NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly? I will conclude that you are being sarcastic.
All right, I'll make it simpler for you. The sensory perceptions you so neatly listed are not, in fact, the only input that the human beings are equipped to percieve, unless you'd lump self-awareness rather awkwardly with the "sense". Or perhaps you are not aware of your thought processes and emotional state?
And thanks for falling so nicely in the trap I somewhat unconsciously set up for you.
The question whether our mental state is affected only by our sensory input or by supernatural factors (the personal link to God) is answered depending on individual faith.

What seems idiotic to me is that you are apparently ignoring that men have the capability of reason and logic and they use this reason and logic to discover these things. If men did not believe in their perceptions, they would not have been able to discover the phenomenon you named. We all know that I was referring to a drug-free, homeostatic aka healthy and normal body, so I will let your poor twist on my words slide.

Naa man I have no idea what you was refering too, I can only assume you respond to my posts. Yes of course mankind has the capablitiy to reason, tell me what reasoning lead you to your conclusion that questioning the nature of reality has no merit?


Oh and fyi it's spelled ascertain. And worthy. But I suppose when you read that, you assumed your eyes were lying to you and, independent of your senses, you decided you had typed those words correctly, so you must have been correct, despite what your eyes were telling you.

Ohh shit, I mispeiled some words again, whatever shall I do. *shrug* I'll tell you I'm dyslexic, and let you make up your own mind wether or not to take the piss outa that, honestly I'm used to it, so whatever.

What seems idiotic to me is that you are apparently ignoring that men have the capability of reason and logic and they use this reason and logic to discover these things. If men did not believe in their perceptions, they would not have been able to discover the phenomenon you named. We all know that I was referring to a drug-free, homeostatic aka healthy and normal body, so I will let your poor twist on my words slide.

Oh and fyi it's spelled ascertain. And worthy. But I suppose when you read that, you assumed your eyes were lying to you and, independent of your senses, you decided you had typed those words correctly, so you must have been correct, despite what your eyes were telling you.

Religious people quite often try to manipulate the environment of their children, as well as education. This can certainly result in a warped and incorrect very-subjective view.

Religious people quite often try to manipulate the environment of their children, as well as education. This can certainly result in a warped and incorrect very-subjective view.
What view? You can't establish views without rationality.

Naa man I have no idea what you was refering too, I can only assume you respond to my posts. Yes of course mankind has the capablitiy to reason, tell me what reasoning lead you to your conclusion that questioning the nature of reality has no merit?
Silly Peepelonia. Of course there's merit in questioning the nature of reality. With reason.

There's no questioning anything if you assume your senses lie to you, as you would have nothing to question.

That said, I have satisfied my need to crush impotent minds for now, and seeing as its 4:40 AM on the west coast, I'm going to sleep for a bit. Have fun continually doubting everything you hear, see, feel, smell, and taste, especially without the aid of reason, logic, and a rational thought process.

Silly Peepelonia. Of course there's merit in questioning the nature of reality. With reason.

There's no questioning anything if you assume your senses lie to you, as you would have nothing to question.

That said, I have satisfied my need to crush impotent minds for now, and seeing as its 4:40 AM on the west coast, I'm going to sleep for a bit. Have fun continually doubting everything you hear, see, feel, smell, and taste, especially without the aid of reason, logic, and a rational thought process.

Also, questioning reality with the expressed aim of 'proving' religion or at convincing yourself is hardly a quest for knowledge, it's much the same as the 'Creation Science' movement, they start off with a (quite ludicrous) notion and bend all science to try and fit that preconceived notion.

I don't need to know what you believe. I only need to know that if your mind does not follow that thought process, your beliefs are destructive, irrational, and irrelevant.

Edit:
Furthermore, it is a logical conjecture that I could possibly make that you believe in a deity of some sort by extrapolating information from your words. But seeing how I've already answered to your inane words above, I shall decline to do so.

So now you are not going to talk to me. why?

Let me take these last couple of words in the above paragraph. You claim, without knowledge of what exactly my belifes are, that they are destructive, irrational, and irrelavent, I assume then that this can be broadened to encompass all those with a religous outlook?

Irrational for sure, only a fool would argue otherwise. Destructive, certianly not, I do not hold a single belife that I would call destructive. Irrelevant, nope disgree if you like but with the sheer number of religous folk in the world, our mindset is highly relevant. All of the good and ill that religion has caused is very relevant to the world and it's history wouldn't you say.

Religious people quite often try to manipulate the environment of their children, as well as education. This can certainly result in a warped and incorrect very-subjective view.

Yes the same can be said for all parents. We all try to instill our own feelings of justice, honor, etc.. into our children.

What view? You can't establish views without rationality.


Silly Peepelonia. Of course there's merit in questioning the nature of reality. With reason.

There's no questioning anything if you assume your senses lie to you, as you would have nothing to question.

That said, I have satisfied my need to crush impotent minds for now, and seeing as its 4:40 AM on the west coast, I'm going to sleep for a bit. Have fun continually doubting everything you hear, see, feel, smell, and taste, especially without the aid of reason, logic, and a rational thought process.

Again you have me wrong. But you I notice have just backtracked from your original stance (glad I could help you there).

Have a nice sleep, and tommorow I hope you'll awake in a friendlyer mood.

Yes the same can be said for all parents. We all try to instill our own feelings of justice, honor, etc.. into our children.
Hardly, that goes on the basis of the 'Hebrews thought murder was good before the 10 commandments' notion, those things you mention are social products of the natural relations between man and his fellow man.

Hardly, that goes on the basis of the 'Hebrews thought murder was good before the 10 commandments' notion, those things you mention are social products of the natural relations between man and his fellow man.

As are all of mankinds socicalogical responses. It still holds though, have you got kids? If/when you do I assume that you will bring them up without a belife in God, or will you give them as much info as you can and let them makeup their own minds?

In short will you try to see that their views are what you belive be correct, or will you let them formulate their own opinions?

As are all of mankinds socicalogical responses. It still holds though, have you got kids? If/when you do I assume that you will bring them up without a belife in God, or will you give them as much info as you can and let them makeup their own minds?

In short will you try to see that their views are what you belive be correct, or will you let them formulate their own opinions?

No way, my parents were pretty full on with religion at me and that resulted in me full on rejecting it anyway, although I am not angry as it gave me a good Catholic school education. Anyways I am not so big on children, either way I am too young, but I wouldn't influence them in any way.

No way, my parents were pretty full on with religion at me and that resulted in me full on rejecting it anyway, although I am not angry as it gave me a good Catholic school education. Anyways I am not so big on children, either way I am too young, but I wouldn't influence them in any way.

Heh you say that now, but, and trust me on this one, you won't be able to help yourself.

Even the smallest thing like, playing the kind of music that you like, will go a long way in deciding their own musical tastes.

Actually, considering most people are religious, atheists are the ones with an open mind, aren't they? ;)

Not true. Most people in Britain claim to be Church of England in polls cos they can't think of anything else to put on there and don't want to say no religion. There are a lot of atheists in Britain. Out of interest how much do you actually know about the beliefs of the main world religions?

i don't hate religions or their adherents, i'm just bemused by them. what i do hate is that group of people, present in many religions, especially the abrahamic ones, who actively try and succeed to indoctrinate the impressionable and desperate into the most extreme versions of their religions.

Not true. Most people in Britain claim to be Church of England in polls cos they can't think of anything else to put on there and don't want to say no religion. There are a lot of atheists in Britain. Out of interest how much do you actually know about the beliefs of the main world religions?

Yeah I agree, I would say that the majority of people here are atheist.

Not true. Most people in Britain claim to be Church of England in polls cos they can't think of anything else to put on there and don't want to say no religion. There are a lot of atheists in Britain. Out of interest how much do you actually know about the beliefs of the main world religions?Most people do not even know the theological and dogmatic groundwork of their own religion.

That's sounds infantile to me Peep, didn't your parents inform you that the Jesus/Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? (sorry for the spoiler)How's that different from believing in the Stalin Fairy?

People fear eligion because if God exists they're on a "Highway to Hell"And religious people fear athiesm becase if God doesn't exist, they've been wasting their time for nothing.

And religious people fear athiesm becase if God doesn't exist, they've been wasting their time for nothing.

Bwahahah what rubbish.

Bwahahah what rubbish.Hey, don't look at me like that. I'm agnostic.

Hey, don't look at me like that. I'm agnostic.

Like what, I can't see you man.

Because the majority of athiest people see the negative events which have been caused by religion, and they choose to ignore all the positive.

If you want an example,

The Rise of Islam,
Negative : yes Islam killed a hell of a lot of people (so has communism and its not religious), today extremists kill people and fail to abide by their own religious beliefs.

Positive: Islam brought knowledge to the West, as opposed to Eurocentric views, without Islam and its emphasis on obtaining knowledge, the Renaissance in Europe may never have occured and thus you may not even be reading this on your computer.

Before hating a religion take an unbiased approach and research a lot about it. O and Scientology is not a religion its a cult.

P.S If your curious im a Christian.

Because the majority of athiest people see the negative events which have been caused by religion, and they choose to ignore all the positive.

If you want an example,

The Rise of Islam,
Negative : yes Islam killed a hell of a lot of people (so has communism and its not religious), today extremists kill people and fail to abide by their own religious beliefs.

Positive: Islam brought knowledge to the West, as opposed to Eurocentric views, without Islam and its emphasis on obtaining knowledge, the Renaissance in Europe may never have occured and thus you may not even be reading this on your computer.

Before hating a religion take an unbiased approach and research a lot about it. O and Scientology is not a religion its a cult.

P.S If your curious im a Christian.

Hey hey a newbie? Welcome to ya.

Some people may argue that religion is the pre-text for a lot of suffering in the world and grow to hate it.

It's the nature of forums to attract and hold people of similar viewpoints, that's why.

Groups form, and beat down any opposition, and in general, moderators on any forum also have similar viewpoints, and will assist in kicking people who don't fit in.

Go to a Christian forum, and if you're an atheist, you'll get the beat down, and get kicked eventually. Go to an Islamic forum, and if you're an atheist, the same thing.

Hang out here, and it appears that if you're religious, you'll be beaten down, and eventually kicked.

Pick any other idea, take a side, and you'll see the same pattern.

It doesn't mean that you're any smarter (or that the people on the forum are any smarter) - it means that you all just think alike.

It's the nature of forums to attract and hold people of similar viewpoints, that's why.

Groups form, and beat down any opposition, and in general, moderators on any forum also have similar viewpoints, and will assist in kicking people who don't fit in.

Go to a Christian forum, and if you're an atheist, you'll get the beat down, and get kicked eventually. Go to an Islamic forum, and if you're an atheist, the same thing.

Hang out here, and it appears that if you're religious, you'll be beaten down, and eventually kicked.

Pick any other idea, take a side, and you'll see the same pattern.

It doesn't mean that you're any smarter (or that the people on the forum are any smarter) - it means that you all just think alike.

That makes sense, ohh and what are you doing here, I thought youwhere at work? Ohhh wait, your somebody else Hotwife.....

That makes sense, ohh and what are you doing here, I thought youwhere at work? Ohhh wait, your somebody else Hotwife.....

??

It's the nature of forums to attract and hold people of similar viewpoints, that's why.NSG is the one forum I know that breaks this rule. Most forums, people gather to discuss subjects they agree upon. On NSG, however, people gather to discuss subjects they disagree on.

NSG is the one forum I know that breaks this rule. Most forums, people gather to discuss subjects they agree upon. On NSG, however, people gather to discuss subjects they disagree on.

Then why, as the OP asks, do so many on this forum hate religion?

It looks like the rule holds for the religious question.

Then why, as the OP asks, do so many on this forum hate religion?

It looks like the rule holds for the religious question.

Naaaaa there are many of each here, and we more or less get on in a civilised manor.

Then why, as the OP asks, do so many on this forum hate religion?
I don't think that hate is the proper word in most cases. People here tend to be from Western societies, young and educated or getting educated - there is a correlation between such background and secular point of view. For many of them religion is something for the elderly and the, ahem, less than bright people. Learning about the past and present vices of religions many dismiss it as evil without second thought, equating faith with organized religion. I used to be like that too.

