science has proven that from milions of impulses coming to your brain less then 40 is recognized by your councisness. Yes, we use machines but WE are their creators.

Where are you getting these numbers?

Short answer: testability. Show me a testable, falsifiable hypothesis about "magical rites" that will allow us to establish that they work as claimed.
How can you do it when you have a material paradigm? Machines can't sense spirits but your mind can. It requires trening of senses. It's like learning how science works but deals with different type of impulses, experiences and beings.

Yes and no. The lack of any means to test a hypothesis or theory doesn't automatically mean it's wrong, but it does reduce its scientific value a bit because it's stuck at the speculation phase. Speculation is fun, but we scientists like to be able to do something with it.

Well "you" scientists might like to do something with it, but there are a large number of theoretical scientists who do spend all of their time in abstract theory with no way other than consistency to prove they are any more right than anyone else.

How can you do it when you have a material paradigm?
This isn't Mage: The Ascension, one's paradigm does not affect how the world works.
Machines can't sense spirits but your mind can.
What organ sense these spirits? What part of the brain interprets the signals from this organ? What is the nature of these spirits?
It requires trening of senses. It's like learning how science works but deals with different type of impulses, experiences and beings.

What? Different type of impulses and beings? :confused:

How can you do it when you have a material paradigm? Machines can't sense spirits but your mind can. It requires trening of senses. It's like learning how science works but deals with different type of impulses, experiences and beings.
So define it. I asked you to define how we could test the existence of what you are claiming. I didn't say that it had to involve machines.

Where are you getting these numbers?
From a university doctor (I don't know if those degrees apply to American standards) that is teaching Processes of Cognizance (if I translate it properly into English).

Well "you" scientists might like to do something with it, but there are a large number of theoretical scientists who do spend all of their time in abstract theory with no way other than consistency to prove they are any more right than anyone else.
Not really. There aren't many purely "theoretical" scientists. There are certainly scientists who work in areas that can't be tested through lab work or empirical field work, but they still use various methods to test or challenge their hypotheses.

Like math and theoretical physics, for instance. You don't get to just make something up and call it a scientific theory. You have to start with what we currently know, come up with an idea of what might be going on with what we don't know, and then figure out ways to fill in the blanks between the two.

One very important element is the generation of predictions. Perhaps we can't test your predictions YET, but you still try to make them.

From a university doctor (I don't know if those degrees apply to American standards) that is teaching Processes of Cognizance (if I translate it properly into English).

You would need to provide a link to a reputable source for your figures to be accepted

From a university doctor (I don't know if those degrees apply to American standards) that is teaching Processes of Cognizance (if I translate it properly into English).
Ok. I just went into the office next door and spoke to an MD/PhD, and she said your numbers were meaningless.

So our hearsay examples cancel out. You want to cite a real source now?

Define magick, spirits or spirituality? I stand that it's far beyond words or rational reasoning. But there are those that try blend scientific methods with occult practices. Use Google.

Ok. I just went into the office next door and spoke to an MD/PhD, and she said your numbers were meaningless.

So our hearsay examples cancel out. You want to cite a real source now?
My doctor is 100 km away. I'll see him next week.

Define magick, spirits or spirituality? I stand that it's far beyond words or rational reasoning. But there are those that try blend scientific methods with occult practices. Use Google.
So you can't even define what you claim exists, and yet you want to say it's equal to science?

You want to claim that believing in something you can't even define is equivalent to accepting scientific data?

Really? You sure you want to claim that?

So because you don't understand something, or because humans do not yet understand it, that must mean it's "irrational"?

The arrogance is breathtaking.

This makes me giggle. Surly then the same can be said about belief in God.

Religion is after all an attempt to understand why we are here(for those that put any value on the question) yet we are constantly called irrational. Yet when the talk turns to whatever science we don't fully understand, then to make the claim of irrationality is somehow arrogant!

Now that is truly an arrogant double standard.

I think the point that Kephatopia is making is that not all parts of human thought are rational or logical, yet theists are lampooned and labeled with the 'irrational' label, for having a mode of thought that non theists simply do not understand.