Naaaaa there are many of each here, and we more or less get on in a civilised manor.

ok, so I'll take your word for it, lol

Naaaaa there are many of each here, and we more or less get on in a civilised manor.
According to this survey (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552937), 37% are religious in some way, alhough the number of participants was only 240 so this result may significantly differ from reality. I can't remember my statistics class at the moment, but by the eyeball it could be off by as much as 3-4%.

According to this survey (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552937), 37% are religious in some way, alhough the number of participants was only 240 so this result may significantly differ from reality. I can't remember my statistics class at the moment, but by the eyeball it could be off by as much as 3-4%.

I remember that poll. I didn't vote on it because none of the poll options seemed to fit my spiritual beliefs and ideas. I wonder how many others there were like me.

the convincingness of something to someone is irrelevant. evidence is tied to some legitimate standard of justification for belief formation. so hearing hoofbeats (combined with other knowledge we have) can lead one to justly believe that horses are coming; it would serve as evidence for this belief even though the belief is false. but me seeing a daisy does not allow me to claim any justification at all for believing that there are horses around. it does not constitute evidence for this belief, even if it is utterly convincing to me. it is just not legitimately connected to my belief about horses.

I think your definition is about the same as that UB keeps proposing - and both of you claim it is somehow a verifiable objective thing - but I've yet to see either of you give a reason why it should be so.

Where does your defiinition come from? Any chance you can give a source to support your ridiculously tight parameters?

Because the majority of athiest people see the negative events which have been caused by religion, and they choose to ignore all the positive.

If you want an example,

The Rise of Islam,
Negative : yes Islam killed a hell of a lot of people (so has Communism and its not religious), today extremists kill people and fail to abide by their own religious beliefs.

Positive: Islam brought knowledge to the West, as opposed to Eurocentric views, without Islam and its emphasis on obtaining knowledge, the Renaissance in Europe may never have occured and thus you may not even be reading this on your computer.

Before hating a religion, take an unbiased approach and research a lot about it. Oh, and Scientology is not a religion, it's a cult.

P.S If you're curious I'm a Christian.

A lot of posters in this thread have taken the care to post bioth good and bad aspects of the major religions in the world. Particularly the one that pertains to a certain individual's background.

I don't think people on NS hate religion. What they dislike is the bad and biased aspects of them. So, I would advise you to seriously read throughout the thread before taking a stance like this and spout some of your own biased ideas.

PS. If you're curious, I'm not a Christian and I corrected your grammar.

I don't think that hate is the proper word in most cases. People here tend to be from Western societies, young and educated or getting educated - there is a correlation between such background and secular point of view. For many of them religion is something for the elderly and the, ahem, less than bright people. Learning about the past and present vices of religions many dismiss it as evil without second thought, equating faith with organized religion. I used to be like that too.


Some of what I read here is truly like walking memory lane, the same debates, the same discussions. Not much has changed really.

You know the addage..."there but for the grace of God go I.." Oh wait, that was 'I' once upon a time. :p

Isn't it fun to watch. :)

There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

Because they are gay.

NSG is the one forum I know that breaks this rule. Most forums, people gather to discuss subjects they agree upon. On NSG, however, people gather to discuss subjects they disagree on.

Nonsence. Ive never seen a forum with so little diversity of ideas.

Nonsence. Ive never seen a forum with so little diversity of ideas.

This place isn't so bad, and there are tons of worse places. But this ain't a shrine of openminded enlightedness either.

You know the addage..."there but for the grace of God go I.."
Now I do - thanks. :)

Because the majority of athiest people see the negative events which have been caused by religion, and they choose to ignore all the positive.

If you want an example,

The Rise of Islam,
Negative : yes Islam killed a hell of a lot of people (so has communism and its not religious), today extremists kill people and fail to abide by their own religious beliefs.

Positive: Islam brought knowledge to the West, as opposed to Eurocentric views, without Islam and its emphasis on obtaining knowledge, the Renaissance in Europe may never have occured and thus you may not even be reading this on your computer.

Before hating a religion take an unbiased approach and research a lot about it. O and Scientology is not a religion its a cult.

P.S If your curious im a Christian.

did you do your research? The renaissance came about not because of Islam but because people began to reject the views of Christianity and its tunnel vision regarding all science (at that point I'm not saying now thats a different argument). And i would definitely rewrite your little positive negative there.
Negative: Islam enslaves women. Islam kills or attempts to kill anyone who decides to leave that religion (this is written in the Koran btw). Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together. Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others. The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). Islam gives its fighters a license to kill any and all who disagree with it.
Positive: Islamic nations did provide interesting and useful new views in certain fields of science . .. but thats just Islamic nations the same thing would have happened if Islam had not existed but we'd be calling them some other name.
btw. I dont hate any one religion in particular I could do the same for any of the three major religions of the world especially christianity

You know, thinking about it in more detail I think specifically the most annoying thing about Christianity (gonna go with this, because frankly, I've not had any other personal encounters with any other major religion) is that the believers automatically assume their god is my god.

If you sincerely believe in god, then fine. If it brings you peace, and comfort, and helps guide you down the path of a better life, then, the more power to you, and I hope your faith is never shaken, but please, he is -your- god. Not mine. Please don't talk to me like he is. It's like having someone say "Those aren't your parents, THESE are your parents." No, they aren't, and your god isn't mine.

What I believe or don't believe is none of your business. I don't ask my friends/family/co-workers/random strangers "Have you abandoned all personal beliefs and chosen science as the ultimate, end all structure of the universe?!" I don't care what you believe until you chose to shove what you believe in my face.

did you do your research? The renaissance came about not because of Islam but because people began to reject the views of Christianity and its tunnel vision regarding all science (at that point I'm not saying now thats a different argument). And i would definitely rewrite your little positive negative there.
Negative: Islam enslaves women. Islam kills or attempts to kill anyone who decides to leave that religion (this is written in the Koran btw). Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together. Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others. The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). Islam gives its fighters a license to kill any and all who disagree with it.
Positive: Islamic nations did provide interesting and useful new views in certain fields of science . .. but thats just Islamic nations the same thing would have happened if Islam had not existed but we'd be calling them some other name.
btw. I dont hate any one religion in particular I could do the same for any of the three major religions of the world especially christianity

Islam was responsible for preserving a lot of knowledge that would have otherwise been lost during the Dark Ages.

Nonsence. Ive never seen a forum with so little diversity of ideas.
1. Nonsense.
2. This forum has been around for a while and most ideas that would create "diversity" have already been debunked one way or another. So only the hardcore extreme positions remain. Just as in real life.

You know, thinking about it in more detail I think specifically the most annoying thing about Christianity (gonna go with this, because frankly, I've not had any other personal encounters with any other major religion) is that the believers automatically assume their god is my god.

If you sincerely believe in god, then fine. If it brings you peace, and comfort, and helps guide you down the path of a better life, then, the more power to you, and I hope your faith is never shaken, but please, he is -your- god. Not mine. Please don't talk to me like he is. It's like having someone say "Those aren't your parents, THESE are your parents." No, they aren't, and your god isn't mine.

What I believe or don't believe is none of your business. I don't ask my friends/family/co-workers/random strangers "Have you abandoned all personal beliefs and chosen science as the ultimate, end all structure of the universe?!" I don't care what you believe until you chose to shove what you believe in my face.

So I am curious, are you saying you just don't want to discuss the topic with people and you wish they wouldn't bring it up? That the topic offends you?

Most of us here don't hate religion. We don't froth at the mouth and imagine eating baby Jesus when the topic is raised.

If you come onto a debate forum and present your beliefs, you will be expected to defend them. Being criticised =/= pure electronic malevolence.

Fairytales are influencing major scientific and government decisions, that makes me me.

So I am curious, are you saying you just don't want to discuss the topic with people and you wish they wouldn't bring it up? That the topic offends you?

Mm... more or less, yes. And I don't find it offensive unless it's agressive or presumptuous. The most I want to know about my friend's beliefs is how far I can take a joke before I offend someone with it. Beyond that, as religion largely doesn't really interest me, most discussions I've had with people on it I've found to be pointless. Most religious discussions I've been in have ended in either a heated argument called off before feelings are hurt or "oh, you believe this? cool" and a subsequent note to self not to bring it up again.

And when I say this, I do mean mostly Christian because again, not much experience with much else and that Christians in my experience talk about their religion as though it were something everyone should have and can't understand why some people don't. Like a car owner unable to understand why someone would chose to walk, or ride a bike.

Oh well, my computer is dead and I don't have uninterrupted access to teh internetz...

But my main points have not been addressed.

There is no objective, reproducible evidence for the existence of god. If there ever is any, expect it to be blared at you already. Yes the disproof of any existence is impossible. Firstly, YOU prove that it exists, not we DISprove whatever random idea you dream up. Innocent (of truth) until proven guilty. Secondly, science has tried many times to GET said evidence for god. Many "christian scientists" have tried - and ibid, failed.

The situation is same as an investigation of a fire: you can never prove that arson didn't exist. Whatever surveilance you have can be defeated and the arsonist may be a utter master at his job. But, if forensics experts go to the scene and search high and low for days on end, and find not so much as a fingerprint, but instead found a gas leak (the big bang with puns inserted), THEN you are justified in saying that an arson probably did not happen.

In any case, the hypothesis of god is the hypothesis "an arson happened". No evidence that is reproducible is found after centuries of attempts. Even if we cannot conclude that god definitely does not exist (ibid impossible), we can conclude that it either explains nothing extant (tell me how "god does anything" can PREDICT at all), or that god is impotent (inconsistent with any higher being type object). On the other hand, the four forces have predicted the outcome of thousands if not millions of experiments. That is actually useful in engineering for example, not "pray it doesn't fall outta the heavens".

Next, the dogmatic nature of religions. My example was that the Bible is taken to be the word of god, flat. That IS the defining characteristic of Christianity, since you need to have heard the myth (not perjorative, means an old story taken to be authoritative/true) of Jesus. Even if you heard it from an evangelical (or parent) and never read the Bible yourself, the basis of you hearing of Jesu is because of the Bible. If you believe in Jesu, you believe in the authority of the Bible's words on Jesu - at least in part regarding his divinity.

You CAN prove the veracity of the New Testament claims: if the sky really went black at the noon of the execution of Jesu, that would have been a significant metereological event that will be observed by other people. The nonexistence of any majority of historical logs dating to that day saying "the sky went black", again justifies the conclusion that it DIDN'T happen. You're saying most people in the Roman times do not consider a blackened sky at midday something worthy of writing down.

That's one claim in one of the gospels. Consider also the disparity of the accounts of the miracles between the four "canonical" gospels. Most miracles are not described by all four of the writers: were they gone at the time and missed out on teh coolness, or what? None of them are verified by writings from non-Jesu related people. Jesu supposedly had a couple of miracles in public - the spitting on the blind man for example. And everybody around there (except the "chosen" apostles) recorded it?

Then the final question. Say you do not require a literal interpretation of the Bible. You see them as parables and examples to help your living of "the christian way". THEN, what exactly does the Bible say? Are the ten commandments supposed to be literally read, or is it a metaphor? Then is the book of Genesis supposed to be literally read or a parable? WHO chooses the meaning of the Bible? If you, then one, you gain no information of the world other than your own views, if you want that look in a mirror. If some other mortal, who elevated them to such holy heights? If god himself, then err the Bible is ALREADY the word of god.

In the end, if you read the Bible as anything BUT literally, you cannot gain information from it. Add that to the complete nonpredictions (other than "you'll burn in hell" - is that literal?) that the Bible produces, and the conclusion is: it says nothing. If you can ever change the interpretation beyond what the words say, then nothing is certain.

INB4 you say "Jesu-only hater", Christianity is still the most perverse (wait pervasive) religion in terms of "popularity". Islam is Abrahamic but pretty much lost the crusades - less followers. Indeed, the same argument applies to ANY holy writ that is taken to be true: literal (in which case smash it with real evidence) or interpret-as-you-will (in which case it says the "truth" but never TELLS you the truth)?

Oh, and the other reason I smash religion: their involvement in education. Look at the "inteligunt desin" movement, which is a joke (to many Christians as well) - and they want their tripe taught in schools. To protect the education system (which has a massive effect in the minds of those it touches), that cannot be allowed to happen. Funding alarmingly useless programs (US abstinence-only sex ed anyone?), and outright religious schools with GOVERNMENT money = **I** have to pay them, is completely unacceptable to me.

Also, is it a "coincidence" that the more education, the less religious on a whole? This can either mean religion tends to reduce your education (look Amish), or education tends to disincline you from religion. Less than half of doctorates have religious beliefs. Is this systematic bias in the academic system against all religion or what? Unless you're the Woods Hole sucker who lost his job because he rejects evolution (and thus the entire works of that oceanographic institute) - no. As long as your religion keeps its head off your work, you get your PhD. And I repeat myself, no evidence for religion = no science employing religion as a basis for anything.

RAmen.

Islam was responsible for preserving a lot of knowledge that would have otherwise been lost during the Dark Ages.

no, islamic nations did this as did the Chinese as a matter of fact. This has nothing to do with Islam the religion its just the place in which the knowledge was preserved. It would have been preserved in exactly the same place if the Islamics were instead budhist

I think your definition is about the same as that UB keeps proposing - and both of you claim it is somehow a verifiable objective thing - but I've yet to see either of you give a reason why it should be so.

Where does your definition come from? Any chance you can give a source to support your ridiculously tight parameters?
Um I would have thought that this was a relatively broad definition. What would your be? If you feel that it must be so then it must be so? God must exist because I say so? what? People have experienced emotions therefore there must be a god? this is all ridiculous. Basically my read is that their just asking for the same proof you'd ask in any other subject. give me a verifiable proof that god exists and i will will be converted. that seems fairly reasonable to me.

Mm... more or less, yes. And I don't find it offensive unless it's agressive or presumptuous. The most I want to know about my friend's beliefs is how far I can take a joke before I offend someone with it. Beyond that, as religion largely doesn't really interest me, most discussions I've had with people on it I've found to be pointless. Most religious discussions I've been in have ended in either a heated argument called off before feelings are hurt or "oh, you believe this? cool" and a subsequent note to self not to bring it up again.

And when I say this, I do mean mostly Christian because again, not much experience with much else and that Christians in my experience talk about their religion as though it were something everyone should have and can't understand why some people don't. Like a car owner unable to understand why someone would chose to walk, or ride a bike.

I see. My parents taught us that there were three things polite company didn't discuss openly...religion, money and politics. Seems today that is all people do discuss. Though I rarely see an actual discussion, it is more like a firing range most times. :(

I can genuinely appreciate that you prefer not to discuss it. That honesty is refreshing. :)

ok, so I'll take your word for it, lol

Most of the time the majority of us do, yes discussions can get heated at times, but overall I'd say that we do stay cordial.

Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together.

No. Not even close.

I think your definition is about the same as that UB keeps proposing - and both of you claim it is somehow a verifiable objective thing - but I've yet to see either of you give a reason why it should be so.

Where does your defiinition come from? Any chance you can give a source to support your ridiculously tight parameters?

ridiculously tight parameters?! my definition of evidence is that it is something linked to a legitimate justificatory practice; something that can rightfully be used to claim justification for a belief. this is not a non-standard usage of the term, and is in fact one that makes good sense - it allows us to say that there are things that are not evidence for a belief, while you must allow everything to be evidence for everything else. and that is fucking silly.

more specifically, when we say that X is evidence for Y we mean that the existence of X provides a reason to believe that Y is true. now there is an objective fact about the matter of whether Y is true, but regardless of whether it is or not, the justness of our belief that Y is true is an independently determinable fact as well. it depends on a number of factors involved in our theory of justification, but one of them that matters here is that there must be the proper sort of connection between X and Y such that the existence of X could provide reason to believe Y (given certain other justly held background beliefs and contextual facts, etc). Lacking such a connection, X does not provide a reason to believe Y, and therefore X is not evidence for Y.

Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together.
No. Not even close.
I think that Oligarchy takes the cake, actually. There are very few nations that I can think of that weren't directly visible or indirectly visible Oligarchies, or flat-out Monarchies. Only one comes to mind: Athens, as an independent state? Wasn't so much of an Oligarchy. Wealth was far more freely distributed than anywhere or anywhen (word?) that I can come up with, as was knowledge (Both for free males only, but still they did a helluva better job than even today in the U.S., shocking as it may seem to some.)

Let me clarify if this doesn't make sense to some of ya: At almost all times, in any civilization, wealth, power, or both have been solely-controlled or at least dominated by a few people. With the rise of Modern Capitalism, this actually didn't change. That wealth became slightly more balanced amongst people is debatable...but never power. No, it's always changed hands, but never entered the hands of the people at large for long. I dare you to come up with an example of the general populace holding together, for more than 25 years (And in a self-sufficient state, one that could produce everything on it's own or take/trade for it without help from other states), a reasonably well balanced system of distribution for power, money, or both. It's happened, just rarely. I already called ancient Athens, It's mine! :P

But my main point:

did you do your research? The renaissance came about not because of Islam but because people began to reject the views of Christianity and its tunnel vision regarding all science (at that point I'm not saying now thats a different argument). And i would definitely rewrite your little positive negative there.
Negative: Islam enslaves women. Islam kills or attempts to kill anyone who decides to leave that religion (this is written in the Koran btw). Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together. Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others. The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). Islam gives its fighters a license to kill any and all who disagree with it.
Positive: Islamic nations did provide interesting and useful new views in certain fields of science . .. but thats just Islamic nations the same thing would have happened if Islam had not existed but we'd be calling them some other name.
btw. I dont hate any one religion in particular I could do the same for any of the three major religions of the world especially christianity

*clap clap clap* your officially Eurocentric and failed to actually do any real research.

The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

Now to your positive and Negatives.

Negative: Islam enslaves women. - incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.
Islam kills or attempts to kill anyone who decides to leave that religion - never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.
Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together. - Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.
Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.
The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.
Islam gives its fighters a license to kill any and all who disagree with it - wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

Positive: Islamic nations did provide interesting and useful new views in certain fields of science . .. but thats just Islamic nations the same thing would have happened if Islam had not existed but we'd be calling them some other name - Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.
btw. I dont hate any one religion in particular I could do the same for any of the three major religions of the world especially christianity - and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world.[/QUOTE]

O and whoever said this

"no, islamic nations did this as did the Chinese as a matter of fact. This has nothing to do with Islam the religion its just the place in which the knowledge was preserved. It would have been preserved in exactly the same place if the Islamics were instead budhist "

Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

*clap clap clap* your officially Eurocentric and failed to actually do any real research.

The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

Now to your positive and Negatives.

Negative: Islam enslaves women. - incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.
Islam kills or attempts to kill anyone who decides to leave that religion - never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.
Islam has Killed more people than Communism and fascism put together. - Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.
Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.
The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.
Islam gives its fighters a license to kill any and all who disagree with it - wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

Positive: Islamic nations did provide interesting and useful new views in certain fields of science . .. but thats just Islamic nations the same thing would have happened if Islam had not existed but we'd be calling them some other name - Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.
btw. I dont hate any one religion in particular I could do the same for any of the three major religions of the world especially christianity - and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world.

O and whoever said this

"no, islamic nations did this as did the Chinese as a matter of fact. This has nothing to do with Islam the religion its just the place in which the knowledge was preserved. It would have been preserved in exactly the same place if the Islamics were instead budhist "

Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.[/QUOTE]

ok here we go . . . and theres a number of things here.

1)The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

lol yes because Islam and Christianity had such good relations. And europeans were not at all closed minded before during and after the renaissance. why the renaissance came about is very very debatable. Looking from a "religions are the best" point of view you would say that two religions that hated each other before the renaissance and after the renaissance suddenly decided hey they migtha got something right. Personally I find this very, very, very unlikely. What I find more likely (and what I'v rewad in every hisotry I have read that WASNT WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM is that a a number of philosophers decided that there was more to life than the church and began to study things outside the churches domain (btw. during the renaissance the catholic church was at its worst . . .. but somehow its followers had picked up on the ideals from a religion they knew very little about that hey knowledge is good . . . .uh huh? rally? seriously? come on.

2) incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.

Not true. . . .basically just false. I have read the Qur'an and there are lines in which it says for example "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228", or "Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death" or "A woman is worth one-half a man" or "All married women are forbidden unto you save those whom your right hands possess." or "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , , refuse to share their beds,beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means," basically it refers to women as property.

3) never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.

Again have you actually read the Qur'an there is a whole section that talks about how any believer in the true faith who falls from that faith is to be stoned or beheaded.

4) Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.

Do your research. Countless genocides back when genocide was accepted. (before, during and just after the dark ages.). The crusades (yes mostly christen but they were both at fault). The separation of India and Pakistan (brutal wars and death). Many terrorist attacks. Many attacks backed by Muslim Fanatics including those on Kuwait and the Bali Bombings. Israel and the STATED DESIRE OF MUSLIM LEADERS TO WIPE IT OFF THE MAP! and i mean kill everyone. So look into it and provide just a little evidence before you mouth off. Yes communism was bad but its been around for less than a hundred years. Same with fascism. The Muslims have been around for much much much longer and killed many many many more.

5)Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.

heheheh okay you've got me there . . . .at least a little. But Islam has truly screwed itself both by attacking nations and by being intolerant to others. It both has intolerance itself but has also caused others to be intolerant of it. Secondly I disagree with the white australia policy and with European Colonialism and with america's (and by that im really hoping as a canadien citizen that u mean the US of A) world view. But i should agree with islam (which doesd a similar thing) because its a religion? or are you telling me that you do agree with those three things???


6)The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.

that was just meant to lighten the mood a little but w/e

7) wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

not true it explicitly gives them license to kill any non believer. Though I guess you could classify that as defending their right to be Islamic . . . .wait no you couldn't. Also the methods of retaliation specifically said in the Qu'arn are horrendous.

8) Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.

you missed my point if that region was entirely Celtic you would have seen the same effect (ok maybe not celtic but you get the point) and this would be doubly true if it was atheist. because(see 9)

9)Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

not true (thats a misinterpretation on your part and now im really wondering if youve read the Qur'an) it tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge (and this is the important part) about the one true faith. (that part at the end? u cant just leave it out and pretend it doesnt exist.)


10)- and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world

as effectively as you countered what I wrote above . . . .I guess if your just gonna make statements you cant back up then of course you can and well done . . .

No. Not even close.

prove it . .. and see my above post

Is not intolerance for religion. It´s more or less a hunger for trying to understand why Christians believe so blindly. That´s all.

oh.... it's not intolerance, just proud intentional ignorance because admitting the truth that there are smart Christians and that there's plenty of logic to support Christianity would be too painful so it's easier to just keep on lying. I get it now ^.~

Had you bothered to admit that only some Christians believe blindly that would've been closer to valid, but that would still require acknowledging that blind beliefs are not just a Christian thing but something that holds true to all faiths including atheism. No religion has a monopoly on common sense and intelligence, and the lack of religion doesn't either. You'll find geniuses and idiots on all sides.

prove it . .. and see my above post

Onus lies on you, matey. You're the one making sensationalist claims, you provide the statistics to back them up.

You know, thinking about it in more detail I think specifically the most annoying thing about Christianity (gonna go with this, because frankly, I've not had any other personal encounters with any other major religion) is that the believers automatically assume their god is my god.

If you sincerely believe in god, then fine. If it brings you peace, and comfort, and helps guide you down the path of a better life, then, the more power to you, and I hope your faith is never shaken, but please, he is -your- god. Not mine. Please don't talk to me like he is. It's like having someone say "Those aren't your parents, THESE are your parents." No, they aren't, and your god isn't mine.

What I believe or don't believe is none of your business. I don't ask my friends/family/co-workers/random strangers "Have you abandoned all personal beliefs and chosen science as the ultimate, end all structure of the universe?!" I don't care what you believe until you chose to shove what you believe in my face.


Hey of course it is silly, all Gods are but differant aspects of the one God. Now here eat this *shoves God in face*:D

You know im going to have soo much fun with this...hopefully this can be read smoothly im in sort of a rush.