My doctor is 100 km away. I'll see him next week.
Read a book. Look it up for yourself. Don't be so lazy or so gullible that you only can learn what one doctor tells you.

If you need some recommendations on books to read, I can suggest any number of introductory neuroscience texts. The Kandel "Principles Of Neuroscience" is a nice starter, or you could try "Fundamental Neuroscience" (I think that one is Zigmund et al).

So define it. I asked you to define how we could test the existence of what you are claiming. I didn't say that it had to involve machines.

Like you would test any theory. Experiment.

Go and train to be able to perform magic, then go and do it, and report your findings.

This makes me giggle. Surly then the same can be said about belief in God.

Sure. But there's one additional element about God that you're leaving out:

The God that most people believe in isn't knowable, or testable, by definition.

Also, superstition is about embracing the very arrogance I'm talking about, while science rejects it. Superstition is about making up answers when you haven't actually got them, while science gets pissed off at you if you do that.


Religion is after all an attempt to understand why we are here(for those that put any value on the question) yet we are constantly called irrational. Yet when the talk turns to whatever science we don't fully understand, then to make the claim of irrationality is somehow arrogant!

Now that is truly an arrogant double standard.

Only if you leave out key elements of religiosity.


I think the point that Kephatopia is making is that not all parts of human thought are rational or logical, yet theists are lampooned and labeled with the 'irrational' label, for having a mode of thought that non theists simply do not understand.
Actually, theists are most often lampooned by non-theists who DO understand the theist mode of thought. That's why they're lampooning it, you see. Because they know what it is and they think it's worthy of mockery.

I understand how most theists think, at least most of the ones I've met. Their mental processes aren't any more complex or confusing than anybody else's.

So you can't even define what you claim exists, and yet you want to say it's equal to science?

You want to claim that believing in something you can't even define is equivalent to accepting scientific data?

Really? You sure you want to claim that?

I don't even try to prove anything. There are so many unknowns about the nature of mind and matter that NOTHING definite can be said. I'm saying that you are arrogant because you believe that those with different experiences are WRONG just because they don't accept materialist and rationalist vision of reality.

Besides I'm not into world-view argues. I'm just amazed and ask myself: if you think that God is just for those that are too week to relay on their own reasons - why you keep arguing with them (me?)? To prove that you are superior or have superior knowledge or inteligence or what?

I don't even try to prove anything.

I'm not asking you to. Stop changing the subject.


There are so many unknowns about the nature of mind and matter that NOTHING definite can be said. I'm saying that you are arrogant because you believe that those with different experiences are WRONG just because they don't accept materialist and rationalist vision of reality.

Stop telling me what I believe. You've yet to get a point right so far.


Besides I'm not into world-view argues. I'm just amazed and ask myself: if you think that God is just for those that are too week to relay on their own reasons - why you keep arguing with them (me?)? To prove that you are superior or have superior knowledge or inteligence or what?
Several reasons, I suppose:

-Personal enjoyment tops the list. I enjoy arguing with people.

-I'm interested in sorting out what the hell you're talking about. Curiosity, I guess.

-When somebody arrogantly claims that their random-ass guesses about things they haven't even bothered to study should be considered of equal value to the lifetimes of genuine hard work done by scientists, I get offended. It's profoundly insulting when you do that. I enjoy slapping down people who are insulting in this manner, because I think their dishonesty and insulting behavior should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

-When somebody arrogantly claims that their random-ass guesses about things they haven't even bothered to study should be considered of equal value to the lifetimes of genuine hard work done by scientists, I get offended. It's profoundly insulting when you do that. I enjoy slapping down people who are insulting in this manner, because I think their dishonesty and insulting behavior should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
Why its insulting? Because I hurt your religious feelings? ;)
Relax.

Sure. But there's one additional element about God that you're leaving out:

The God that most people believe in isn't knowable, or testable, by definition.

That is very true, but it also shows what I mean by my not understanding comment. To the theist faith is enough, the majority of us don't need the God hypothesis tested. We are actually happy to hold such irrational belief. As to those of us that may require some sort of evidence, then we will inveribly find such subjective proof to satisfy us.