1)The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

lol yes because Islam and Christianity had such good relations. And europeans were not at all closed minded before during and after the renaissance. - no they didn't have good relations, any sane person can see that, but educated people in Europe (yes there was actually some educated people) accepted Islam for what it was doing, gathering knowledge while Europe was in the 'Dark Ages', and ignoring the whole concept of religion. (some people, yes only some, were open minded)


why the renaissance came about is very very debatable. - True, im just saying Islam had a significant impact on it, tell me do you really believe that Christians, during this period, would go and translate Greek for the text inside? I say they wouldn't because they would be instantly excommunicated from the Church for blasphemy. (im not saying Christianity had the right ideas in mind).

Looking from a "religions are the best" point of view you would say that two religions that hated each other before the renaissance and after the renaissance suddenly decided hey they migtha got something right. - You seem to think it was all the political leaders, who ignited this hate, were working together. It was the educated scholars who cooperated. If i had the time i'd quote some sources that directly explain how in, i believe, Baghdad, Christian, Islamic, Hindu and various other types of scholars were working together and sharing their various discoveries.

Personally I find this very, very, very unlikely. What I find more likely (and what I've read in most history I have read that WASNT WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM is that a a number of philosophers decided that there was more to life than the church and began to study things outside the churches domain. - There was also Christian scholars, not all Muslims hate Christians, not all Tibetian protestors hate Chinese people, not all right winged governments hate left winged governments, you should stop being so stereotyping

(btw, during the renaissance the catholic church was at its worst . . .. but somehow its followers had picked up on the ideals from a religion they knew very little about that hey knowledge is good . . . .uh huh? rally? seriously? come on. - Trade and communication works wonders, Islam like i said before, is in one of the best places possible when it comes to trade, the middle, take Constantinople for example, or Venice which access to the East enabled it to grow into a powerfulish empire.

2) incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.

Not true. . . .basically just false. I have read the Qur'an and there are lines in which it says for example "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228", or "Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death" or "A woman is worth one-half a man" or "All married women are forbidden unto you save those whom your right hands possess." or "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , , refuse to share their beds,beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means," basically it refers to women as property. - Two things, read this http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html and your failing to comprehend the time frame in which everything was interpreted. I'm not saying its right mind you, we should quite regularly re-read our religious texts to ensure they have been interpreted entirely correctly, yes we would get lots of debate but i see arguing for the truth sounds quite acceptable. O and i don't give a
f%&@ if you don't think my religion is the truth, we shall eventually see whom was right won't we :D


3) never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.

Again have you actually read the Qur'an there is a whole section that talks about how any believer in the true faith who falls from that faith is to be stoned or beheaded. - interpret the time, realistically it seems quite appropriate to scare people from leaving your faith, especially when you want to expand it, not morally correct but realistically understandable.

4) Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.

Do your research. Countless genocides back when genocide was accepted. (before, during and just after the dark ages.). The crusades (yes mostly christen but they were both at fault). The separation of India and Pakistan (brutal wars and death). Many terrorist attacks. Many attacks backed by Muslim Fanatics including those on Kuwait and the Bali Bombings. Israel and the STATED DESIRE OF MUSLIM LEADERS TO WIPE IT OFF THE MAP! and i mean kill everyone. So look into it and provide just a little evidence before you mouth off. Yes communism was bad but its been around for less than a hundred years. Same with fascism. The Muslims have been around for much much much longer and killed many many many more.
- Yes your right Islam has been around much longer, and has killed many more people overall, however, Take into consideration Communism which basically killed millions of people in as you say less than a hundred years, lets wait for another 1000 years and see how many more people it has killed, (if it still exists) I promise you it will have killed way more people than Islam would have by the same date. Example of what i mean graph...

[ * ^
[ * ^ * = Communism (x axis is years, y is deaths)
[ * ^ ^ = Islam
[ * ^
[____________


5)Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.

heheheh okay you've got me there . . . .at least a little. But Islam has truly screwed itself both by attacking nations and by being intolerant to others. It both has intolerance itself but has also caused others to be intolerant of it. Secondly I disagree with the white australia policy and with European Colonialism and with america's (and by that im really hoping as a canadien citizen that u mean the US of A) world view. But i should agree with islam (which does a similar thing) because its a religion? or are you telling me that you do agree with those three things???
- I'm saying that the reason it is intolerant is because others are intolerant of it. Who can really say who threw the first punch in a world as crazy as ours?

6)The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.

that was just meant to lighten the mood a little but w/e

7) wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

not true it explicitly gives them license to kill any non believer. Though I guess you could classify that as defending their right to be Islamic . . . .wait no you couldn't. Also the methods of retaliation specifically said in the Qu'arn are horrendous. - That information sounds extremely media-orientated. Did you know suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam, basically as strict as it is in Christianity (suicide = hell type place), yet there are Islamic extremists who think God told them to blow themselves up... How fail can you get?

8) Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.

you missed my point if that region was entirely Celtic you would have seen the same effect (ok maybe not celtic but you get the point) and this would be doubly true if it was atheist. because(see 9) - Why the hell would athiests decide to go out of their way to collect knowledge, especially athiests of that time. And why would any other religion do that? Islam only collected that knowledge because they believed God commanded them to.

9)Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

not true (thats a misinterpretation on your part and now im really wondering if youve read the Qur'an) it tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge (and this is the important part) about the one true faith. (that part at the end? u cant just leave it out and pretend it doesnt exist.) - Yes and? I haven't read the Qur'an i've studied the religion of Islam quite extensively, though i did know about that part, i've just been in a bit of a rush (sorry), however. You realise in Islam every piece of knowledge you collect is glorifying Allah, and thus, (this i believe is very true), you never disregard anything which can be proven, you can't prove with any reliable evidence that God doesn't exist (just gonna tell you that now).

10)- and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world

as effectively as you countered what I wrote above . . . .I guess if your just gonna make statements you cant back up then of course you can and well done . . . - WELL i just countered everything there and your arguments against many of mine were quite weak because many failed to delve any deeper than the outer shell of Islam, which is swarming with unreliable information given by the media. You know i once was like you too, then i actually did a detailed analyses of Islam and what it achieved and now i see how stupid i was. You should try it sometime

Hopefully i didn't miss anything there.

You know im going to have soo much fun with this...hopefully this can be read smoothly im in sort of a rush.

1)The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

lol yes because Islam and Christianity had such good relations. And europeans were not at all closed minded before during and after the renaissance. - no they didn't have good relations, any sane person can see that, but educated people in Europe (yes there was actually some educated people) accepted Islam for what it was doing, gathering knowledge while Europe was in the 'Dark Ages', and ignoring the whole concept of religion. (some people, yes only some, were open minded)


why the renaissance came about is very very debatable. - True, im just saying Islam had a significant impact on it, tell me do you really believe that Christians, during this period, would go and translate Greek for the text inside? I say they wouldn't because they would be instantly excommunicated from the Church for blasphemy. (im not saying Christianity had the right ideas in mind).

Looking from a "religions are the best" point of view you would say that two religions that hated each other before the renaissance and after the renaissance suddenly decided hey they migtha got something right. - You seem to think it was all the political leaders, who ignited this hate, were working together. It was the educated scholars who cooperated. If i had the time i'd quote some sources that directly explain how in, i believe, Baghdad, Christian, Islamic, Hindu and various other types of scholars were working together and sharing their various discoveries.

Personally I find this very, very, very unlikely. What I find more likely (and what I've read in most history I have read that WASNT WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM is that a a number of philosophers decided that there was more to life than the church and began to study things outside the churches domain. - There was also Christian scholars, not all Muslims hate Christians, not all Tibetian protestors hate Chinese people, not all right winged governments hate left winged governments, you should stop being so stereotyping

(btw, during the renaissance the catholic church was at its worst . . .. but somehow its followers had picked up on the ideals from a religion they knew very little about that hey knowledge is good . . . .uh huh? rally? seriously? come on. - Trade and communication works wonders, Islam like i said before, is in one of the best places possible when it comes to trade, the middle, take Constantinople for example, or Venice which access to the East enabled it to grow into a powerfulish empire.

2) incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.

Not true. . . .basically just false. I have read the Qur'an and there are lines in which it says for example "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228", or "Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death" or "A woman is worth one-half a man" or "All married women are forbidden unto you save those whom your right hands possess." or "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , , refuse to share their beds,beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means," basically it refers to women as property. - Two things, read this http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html and your failing to comprehend the time frame in which everything was interpreted. I'm not saying its right mind you, we should quite regularly re-read our religious texts to ensure they have been interpreted entirely correctly, yes we would get lots of debate but i see arguing for the truth sounds quite acceptable. O and i don't give a
f%&@ if you don't think my religion is the truth, we shall eventually see whom was right won't we :D


3) never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.

Again have you actually read the Qur'an there is a whole section that talks about how any believer in the true faith who falls from that faith is to be stoned or beheaded. - interpret the time, realistically it seems quite appropriate to scare people from leaving your faith, especially when you want to expand it, not morally correct but realistically understandable.

4) Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.

Do your research. Countless genocides back when genocide was accepted. (before, during and just after the dark ages.). The crusades (yes mostly christen but they were both at fault). The separation of India and Pakistan (brutal wars and death). Many terrorist attacks. Many attacks backed by Muslim Fanatics including those on Kuwait and the Bali Bombings. Israel and the STATED DESIRE OF MUSLIM LEADERS TO WIPE IT OFF THE MAP! and i mean kill everyone. So look into it and provide just a little evidence before you mouth off. Yes communism was bad but its been around for less than a hundred years. Same with fascism. The Muslims have been around for much much much longer and killed many many many more.
- Yes your right Islam has been around much longer, and has killed many more people overall, however, Take into consideration Communism which basically killed millions of people in as you say less than a hundred years, lets wait for another 1000 years and see how many more people it has killed, (if it still exists) I promise you it will have killed way more people than Islam would have by the same date. Example of what i mean graph...

[ * ^
[ * ^ * = Communism (x axis is years, y is deaths)
[ * ^ ^ = Islam
[ * ^
[____________


5)Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.

heheheh okay you've got me there . . . .at least a little. But Islam has truly screwed itself both by attacking nations and by being intolerant to others. It both has intolerance itself but has also caused others to be intolerant of it. Secondly I disagree with the white australia policy and with European Colonialism and with america's (and by that im really hoping as a canadien citizen that u mean the US of A) world view. But i should agree with islam (which does a similar thing) because its a religion? or are you telling me that you do agree with those three things???
- I'm saying that the reason it is intolerant is because others are intolerant of it. Who can really say who threw the first punch in a world as crazy as ours?

6)The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.

that was just meant to lighten the mood a little but w/e

7) wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

not true it explicitly gives them license to kill any non believer. Though I guess you could classify that as defending their right to be Islamic . . . .wait no you couldn't. Also the methods of retaliation specifically said in the Qu'arn are horrendous. - That information sounds extremely media-orientated. Did you know suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam, basically as strict as it is in Christianity (suicide = hell type place), yet there are Islamic extremists who think God told them to blow themselves up... How fail can you get?

8) Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.

you missed my point if that region was entirely Celtic you would have seen the same effect (ok maybe not celtic but you get the point) and this would be doubly true if it was atheist. because(see 9) - Why the hell would athiests decide to go out of their way to collect knowledge, especially athiests of that time. And why would any other religion do that? Islam only collected that knowledge because they believed God commanded them to.

9)Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

not true (thats a misinterpretation on your part and now im really wondering if youve read the Qur'an) it tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge (and this is the important part) about the one true faith. (that part at the end? u cant just leave it out and pretend it doesnt exist.) - Yes and? I haven't read the Qur'an i've studied the religion of Islam quite extensively, though i did know about that part, i've just been in a bit of a rush (sorry), however. You realise in Islam every piece of knowledge you collect is glorifying Allah, and thus, (this i believe is very true), you never disregard anything which can be proven, you can't prove with any reliable evidence that God doesn't exist (just gonna tell you that now).