Rather than view this type of thing as inferer to the scientific method, we see it as a bonus mode of thought. We have access to two different ways to view life; whilst the non theist puts no value in this type of thought, this is staggeringly arrogant.


Also, superstition is about embracing the very arrogance I'm talking about, while science rejects it. Superstition is about making up answers when you haven't actually got them, while science gets pissed off at you if you do that.

Perhaps you are right there, but again the mere fact that you say superstition, and not religoin, or belief in God betrays how you see me. Heh being thought of as a fool is never going to make anybody but a fool happy, is it.


Only if you leave out key elements of religiosity.

Granted.


Actually, theists are most often lampooned by non-theists who DO understand the theist mode of thought. That's why they're lampooning it, you see. Because they know what it is and they think it's worthy of mockery.

I understand how most theists think, at least most of the ones I've met. Their mental processes aren't any more complex or confusing than anybody else's.

Yet by the choice of your words you clearly show me that you don't. I have over the past two years here come to see that you are an intelligent woman Bottle, and I enveribly trust that you do know what you talk about, but in this...

Well I can eqaute it with a Man Utd supporter tying to 'sell' the merits of his team to a Man City supporter, the city man just will not have it, in this most non theists that I have met are City supporters.

This is true, but there is a difference(and a subtle one I admit) between a non belief, and a belief in the non existance.

Some atheists, certainly believe that there is no God. These atheists can be said to hold a faith based belief.

It is not a belief in non-existence. It is non-existence.

The statement: "There are no 8 legged humans on Venus" is valid because 8 legged humans do not exist.

IF/Only If someone travels to Venus, sees an 8 legged human and returns them to Earth, would it change. The probablity of this occurring may well sit at a GooglePlex to the power of a GooglePlex to 1. Therefore it is not a belief, it is a fact until proven otherwise.

Therefore 'god' does not exist until someone invites it down for coffee and we validate it's ID.

It is not a belief in non-existence. It is non-existence.

The statement: "There are no 8 legged humans on Venus" is valid because 8 legged humans do not exist.

IF/Only If someone travels to Venus, sees an 8 legged human and returns them to Earth, would it change. The probablity of this occurring may well sit at a GooglePlex to the power of a GooglePlex to 1. Therefore it is not a belief, it is a fact until proven otherwise.

Therefore 'god' does not exist until someone invites it down for coffee and we validate it's ID.

I understand what you mean, and really I'm not here to argue whether atheists believe in the non existance of God or whether they have a non belief about God.

What I will say though is that we all hold to some beliefs, and it amuses me when I am told by some atheists that 'I don't have any beliefs'

Still it is a funny old world, and as long as you enjoy yourself while you are here, and try not to overly damage people, then I don't mind what set of beliefs you hold.

The problem is that this isn't so cut and dried. Just about everybody, and I mean on BOTH sides, claim to have drawn their conclusion based on some set of evidence that they claim to have evaluated objectively and come to a decision.

Atheists make no such claim. Atheists simply say until you prove there is a god it does not exist. This is not based on evidence as no evidence has been presented to evaluate. Without evidence, your claim is false before we even begin. Therefore the burden of proof is on the asserter and we will simply await your evidence.


The reality: Bull. Most people believe what they do because of either how they were raised, or as a result of some cumulative set of experiences leading them to believe what they do. Very few people ever have a moment of true objectivity even though everyone claims to have.

Well if one evaluates what is spoon-fed to them by theists they realize their belief is based upon superstition and ignorance: not fact. Therefore as one gains intelligence and knowledge, you question that which is told to you using the evidence at hand.


That's why Atheists use faith every bit as much as any religious person. It's because each arrived at their stated belief via the same process, albeit to different conclusions.

No. Atheism is a result of analysis. Theism is a result of brain washing. When a mind reaches a level of consciousness and can think on their own (granted most theists never reach this) it realizes that the theistic teaching is not based on even a pausible theory.


The reality is that the issue isn't provable to the world at large at our current level of understanding either way, and to assert that somehow Atheism is the default position is taking liberties with reason.

Well since there is no proof either way of the existence of santa or the tooth fairy I will just dismiss them as superstition until proof is offerred to the contrary.