10)- and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world

as effectively as you countered what I wrote above . . . .I guess if your just gonna make statements you cant back up then of course you can and well done . . . - WELL i just countered everything there and your arguments against many of mine were quite weak because many failed to delve any deeper than the outer shell of Islam, which is swarming with unreliable information given by the media. You know i once was like you too, then i actually did a detailed analyses of Islam and what it achieved and now i see how stupid i was. You should try it sometime

Hopefully i didn't miss anything there and i didn't post this twice...

oh.... it's not intolerance, just proud intentional ignorance because admitting the truth that there are smart Christians and that there's plenty of logic to support Christianity would be too painful so it's easier to just keep on lying. I get it now ^.~

Had you bothered to admit that only some Christians believe blindly that would've been closer to valid, but that would still require acknowledging that blind beliefs are not just a Christian thing but something that holds true to all faiths including atheism. No religion has a monopoly on common sense and intelligence, and the lack of religion doesn't either. You'll find geniuses and idiots on all sides.

Christianity isn't logic, and your reply just supports my idea of complete and blind belief. I don't think you're one of those 'smart' Christians. Oh, and just so you know, I do understand blind belief isn't solely a Christian thing. Many people have a blind belief in their politicians and group leaders. It's just that Christianity is the one that affects more people since is so wide-spread. So, spare me and the little argument about "proud intentional ignorance" doesn't apply to me. All religions lie and pepetuate ignorance. It's the only way to keep the masses at bay, by lying. But neither you nor me are expert theologians.

Judaism has fanatics, Islam has fanatics. But Judaism and Islam do not mean a thing to me because I wasn't brought up Muslim or Jewish. I do give them credit but these religions do not influenced me when growing up. And I'm not an atheist either. I do accept there's a creative force out there, I don't call it a god though. I just lack dogma. And lacking dogma doesn't mean that people are idiots either. You'll find that idiocy isn't supedited to belief or lack there of. Idiocy is a human trait that fanatics, unfortunately, use to the detriment of a good idea.;) Try not to fall into that category, eh.

I do accept there's a creative force out there, I don't call it a god though. I just lack dogma.
Excuse me for butting in, but how do you prove the existence of a creative force (other that statistics) in a way that doesn't involve faith?

Excuse me for butting in, but how do you prove the existence of a creative force (other that statistics) in a way that doesn't involve faith?

Because of what I see around me. You could call it faith if you want to. But as I already stated, I don't deny the existence of it, I just do not call it a god and what I lack is dogma, I never said I lacked faith.;) I just do not believe in the God and I tend to need more proof than others, but I know there's something out there.

I never said I lacked faith.;) I just do not believe in the God and I tend to need more proof than others, but I know there's something out there.
Nanatsu no Tsuki, your faith is deeper than mine then, because I basically demanded a freaking miracle as a proof. And I got what I asked for. I think that what I experienced was the closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.

Nanatsu no Tsuki, your faith is deeper than mine then, because I basically demanded a freaking miracle as a proof. And I got what I asked for. I think that what I experienced was the closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.

Then you're a lucky person, I think.;) Cherish that, if you care to. Not many are able to see miracles first hand, if that's what you're implying.

Onus lies on you, matey. You're the one making sensationalist claims, you provide the statistics to back them up.

already did . . . .can anyone refute? see post above the one ur quoting

oh.... it's not intolerance, just proud intentional ignorance because admitting the truth that there are smart Christians and that there's plenty of logic to support Christianity would be too painful so it's easier to just keep on lying. I get it now ^.~

Had you bothered to admit that only some Christians believe blindly that would've been closer to valid, but that would still require acknowledging that blind beliefs are not just a Christian thing but something that holds true to all faiths including atheism. No religion has a monopoly on common sense and intelligence, and the lack of religion doesn't either. You'll find geniuses and idiots on all sides.

Yes there are geniuses on both sides but whats the logiv that supports christianity?????

Yes there are geniuses on both sides but whats the logiv that supports christianity?????

Shhhh there ain't any.

Nanatsu no Tsuki, your faith is deeper than mine then, because I basically demanded a freaking miracle as a proof. And I got what I asked for. I think that what I experienced was the closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.

What miracle have you experienced? I missed that in the flow of posts.

You know im going to have soo much fun with this...hopefully this can be read smoothly im in sort of a rush.

1)The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

lol yes because Islam and Christianity had such good relations. And europeans were not at all closed minded before during and after the renaissance. - no they didn't have good relations, any sane person can see that, but educated people in Europe (yes there was actually some educated people) accepted Islam for what it was doing, gathering knowledge while Europe was in the 'Dark Ages', and ignoring the whole concept of religion. (some people, yes only some, were open minded)


why the renaissance came about is very very debatable. - True, im just saying Islam had a significant impact on it, tell me do you really believe that Christians, during this period, would go and translate Greek for the text inside? I say they wouldn't because they would be instantly excommunicated from the Church for blasphemy. (im not saying Christianity had the right ideas in mind).

Looking from a "religions are the best" point of view you would say that two religions that hated each other before the renaissance and after the renaissance suddenly decided hey they migtha got something right. - You seem to think it was all the political leaders, who ignited this hate, were working together. It was the educated scholars who cooperated. If i had the time i'd quote some sources that directly explain how in, i believe, Baghdad, Christian, Islamic, Hindu and various other types of scholars were working together and sharing their various discoveries.

Personally I find this very, very, very unlikely. What I find more likely (and what I've read in most history I have read that WASNT WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM is that a a number of philosophers decided that there was more to life than the church and began to study things outside the churches domain. - There was also Christian scholars, not all Muslims hate Christians, not all Tibetian protestors hate Chinese people, not all right winged governments hate left winged governments, you should stop being so stereotyping

(btw, during the renaissance the catholic church was at its worst . . .. but somehow its followers had picked up on the ideals from a religion they knew very little about that hey knowledge is good . . . .uh huh? rally? seriously? come on. - Trade and communication works wonders, Islam like i said before, is in one of the best places possible when it comes to trade, the middle, take Constantinople for example, or Venice which access to the East enabled it to grow into a powerfulish empire.

2) incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.

Not true. . . .basically just false. I have read the Qur'an and there are lines in which it says for example "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228", or "Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death" or "A woman is worth one-half a man" or "All married women are forbidden unto you save those whom your right hands possess." or "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , , refuse to share their beds,beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means," basically it refers to women as property. - Two things, read this http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html and your failing to comprehend the time frame in which everything was interpreted. I'm not saying its right mind you, we should quite regularly re-read our religious texts to ensure they have been interpreted entirely correctly, yes we would get lots of debate but i see arguing for the truth sounds quite acceptable. O and i don't give a
f%&@ if you don't think my religion is the truth, we shall eventually see whom was right won't we :D


3) never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.

Again have you actually read the Qur'an there is a whole section that talks about how any believer in the true faith who falls from that faith is to be stoned or beheaded. - interpret the time, realistically it seems quite appropriate to scare people from leaving your faith, especially when you want to expand it, not morally correct but realistically understandable.

4) Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.

Do your research. Countless genocides back when genocide was accepted. (before, during and just after the dark ages.). The crusades (yes mostly christen but they were both at fault). The separation of India and Pakistan (brutal wars and death). Many terrorist attacks. Many attacks backed by Muslim Fanatics including those on Kuwait and the Bali Bombings. Israel and the STATED DESIRE OF MUSLIM LEADERS TO WIPE IT OFF THE MAP! and i mean kill everyone. So look into it and provide just a little evidence before you mouth off. Yes communism was bad but its been around for less than a hundred years. Same with fascism. The Muslims have been around for much much much longer and killed many many many more.
- Yes your right Islam has been around much longer, and has killed many more people overall, however, Take into consideration Communism which basically killed millions of people in as you say less than a hundred years, lets wait for another 1000 years and see how many more people it has killed, (if it still exists) I promise you it will have killed way more people than Islam would have by the same date. Example of what i mean graph...

[ * ^
[ * ^ * = Communism (x axis is years, y is deaths)
[ * ^ ^ = Islam
[ * ^
[____________


5)Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.

heheheh okay you've got me there . . . .at least a little. But Islam has truly screwed itself both by attacking nations and by being intolerant to others. It both has intolerance itself but has also caused others to be intolerant of it. Secondly I disagree with the white australia policy and with European Colonialism and with america's (and by that im really hoping as a canadien citizen that u mean the US of A) world view. But i should agree with islam (which does a similar thing) because its a religion? or are you telling me that you do agree with those three things???
- I'm saying that the reason it is intolerant is because others are intolerant of it. Who can really say who threw the first punch in a world as crazy as ours?

6)The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.

that was just meant to lighten the mood a little but w/e

7) wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

not true it explicitly gives them license to kill any non believer. Though I guess you could classify that as defending their right to be Islamic . . . .wait no you couldn't. Also the methods of retaliation specifically said in the Qu'arn are horrendous. - That information sounds extremely media-orientated. Did you know suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam, basically as strict as it is in Christianity (suicide = hell type place), yet there are Islamic extremists who think God told them to blow themselves up... How fail can you get?

8) Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.

you missed my point if that region was entirely Celtic you would have seen the same effect (ok maybe not celtic but you get the point) and this would be doubly true if it was atheist. because(see 9) - Why the hell would athiests decide to go out of their way to collect knowledge, especially athiests of that time. And why would any other religion do that? Islam only collected that knowledge because they believed God commanded them to.

9)Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

not true (thats a misinterpretation on your part and now im really wondering if youve read the Qur'an) it tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge (and this is the important part) about the one true faith. (that part at the end? u cant just leave it out and pretend it doesnt exist.) - Yes and? I haven't read the Qur'an i've studied the religion of Islam quite extensively, though i did know about that part, i've just been in a bit of a rush (sorry), however. You realise in Islam every piece of knowledge you collect is glorifying Allah, and thus, (this i believe is very true), you never disregard anything which can be proven, you can't prove with any reliable evidence that God doesn't exist (just gonna tell you that now).

10)- and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world

as effectively as you countered what I wrote above . . . .I guess if your just gonna make statements you cant back up then of course you can and well done . . . - WELL i just countered everything there and your arguments against many of mine were quite weak because many failed to delve any deeper than the outer shell of Islam, which is swarming with unreliable information given by the media. You know i once was like you too, then i actually did a detailed analyses of Islam and what it achieved and now i see how stupid i was. You should try it sometime

Hopefully i didn't miss anything there.

Wrong, you did post this twice and, for that matter, occupied too much space. Check your posts before abandoning the forum and check yourself before pressuming to know a lot when, obviously, you know nothing but the yapper of others. Once again, to me, you're sounding biased.

ridiculously tight parameters?! my definition of evidence is that it is something linked to a legitimate justificatory practice; something that can rightfully be used to claim justification for a belief. this is not a non-standard usage of the term, and is in fact one that makes good sense - it allows us to say that there are things that are not evidence for a belief, while you must allow everything to be evidence for everything else. and that is fucking silly.

more specifically, when we say that X is evidence for Y we mean that the existence of X provides a reason to believe that Y is true. now there is an objective fact about the matter of whether Y is true, but regardless of whether it is or not, the justness of our belief that Y is true is an independently determinable fact as well. it depends on a number of factors involved in our theory of justification, but one of them that matters here is that there must be the proper sort of connection between X and Y such that the existence of X could provide reason to believe Y (given certain other justly held background beliefs and contextual facts, etc). Lacking such a connection, X does not provide a reason to believe Y, and therefore X is not evidence for Y.

Wow. What a lot of words you took to say "no, I don't have any source for my ridiculously tight parameters".

You know im going to have soo much fun with this...hopefully this can be read smoothly im in sort of a rush.

1)The Renaissance came about because knowledge was passed through by trade into Italy, the more or less starting point of the Renaissance, people saw that a very similiar religion saw knowledge as glorifying God and thus not sacriligious. This eased the view in Christianity of the time, that science was wrong and witchcraft and such.

lol yes because Islam and Christianity had such good relations. And europeans were not at all closed minded before during and after the renaissance. - no they didn't have good relations, any sane person can see that, but educated people in Europe (yes there was actually some educated people) accepted Islam for what it was doing, gathering knowledge while Europe was in the 'Dark Ages', and ignoring the whole concept of religion. (some people, yes only some, were open minded)


why the renaissance came about is very very debatable. - True, im just saying Islam had a significant impact on it, tell me do you really believe that Christians, during this period, would go and translate Greek for the text inside? I say they wouldn't because they would be instantly excommunicated from the Church for blasphemy. (im not saying Christianity had the right ideas in mind).