Why should Atheism be the default position? There was a time not long ago when religion was the default, and in fact the vast majority of the people in the world (Link (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html)) believe in some religion or another. It seems like if we truly MUST declare some kind of default then the onus should be on the dissenters to demonstrate why.

*chuckle* the theory of consensus. Well lets see, they once believed the world was flat, had edges, and you could fall off the edge of the Earth. As knowledge grew and we sailed around the world, this superstition was abated. Knowledge is the sworn enemy of the theist.


Let's face it. To stand up and proclaim one's own position to somehow be the logical default is arrogant considering the lack of evidence EITHER WAY.

*chuckle*. Yeah since we really do not know if there are 8 legged men on Venus it is arrogant to assume....


The justification seems to be that in a vacuum of evidence to the contrary, one must start with the non-existence of God, but that is hardly an all-encompassing line of reason. One couldn't prove the existence of Pluto prior to the invention of a large enough telescope but, I assure you, the planet did not spring into being at the moment the device was invented.

Yes those 8 legged men are seeming much more pausible to me now.


Does that mean that, prior to its discovery, one would be logically correct in asserting the existence of a 9th planet based on a lack of evidence to the contrary? Of course not, but the only correct and true answer would have been "It's possible, but we don't know yet."

No one believed them until they could prove it. Actually Pluto has been reduced to a planetoid, a sub-planet. So you still haven't presented proof but it sure was entertaining.


And when it comes to the existence of God, in the absence of some kind of spiritual experience teaching otherwise, the only viable answer is "It's possible, we don't know yet."

Or, it does not exist until proven otherwise works fine for most.


Making an assertion either way requires faith.

The difference is we are not ASSERTING, you are! We merely reject your assertion due to lack of evidence.

Case dismissed.

I understand what you mean, and really I'm not here to argue whether atheists believe in the non existance of God or whether they have a non belief about God.

What I will say though is that we all hold to some beliefs, and it amuses me when I am told by some atheists that 'I don't have any beliefs'

Still it is a funny old world, and as long as you enjoy yourself while you are here, and try not to overly damage people, then I don't mind what set of beliefs you hold.

Atheists have beliefs. They just have no relationship to a deity and make no attempt to.

Proving that science is a belief is like proving that God doesn't exist. You won't convice it's followers unless they are open enough to actuly listen what you are saying. Unfortunetly most people engaging in such argues are not even interested in listening. They just need to make fun of others or show off how inteligent and elaborate they are.

No, wrong. Science exists on proofs. If you have any proofs about science, go ahead and provide them, we will consider them. However, to be considered, they must be provided in scientific terms (for instance, you need to understand what "theory" means before you attempt to disprove one).

Proving that God doesn't exist (or does exist, for that matter), has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific proof, because there isn't any. You are comparing apples to libertarianism here (that is, two things which have nothing in common to compare).

I am not making fun of you. Yes I am intelligent. No, I don't need this sort of a discussion to prove that. I am not sure what you mean by "showing off how elaborate" someone is. However, you should be careful of falling into the trap of the "no one changes their mind because of what I say, so that means they are just here to insult me" mindset. It may be that no one changes their mind based on what you say simply because they have heard it all before and have better answers. And because you may not be listening to or addressing those answers.

I'm aware that my effort is worthless.

Your effort is ill conceived, unsupported and whiney, perhaps, but it is only worthless when you realize all of that and give up rather than correct it. Even then it isn't worthless, as it may make you realize where it went wrong. If you really believe what you preach, you need to understand and assimilate the objections to it so you can argue a better case in the future. If you are unable to do that, you might want to reconsider your beliefs.

How can you do it when you have a material paradigm? Machines can't sense spirits but your mind can. It requires trening of senses. It's like learning how science works but deals with different type of impulses, experiences and beings.

Since the original statement that YOU proposed yoga and magic as an answer to was...


One of the cool things about science is that it will work whether or not you believe in it. You don't have to believe in penicillin for it to work on you.

it behooves you to then put magic into the scientific paradigm. The point was not that there are things that work that are unprovable, but rather that there are things that work that ARE provable whether you "believe in them" or not. Belief was not at issue, proof was. Science is not based in belief, it is based in proof. So positing magic as something else that works but for which there is no proof is a useless tangent.