Looking from a "religions are the best" point of view you would say that two religions that hated each other before the renaissance and after the renaissance suddenly decided hey they migtha got something right. - You seem to think it was all the political leaders, who ignited this hate, were working together. It was the educated scholars who cooperated. If i had the time i'd quote some sources that directly explain how in, i believe, Baghdad, Christian, Islamic, Hindu and various other types of scholars were working together and sharing their various discoveries.

Personally I find this very, very, very unlikely. What I find more likely (and what I've read in most history I have read that WASNT WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM is that a a number of philosophers decided that there was more to life than the church and began to study things outside the churches domain. - There was also Christian scholars, not all Muslims hate Christians, not all Tibetian protestors hate Chinese people, not all right winged governments hate left winged governments, you should stop being so stereotyping

(btw, during the renaissance the catholic church was at its worst . . .. but somehow its followers had picked up on the ideals from a religion they knew very little about that hey knowledge is good . . . .uh huh? rally? seriously? come on. - Trade and communication works wonders, Islam like i said before, is in one of the best places possible when it comes to trade, the middle, take Constantinople for example, or Venice which access to the East enabled it to grow into a powerfulish empire.

2) incorrect that is generally a cultural thing not Islamic, It says in the Qur'an that women are equal to men.

Not true. . . .basically just false. I have read the Qur'an and there are lines in which it says for example "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228", or "Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death" or "A woman is worth one-half a man" or "All married women are forbidden unto you save those whom your right hands possess." or "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , , refuse to share their beds,beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means," basically it refers to women as property. - Two things, read this http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html and your failing to comprehend the time frame in which everything was interpreted. I'm not saying its right mind you, we should quite regularly re-read our religious texts to ensure they have been interpreted entirely correctly, yes we would get lots of debate but i see arguing for the truth sounds quite acceptable. O and i don't give a
f%&@ if you don't think my religion is the truth, we shall eventually see whom was right won't we :D


3) never heard of this so im not going to argue with you, but i say thats more modern seeing how people may be trying to escape a dictatorship or such.

Again have you actually read the Qur'an there is a whole section that talks about how any believer in the true faith who falls from that faith is to be stoned or beheaded. - interpret the time, realistically it seems quite appropriate to scare people from leaving your faith, especially when you want to expand it, not morally correct but realistically understandable.

4) Idiot is all im going to say, do your research thats just pure stupidity.

Do your research. Countless genocides back when genocide was accepted. (before, during and just after the dark ages.). The crusades (yes mostly christen but they were both at fault). The separation of India and Pakistan (brutal wars and death). Many terrorist attacks. Many attacks backed by Muslim Fanatics including those on Kuwait and the Bali Bombings. Israel and the STATED DESIRE OF MUSLIM LEADERS TO WIPE IT OFF THE MAP! and i mean kill everyone. So look into it and provide just a little evidence before you mouth off. Yes communism was bad but its been around for less than a hundred years. Same with fascism. The Muslims have been around for much much much longer and killed many many many more.
- Yes your right Islam has been around much longer, and has killed many more people overall, however, Take into consideration Communism which basically killed millions of people in as you say less than a hundred years, lets wait for another 1000 years and see how many more people it has killed, (if it still exists) I promise you it will have killed way more people than Islam would have by the same date. Example of what i mean graph...

[ * ^
[ * ^ * = Communism (x axis is years, y is deaths)
[ * ^ ^ = Islam
[ * ^
[____________


5)Islam has played a major role in intolerance towards others - lets not comment on the 'The White Australia Policy' , European Colonialism, O and lets not forget America's view on anyone not Western either.

heheheh okay you've got me there . . . .at least a little. But Islam has truly screwed itself both by attacking nations and by being intolerant to others. It both has intolerance itself but has also caused others to be intolerant of it. Secondly I disagree with the white australia policy and with European Colonialism and with america's (and by that im really hoping as a canadien citizen that u mean the US of A) world view. But i should agree with islam (which does a similar thing) because its a religion? or are you telling me that you do agree with those three things???
- I'm saying that the reason it is intolerant is because others are intolerant of it. Who can really say who threw the first punch in a world as crazy as ours?

6)The majority of Islamics just cannot Take a joke (see danish cartoons). - How is that a negative? A number of people can't take a joke. Its like if i commented on your mother or something.

that was just meant to lighten the mood a little but w/e

7) wrong only to defend their right to being Islamic and to defend their family.

not true it explicitly gives them license to kill any non believer. Though I guess you could classify that as defending their right to be Islamic . . . .wait no you couldn't. Also the methods of retaliation specifically said in the Qu'arn are horrendous. - That information sounds extremely media-orientated. Did you know suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam, basically as strict as it is in Christianity (suicide = hell type place), yet there are Islamic extremists who think God told them to blow themselves up... How fail can you get?

8) Really? Europe would have failed to get most of the Greek philosophical, scientific and mathematical texts and most Asian and Hindu knowledge, for quite a long period of time. Islam preserved knowledge, the Arabian culture did not because it was a nomad oral culture. Also you forget Islam's key position in the world, the middle.

you missed my point if that region was entirely Celtic you would have seen the same effect (ok maybe not celtic but you get the point) and this would be doubly true if it was atheist. because(see 9) - Why the hell would athiests decide to go out of their way to collect knowledge, especially athiests of that time. And why would any other religion do that? Islam only collected that knowledge because they believed God commanded them to.

9)Biggest problem in your arguemnt is that the Qur'an, tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge. In Buddhism it might be more of a hobby.

not true (thats a misinterpretation on your part and now im really wondering if youve read the Qur'an) it tells muslims to obtain and preserve knowledge (and this is the important part) about the one true faith. (that part at the end? u cant just leave it out and pretend it doesnt exist.) - Yes and? I haven't read the Qur'an i've studied the religion of Islam quite extensively, though i did know about that part, i've just been in a bit of a rush (sorry), however. You realise in Islam every piece of knowledge you collect is glorifying Allah, and thus, (this i believe is very true), you never disregard anything which can be proven, you can't prove with any reliable evidence that God doesn't exist (just gonna tell you that now).

10)- and i can counter everything you say on most religions of the world

as effectively as you countered what I wrote above . . . .I guess if your just gonna make statements you cant back up then of course you can and well done . . . - WELL i just countered everything there and your arguments against many of mine were quite weak because many failed to delve any deeper than the outer shell of Islam, which is swarming with unreliable information given by the media. You know i once was like you too, then i actually did a detailed analyses of Islam and what it achieved and now i see how stupid i was. You should try it sometime

Hopefully i didn't miss anything there and i didn't post this twice...

Gods this post is getting long . .. .ok im not sure this will be readable but I'm trying to shorten it a little.

1)I still find it extremely unlikely that it would be more blasphemous to translate from Greek than it would be to follow another religion. Yes the world opened up at that point. Yes there were SOME "a very few" educated people at that point. No I'm not saying that the middle east didn't provide new Idea's as a culture but I would disagree that it was Islam that did so. Again you've seen my argument and honestly? im not sure theres any way to prove this conclusively one way or another . . .if you can prove me wrong then go for it. As to the Idea that scholars (people educated by the various faiths) were trading Ideas . . . .I doubt it If you can back it up like you say you can then fine but whats the likelyhood of three religions that have never had good relations actually working together? And that goes doubly for Muslims and Hebrews see the splitting of India and Pakistan for a taste of what I mean by that. I said it before and ill say it again . . . .I am generalizing . . . but for this argument were looking at a massive trend. I never claimed that all of anything hate something else. I'm just saying that fear and prejudiced go a long way to stopping the trade of information. Another point there is a difference between stereotyping and generalization. Finally how many Europeans actually went to Constantinople (the answer is few btw. few could afford it, fewer wanted too and many were afraid of going. The vast majority were traders and they generally aren't considered the beginners of the renaissance.

2)I have actually read that site before and there are some things about it that bug me. First the line "They forget that women have other natural qualities in which they are superior to men, like their ability to endure pain, the ability to bear children, etc." seems to be pretty damn sexist to me me. Second it skips over quite a few of the more controversially verses. As to modern interpretation that one is harder to prove one way or another but I would say three things. First the Burka . . . . what exactly is equal about that? Second Polygamy is still practiced suggesting to me that men view women as much less worthwhile. Third is the media which I am the first to agree is incredibly biased and not reliable but even factually women have been stoned . .. . ie. put to death for various crimes for which men have never been (ie. Adultery or going out without a Burka) for that I would suggest reading the breadwinner.

3)No even recently people have been killed for Apostasy one example? Salman Rushdie was sentanced to death for Apostasy by the ruler of Iran in 1989 and only released because they claimed he was mentally deranged and therefore could not be held responsible for his Apostasy.

4) I agree completely with this point. I just really really don't think its gonna be around that much longer (fervently hope anyway)

5)Ok on this one too thats fair enough but its been around a lot long and intolerance is kinda build into the Qur'an. Either way I chose not to agree with something that intolerant for whatever reason . . .whether it be a faith an I deal or w/e else.

7) Im not talking about suicide bombings and yes the Qur'an does say that if you do such things your going to hell. I'm talking about Intifada and the fact that when one occurs civilians are a target. That it says to rape and kill women and children as a legitimate method of warfare.

8) On that one its a matter of opinion . . .I dont believe that being Islamic means a greater lust for knowledge you do . . . .fine. I'd say look at the world today and see who has collected more knowledge, who is more "modern" but thats kinda debatable on whether or not religion is at fault for that. Basically I think that anyone in that position at that time would have had the same effect and you thinks its more because of Islam. I doubt either of us can prove it conclusively one way or another but if you think you can then go for it.

9) As to that part I disagree. I have read the Qur'an and I challenge you to quote (not out of context) that all knowledge is sacred. Islam is just as close minded as many other religions. to quote "the onus is on you mate" you cant prove that anything doesn't exist . . . .its not possible and has never been done.

10) what do you call an in depth analysis. nothing I have said is based on media reports (ok one part was but I outlined that media was unreliable at best). My analysis is based on two things. I read the Qur'an then I read up on the history of Islam. You haven't read the Qur'an and I doubt you've done more than look at any history for about 5 minutes before scoffing "o there just so eurocentric and don't understand it at all". As to my going no deeper than the outer shell id say that about you. You have . . .(it looks lkike to me) gone to a very few pro-Islamic websites written by Islamics and decided yep there right and tried to base an argument on that. Fine thats ok thats your way of doing it and so be it but don't then try to claim that I haven't done my homework.

What miracle have you experienced? I missed that in the flow of posts.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775
Please forgive me if it comes across as emotional rambling. I tried to do justice to this moment but I'm no poet ;). I was prety shocked then. I still am when I recollect it.
To me, the change that I experienced was more dramatic than any burning bush or light from above easily dismissed as hallucinations.

Wow. What a lot of words you took to say "no, I don't have any source for my ridiculously tight parameters".

no thats a lot of words to say these aren't ridiculously tight parameters . . . .how do you define ridiculously tight??????? and are you actually reading what he's saying????

no thats a lot of words to say these aren't ridiculously tight parameters . . . .how do you define ridiculously tight??????? and are you actually reading what he's saying????

'ridiculously tight' When you come home from school early and find your dad dressed in his 70's trousers?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775
Please forgive me if it comes across as emotional rambling. I tried to do justice to this moment but I'm no poet ;). I was prety shocked then. I still am when I recollect it.
To me, the change that I experienced was more dramatic than any burning bush or light from above easily dismissed as hallucinations.

that sounds like you should go and get a cat scan done asap more than anything else. . . speaking of which whats your world view like if you truly believe god would invade your body to prove to you that he does actually exist while still not going through the whole . . .. you know. .. . proof thing.

'ridiculously tight' When you come home from school early and find your dad dressed in his 70's trousers?

lol i like it . . . .now try to fit it to his definition

that sounds like you should go and get a cat scan done asap more than anything else...
I would if there were any other symptoms. Three months passed without anything out of ordinary.
speaking of which whats your world view like if you truly believe god would invade your body to prove to you that he does actually exist while still not going through the whole . . .. you know. .. . proof thing.
As i stated in the post linked above, I a) wanted to believe, b) actively sought to be "invaded" like that. I just had no idea what I'm up to. But having the whole world turned upside down like that after more than 30 years as a nonbeliever is rather dramatic.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775
Please forgive me if it comes across as emotional rambling. I tried to do justice to this moment but I'm no poet ;). I was prety shocked then. I still am when I recollect it.
To me, the change that I experienced was more dramatic than any burning bush or light from above easily dismissed as hallucinations.

Uh Huh....I guess that makes sense. But it's hardly a convincing argument. Looks fun, though.

I would if there were any other symptoms. Three months passed without anything out of ordinary.

As i stated in the post linked above, I a) wanted to believe, b) actively sought to be "invaded" like that. I just had no idea what I'm up to. But having the whole world turned upside down like that after more than 30 years as a nonbeliever is rather dramatic.
cool fair enough . . . .as long as you don't try to convert me cause of it . . .. do what u wanna do

Uh Huh....I guess that makes sense. But it's hardly a convincing argument.
It's not an argument at all! Not for anyone who isn't me. I don't believe in ""faith by argument".
Looks fun, though.
From the perspective, it does. When it was happening it was anything but. Well, maybe in the way as barely surviving a violent thunderstorm at sea might be fun.
cool fair enough . . . .as long as you don't try to convert me cause of it . . .. do what u wanna do
I think the only way to "convert" someone is to just be there as a living proof that people can believe. I believe converting is His business and nothing to meddle in. And it happens only to those who are willing.

Wow. What a lot of words you took to say "no, I don't have any source for my ridiculously tight parameters".

sources don't really matter when it comes to conceptual analysis. i take it you can't find a way to object to my analysis?

but anyway, here's the oed:

evidence, n.
I. 1. The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.

b. in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous.

2. Manifestation; display. Obs.

II. That which manifests or makes evident.

3. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications.

b. In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation.

4. Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs.

5. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. Const. for, of (the thing to be proved), from, of (the source of testimony). to have evidence to say, etc.: to have good grounds for saying, etc. (For external, internal, moral, probable evidence, see these adjs.)

b. an evidence: something serving as a proof. Obs. Cf. 8.

c. Evidence or Evidences of Christianity, of the Christian Religion, or simply The Evidences.

III. Legal uses of 5.

6. Information, whether in the form of personal testimony, the language of documents, or the production of material objects, that is given in a legal investigation, to establish the fact or point in question. Also, an evidence = a piece of evidence. Phrases to bear, give in, give evidence. to call in evidence: to call as a witness. For circumstantial, parole, presumptive, primâ facie, verbal, etc. evidence, see these adjs.

b. the evidence: the testimony which in any particular cause has been received by the court and entered on its records. Similarly, to be or produce in evidence: to be a part, or to produce as a part, of the evidence before the court.

c. Statements or proofs admissible as testimony in a court of law.

7. One who furnishes testimony or proof; a witness. Sometimes collect. = ‘witnesses.’ Obs.

b. transf. A spy. Obs.

c. to turn King's (Queen's, State's) evidence (formerly also to turn evidence), said of an accomplice or sharer in a crime: to offer himself as a witness for the prosecution against the other persons implicated.

8. A document by means of which a fact is established (see quot. 1628); esp. title-deeds. (In 15-16th c. often in collective sense = ‘documents’; sometimes with a numeral, as if mistaken for an actual plural. Cf. EVIDENT.) Obs. exc. Hist. and in legal formulæ.

9. Comb.

note that all the relevant meanings given are centered around being a ground for belief - in 'making evident' 'establishing', 'manifesting', 'demonstrating', and 'tending to prove'. not "causing someone, anyone, somewhere to believe Y".

and what does the oed have to say about the clearly related term, 'evident', which occurs in the definitions of 'manifest' and 'demonstrate' and indirectly in 'establish' and 'prove' (which use 'manifest' and 'demonstrate' in their definitions)?

evident, a. and n.
A. adj.

1. a. Of physical objects: Distinctly visible; conspicuous (obs.). b. (With mixed notion of 2) of tokens, vestiges, etc., or of states or conditions: Obvious to the sight; recognizable at a glance.

2. Clear to the understanding or the judgement; obvious, plain. Const. to. (it) is evident to be...: = ‘it is evident that (it) is...’

b. Occasional uses: Having preponderating evidence. Of a remark: Obviously true. Obs.

3. Of a sign, testimony, etc.: Indubitable, certain, conclusive. Obs.

4. quasi-adv. = EVIDENTLY. Obs.

B. n. Something that serves as evidence; spec. in Sc. Law, a document proving a person's title to anything; usually in pl. title-deeds.

this is all a neat, tightly wound conceptual bundle intrinsically bound to belief justification. and not just a claim that some belief of ours is justified, but that it actually is justified by being firmly established and made clear and to have had its truth demonstrated, etc. the fact that someone claims to have done this does not necessarily mean that they really have - whether they have or not is something that we can judge, objectively, on the basis of argument.

It's not an argument at all! Not for anyone who isn't me. I don't believe in ""faith by argument".

From the perspective, it does. When it was happening it was anything but. Well, maybe in the way as barely surviving a violent thunderstorm at sea might be fun.

I think the only way to "convert" someone is to just be there as a living proof that people can believe. I believe converting is His business and nothing to meddle in. And it happens only to those who are willing.

No, it also happens to people who don't want it and are not expecting it.

No, it also happens to people who don't want it and are not expecting it.

I agree with that absolutely and completely.

While I feel certain that those who seek it will find it, I also know there are those who solidly did not believe it and it found them.

No, it also happens to people who don't want it and are not expecting it.

why does it never happen that people have religious revelations that are completely alien to their culture and knowledge of the world but that are in perfect keeping with some other culture's religion? why didn't the mayans ever convert to judaism? why weren't australian aboriginies already christians when the europeans got there? why weren't the san worshipping allah and praying towards mecca? why were there no buddhists among the inuit? no hindus in incan peru? no followers of the olympian gods in china?

why do religious experiences map so well onto geography?

I see. My parents taught us that there were three things polite company didn't discuss openly...religion, money and politics. Seems today that is all people do discuss. Though I rarely see an actual discussion, it is more like a firing range most times. :(

I can genuinely appreciate that you prefer not to discuss it. That honesty is refreshing. :)

My parents too! It's not as though I go around picking fights with people about their religion. I try to avoid it, and when it won't go away, I try to be polite. Most people seem to take the hint and leave it at that, thankfully.

Hey of course it is silly, all Gods are but differant aspects of the one God. Now here eat this *shoves God in face*:D

ACK! *chokes and swells* no, you fool! I'm allergic!! x_x

My parents taught us that there were three things polite company didn't discuss openly...religion, money and politics.

while contexts matter, not openly discussing such things leads to the impoverishment of our discourse and, frankly, loads of people holding really really stupid beliefs that they then act on to the detriment of us all (including themselves).

while contexts matter, not openly discussing such things leads to the impoverishment of our discourse and, frankly, loads of people holding really really stupid beliefs that they then act on to the detriment of us all (including themselves).

Actually the point of not discussing it (at least in my family) was that each person's religious beliefs, political affiliations, and holdings (money) was that it is no ones business. They felt (and still feel) that it is extremely rude to invade their privacy regarding those things.

Not to mention calling anothers beliefs stupid doesn't really warrant recourse does it? If they want your opinion they will give it to you. ;)

No, it also happens to people who don't want it and are not expecting it.
While I feel certain that those who seek it will find it, I also know there are those who solidly did not believe it and it found them.
I guess there is a reason for this, but I do feel for them. :(

why does it never happen that people have religious revelations that are completely alien to their culture and knowledge of the world but that are in perfect keeping with some other culture's religion?
Because no religion has a monopoly on truth? Because of this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343517&postcount=59
Everyone who has experiences someting like that has the full right to place on it any label he or she wishes. If I did not wanted to have faith, I could have rejected it anytime. It would take a lot of effort but human mind is a true wonder as far as adaptability is concerned.

Because no religion has a monopoly on truth?

clearly they pretty much all disagree, and frankly cannot all be true.

Because of this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343517&postcount=59

well, yeah, that's more like it - religious experiences are weird brain states that, in addition to randomly occurring from time to time, can be induced by any number of things

Everyone who has experiences someting like that has the full right to place on it any label he or she wishes.

no, they don't. i mean, they can call it whatever they want, but they would be wrong if they called it a hippo, for example. likewise, they would be wrong to call it god. if i can make you feel like the gods have revealed themselves to you simply by putting you in the appropriate context and giving you lsd, then it follows that this sort of experience is not in fact evidence that the gods are revealing themselves to you.

no, they don't. i mean, they can call it whatever they want, but they would be wrong if they called it a hippo, for example. likewise, they would be wrong to call it god. if i can make you feel like the gods have revealed themselves to you simply by putting you in the appropriate context and giving you lsd, then it follows that this sort of experience is not in fact evidence that the gods are revealing themselves to you.

:confused:

I think really it can only be your opinion that it isn't God, that such an experience isn't a calling from God. You want to explain it away and imply that you can recreate such an experience through a hallucinagentic. But that isn't right, that is only what you can concieve that the experience must be like. Your idea of such an experience is limited by your own experiences in life. In other words you literally cannot fathom what it is to have such a revelation, therefore you have to correlate it to something you can explain.

Do you see any presumption in the idea that man has all the answers regarding God and spirituality?

A rose by any other name is still a rose. ;)

Actually the point of not discussing it (at least in my family) was that each person's religious beliefs, political affiliations, and holdings (money) was that it is no ones business. They felt (and still feel) that it is extremely rude to invade their privacy regarding those things.

Not to mention calling anothers beliefs stupid doesn't really warrant recourse does it? If they want your opinion they will give it to you. ;)

some beliefs are stupid. you don't have to call them stupid, but we do have an obligation to each other to not hold stupid beliefs and to not simply allow others do so either. and political, religious, and economic beliefs are most certainly other people's business, since they affect so much. the actual monetary state of people's finances, less so, but that aspect of politeness has led to the ridiculous notion that nearly everyone in usia is 'middle class', which has had some rather massive negative impacts on social policy.

:confused:

I think really it can only be your opinion that it isn't God, that such an experience isn't a calling from God. You want to explain it away and imply that you can recreate such an experience through a hallucinagentic. But that isn't right, that is only what you can concieve that the experience must be like. Your idea of such an experience is limited by your own experiences in life. In other words you literally cannot fathom what it is to have such a revelation, therefore you have to correlate it to something you can explain.

no, we literally have done actual studies with religious people on this question. the experiences are described identically whether they are spontaneous or induced, knowingly or as part of a semi-blind trial.

some beliefs are stupid. you don't have to call them stupid, but we do have an obligation to each other to not hold stupid beliefs and to not simply allow others do so either. and political, religious, and economic beliefs are most certainly other people's business, since they affect so much. the actual monetary state of people's finances, less so, but that aspect of politeness has led to the ridiculous notion that nearly everyone in usia is 'middle class', which has had some rather massive negative impacts on social policy.

Nah, I don't agree with you at all. Nor do I think you want someone labeling your particular flavor of beliefs as stupid. The problem with your idea is that you are assuming your beliefs are not stupid and other people's are. A tad arrogant on your part. :p

Where did you get the idea that not discussing money gives the notion that everyone is middle class? I would be interested in how you came to connect those dots.

(Btw if you want to know where everyone is you can always check the numbers. No one has to have a 'ridiculous notion', it's public record. :p)

no, we literally have done actual studies with religious people on this question. the experiences are described identically whether they are spontaneous or induced, knowingly or as part of a semi-blind trial.


LOL, sorry had to laugh. I've experienced both and no way are they even close to the same. :p Nice try though.

LOL, sorry had to laugh. I've experienced both and no way are they even close to the same. :p Nice try though.

Ah, the old MY EXPERIANCE OUTWEIGHS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES!!!!


Your good at that arguement. Then again, you do use it a lot. Practice makes perfect.

Ah, the old MY EXPERIANCE OUTWEIGHS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES!!!!


Your good at that arguement. Then again, you do use it a lot. Practice makes perfect.