This response is exactly why I didn't post the first time I read the OP.



The point I am making here, Edwinasia, if I may mangle a metaphor to do so, is that you need to be careful about making too much stew from no oysters at all. Sometimes not making a comment does not mean "I agree with you" it merely means "I have nothing to say about what you said."

if this is true, then why did you say anything at all? seems to me that would be a whole lot easier than posting a response, followed by an even longer response, which included a long story of little relevance. if i don't have anything to say, i just don't say anything, simple as that.

Well "you" scientists might like to do something with it, but there are a large number of theoretical scientists who do spend all of their time in abstract theory with no way other than consistency to prove they are any more right than anyone else.

Yet.

But every day more evidence comes to light, and more tests then become possible. And if scientific theory is proven wrong, scientists don't insist on clinging to it, they are perfectly happy to use that information to find out more about what is really true. And even theoretical scientists work from a base of observable fact, and build from there.

Like you would test any theory. Experiment.

Go and train to be able to perform magic, then go and do it, and report your findings.

OK. I have read a great deal about Wicca. Quite a bit of what I read said that belief in the gods is not necessary to the practice of magick. So, with that in mind, I set out to do a spell. I followed the directions carefully, assembled the correct ingredients, got into the right frame of mind and did the spell (one guaranteed to draw money to me). I wanted it to work, so there is not the issue of self sabotage. I followed the process quite specifically, and waited the prescribed amount of time for results.

There were none.

You do realize that you have missed the entire point of my post, right?

I DID have something to say about your assumption that 'no comment' meant 'support.'



No, often when one has no arguments FOR OR AGAINST a particular statement, one goes off on a tangent, which is what has happened with this thread. No one is shooting or shouting (I assume that is what you meant by all that (o)(u) business) at you, they are merely wandering off in other directions because they don't have anything to say about your OP.

*edit* Other than that your logic suffers, that is.

and yet, this one continues to speak...:sniper:

Can you? You imply that Christians (and, really many other religious persons) are completely devoid of logic, and hence are all idiots, based off of honestly, the worst 'logical' (I hate assigning that label, but it is technically true) attempt at justifying any view ever....

what, logical? what do you have against logic, good sir? oh yeah, i forgot, you're a christian. according to the bible, if i were to rape a woman, doing the 'right thing' would be to pay her father a fee of 30 sheckles so i can marry her, and have a wife who obeys me out of fear. hmm, fear and obediance, tenets of the christian faith. and that is precisely why this religion should have died out over 1000 years ago; a people of blind faith can be lead to do unspeakable things, while rejoicing in their beliefs that what they are doing is right. faith is something that can destroy us all, so we must take care to ensure that the tenets of the faith we choose to adopt are in agreeance with the highest morals that humanity can know. if you want to be religious, i suggest bhuddism.

Can you? You imply that Christians (and, really many other religious persons) are completely devoid of logic, and hence are all idiots, based off of honestly, the worst 'logical' (I hate assigning that label, but it is technically true) attempt at justifying any view ever....

what, logical? what do you have against logic, good sir? oh yeah, i forgot, you're a christian. according to the bible, if i were to rape a woman, doing the 'right thing' would be to pay her father a fee of 30 sheckles so i can marry her, and have a wife who obeys me out of fear. hmm, fear and obediance, tenets of the christian faith. and that is precisely why this religion should have died out over 1000 years ago; a people of blind faith can be lead to do unspeakable things, while rejoicing in their beliefs that what they are doing is right. faith is something that can destroy us all, so we must take care to ensure that the tenets of the faith we choose to adopt are in agreeance with the highest morals that humanity can know. if you want to be religious, i suggest bhuddism.

if this is true, then why did you say anything at all? seems to me that would be a whole lot easier than posting a response, followed by an even longer response, which included a long story of little relevance. if i don't have anything to say, i just don't say anything, simple as that.








...

But limerence doesn't last for ever. After 6 - 8 months it's over and rationality returns...

Being religious doesn't work like that.

True, rationality and reason tend to harsh the ecstatic buzz.
Antithetical, even.