More like 'been there done that'. :p

LOL, sorry had to laugh. I've experienced both and no way are they even close to the same. :p Nice try though.

context matters - as we've already established for spontaneous religious expereinces, and as everybody knows (or should) for drug induced ones

context matters

Please explain. :confused:

if i can make you feel like the gods have revealed themselves to you simply by putting you in the appropriate context and giving you lsd, then it follows that this sort of experience is not in fact evidence that the gods are revealing themselves to you.

I did not claim 'evidence' in your sense - in fact, I even recall calling it closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.
And the example you provided doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The fact that I can make you smell oranges by inserting electrodes into your brain doesn't make oranges a hallucination.

Please explain. :confused:

a large portion of what determines what our experiences while on certain drugs are like (or when otherwise inducing a similar state of mind) has to do with the setting, the expectation, the social context, the mood, etc. shit, even the lighting matters.

doing drugs recreationally leads to similar feelings, but is not necessarily going to be subjectively treated as a mystical experience, while the same drug experience in a different setting produces precisely that mystical sense.

I did not claim 'evidence' in your sense - in fact, I even recall calling it closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.

if it is a being offered as a reason to believe something, it is being claimed to be evidence. and you went further and claimed that you know there is a god - you are explicitly claiming that your belief is both true and justified. your only justification is this experience, thus it is precisely and entirely your evidence.

but yeah, it doesn't really count as evidence because of the nature of evidence and justification.

And the example you provided doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The fact that I can make you smell oranges by inserting electrodes into your brain doesn't make oranges a hallucination.

no, it doesn't prove the opposite. never claimed it did. it does, however, contribute to the overwhelming absence of evidence despite millennia of looking, and thus contributes to my justly held belief that there is no god.

if it is a being offered as a reason to believe something, it is being claimed to be evidence.
Actually, that is not what I said. The reason I believe is that something has changed in my mind. Was that because of a microstroke? Was that because God directly meddled with my mind? Or perhaps I had a microstroke because that's what was necessary to give me faith? It doesn't matter. I wanted to believe and that's the reason I do.
You see, for me that is the beauty of faith - it really is a choice.
and you went further and claimed that you know there is a god - you are explicitly claiming that your belief is both true and justified.
Yeah, I don't know, I just believe. You are three months late with catching me on that. Bottle did it and called me a liar adding her own semantic offence :D
it does, however, contribute to the overwhelming absence of evidence despite millennia of looking, and thus contributes to my justly held belief that there is no god.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I am at a loss why such a lot of people can't return the favor. Oh, wait - perhaps that's because they know that they are right! ;)

a large portion of what determines what our experiences while on certain drugs are like (or when otherwise inducing a similar state of mind) has to do with the setting, the expectation, the social context, the mood, etc. shit, even the lighting matters.

doing drugs recreationally leads to similar feelings, but is not necessarily going to be subjectively treated as a mystical experience, while the same drug experience in a different setting produces precisely that mystical sense.

I agree with you regarding the use of drugs. All those factors play into the experience. All those factors also play into the hallucinatory stage of a fever too. Those experiences are not identical to the religious type of revelation I am talking about though.

When you say mystical sense are you talking about the feeling that the moment is surreal?

It's not just on NS, people everywhere are usually extreme in their religious views, and will therefore make stupid statements dissing other people's religious beliefs. (personally, I don't believe in a supreme being, and would really like for people to get more educated about both their own religions and others).
This pretty much sums it up:
:upyours::sniper:
:headbang::gundge:

no thats a lot of words to say these aren't ridiculously tight parameters . . . .how do you define ridiculously tight??????? and are you actually reading what he's saying????

"Evidence" is a fairly broad term. If the definition that certain people were trying to apply were a realistic definition for what evidence 'means', then the term would have almost no use to the legal system, for a start.

There is no constraint on the term 'evidence' that means it has to be empirical or objective, that says it has to support x-y-or-z supposition - or whatever the argument is that they seem to be making.

How WE judge the 'evidence' is important. What WE think it signifies and what WE cn draw from it... those are important. But almost anything can BE evidence, and it can be CLAIMED as being 'evidence' FOR almost anything.

The question then is whether it is GOOD evidence, and relevent to the thing being assessed.

sources don't really matter when it comes to conceptual analysis. i take it you can't find a way to object to my analysis?

but anyway, here's the oed:



note that all the relevant meanings given are centered around being a ground for belief - in 'making evident' 'establishing', 'manifesting', 'demonstrating', and 'tending to prove'. not "causing someone, anyone, somewhere to believe Y".

and what does the oed have to say about the clearly related term, 'evident', which occurs in the definitions of 'manifest' and 'demonstrate' and indirectly in 'establish' and 'prove' (which use 'manifest' and 'demonstrate' in their definitions)?



this is all a neat, tightly wound conceptual bundle intrinsically bound to belief justification. and not just a claim that some belief of ours is justified, but that it actually is justified by being firmly established and made clear and to have had its truth demonstrated, etc. the fact that someone claims to have done this does not necessarily mean that they really have - whether they have or not is something that we can judge, objectively, on the basis of argument.

Wow. What a lot of words you use to say "you were right and I was wrong".

"Evidence" is a fairly broad term. If the definition that certain people were trying to apply were a realistic definition for what evidence 'means', then the term would have almost no use to the legal system, for a start.

i assume you aren't addressing my definition, since mine is perfectly in keeping with the legal system's use of the term. one of the basic rules regarding the admission of something as evidence is that it must be relevant; that it could reasonably provide grounds for believing whatever point it is supposed to be linked too. you usage, on the other hand, would never hold up in court.

But almost anything can BE evidence, and it can be CLAIMED as being 'evidence' FOR almost anything.

claimed to be X ≠ is X

this is a really basic distinction, and surely you must understand that it exists and is important.

Wow. What a lot of words you use to say "you were right and I was wrong".

come on, don't go down the CH road - make a fucking argument

come on, don't go down the CH road - make a fucking argument

I don't really need to. You've done a more than adequate job of making it for me. Your sources suggest that the definition isn't nearly as proscriptive as you'd like it to be, so I really don't need to argue too much.

According to the definitions you've provided, a flower can be 'evidence' of a designing creator, and the book of Genesis can be 'evidence' for the Christian god.

Why should I mobilise the troops when you are holing your own ships?

I don't really need to. You've done a more than adequate job of making it for me. Your sources suggest that the definition isn't nearly as prosciptive as you'd like it to be, so I really don't need to argue too much.

learn to read?

the terms involved are pointedly not completely up in the air, anything goes terms. they involve making manifest, establishing, tending to prove, demonstrating. all of these terms are about a relation between X and Y being clearly revealed such that any rational being could see and understand it, not the mere fact that somebody somewhere might think there is such a connection.

According to the definitions you've provided, a flower can be 'evidence' of a designing creator, and the book of Genesis can be 'evidence' for the Christian god.

no, they don't say that at all. though one could maybe use them as such after more fully fleshing out the argument being made with them - so not the flower itself, but something about it like its beauty or complexity, combined with an additional reasonable belief that only designing creators could make such a thing or are more likely to do so or something like that.

Rolling squid;13564318']because if you know anything about it, religion is worthy of hate. The harm done by religion far outweighs any good done, and that's assuming that their is no god. According to the bible, Jehovah stacks up unfavourably to Hitler.

mostly in the old testement.
but at least he was against slavery (u know saving the jews,from the eygptions,plus god likes the jews so not that much like hitler)

mostly in the old testement.
but at least he was against slavery (u know saving the jews,from the eygptions,plus god likes the jews so not that much like hitler)

Excep for all those Bible verses that support slavery, in both the old and new testament.

Rolling squid;13564318']because if you know anything about it, religion is worthy of hate. The harm done by religion far outweighs any good done, and that's assuming that their is no god. According to the bible, Jehovah stacks up unfavourably to Hitler.

'Cause religion killed my dad.

how exactly, was he turned to salt,struck down by the angel of death,killed by the great flood, or maby he was cast into the bodies of 3 pigs and ran off a cliff?

anf if he was murderd in som stupid race riot in afganistan, then that was politics, since the taliban kill muslims just as much as christians,not religion-the wish of a dictator or group to rule the world.

sory for ur loss,by the way

Rolling squid;13564318']because if you know anything about it, religion is worthy of hate. The harm done by religion far outweighs any good done, and that's assuming that their is no god. According to the bible, Jehovah stacks up unfavourably to Hitler.

I'll tolerate beliefs which have a basis in reality, not so for religion.

while u mite be rite on a lot of the bible,exept for the following-
.the 10 plages of eygpt happend-they wer just caused by a volcano just at the same time as the jews wer praying for a mircle

.jesus existed and preached good will,love , forgivness and stoping sharhra law(wether or not he prformed miricles dosent realy matter)

. for the muslims out their-muhamed proberly existed he mite of just been a phylosofer,concurer and taght good will,or he was a phofit, watever u want.

.recent scince shows the great flood mite have happend a bit,but didnt flood all the world.

its the oldest racord of imigration and genyology in the world(wen they talk about who fatherd who and which tribes decendents make up the founding of differnt countries in n.africa and m-east.

.in genisis they hav the order in which life evoved and the universe formed,probaly just common sence that first came plants than amimals then humans-1st draft of the theory of evolution(no thanks to darwin)

now many parts may or may nor be made up,whater u belive , but u carnt say religion has no basis in fact as it was written by peolpe trying to make sence of the world and writing down wat happens around them, im not saying the nile turnded to blood but it is based on the fact that for som reason they **** explan the nile turned red.

religion just like scenince is basted on the best gess and observatons of wat is happening in the world-remember the universe did form but why did it form us if all we are is dust with a superiority conplex.

Excep for all those Bible verses that support slavery, in both the old and new testament.

in the old testement yes, as it was written when they didnt know any better, the parts that wer against slavery wer from peolpe who wernt as corrupt

in the new testement jesus seems to be a bit of a servnt himself, wasing feet.
his apostels also invited all to join them wether rich,poor,free,or slave.
as it was said, the downtroden will be uplifted and all will be free.

Is not intolerance for religion. It´s more or less a hunger for trying to understand why Christians believe so blindly. That´s all.

most religus peolpe are always trying to change their religion,u do know their is more then one religion in christianity, catholics,prodies,bapies and a hole lot more. their are difernt groups coz we dont just follow blindly,we qustion our belifs,say 'that rubish,i dont belive he did that' then we split off, form our own church and use the idears we came up with.

even the muslims are trying to change their religions, many of them want to scap sharhara law, give women the same freedoms as men.

how do we follow blindly when we always question our own belifs and do wat we want. do u honestly belive that all catholic MPs will vote against the embyow bill?

while u mite be rite on a lot of the bible,exept for the following-
.the 10 plages of eygpt happend-they wer just caused by a volcano just at the same time as the jews wer praying for a mircle

.jesus existed and preached good will,love , forgivness and stoping sharhra law(wether or not he prformed miricles dosent realy matter)

. for the muslims out their-muhamed proberly existed he mite of just been a phylosofer,concurer and taght good will,or he was a phofit, watever u want.

.recent scince shows the great flood mite have happend a bit,but didnt flood all the world.

its the oldest racord of imigration and genyology in the world(wen they talk about who fatherd who and which tribes decendents make up the founding of differnt countries in n.africa and m-east.

.in genisis they hav the order in which life evoved and the universe formed,probaly just common sence that first came plants than amimals then humans-1st draft of the theory of evolution(no thanks to darwin)

now many parts may or may nor be made up,whater u belive , but u carnt say religion has no basis in fact as it was written by peolpe trying to make sence of the world and writing down wat happens around them, im not saying the nile turnded to blood but it is based on the fact that for som reason they **** explan the nile turned red.

religion just like scenince is basted on the best gess and observatons of wat is happening in the world-remember the universe did form but why did it form us if all we are is dust with a superiority conplex.
as a bad spelled myself, i find your affectation unconvincing... you misspell too many words and do it inconsistantly. you spell certain phrases at the end properly but butcher a far larger percentage in the beginning. it all says to me, an intentional and somewhat overstated attempt to create a character whose spelling skills are signifigantly more remedial than your own.

while u mite be rite on a lot of the bible,exept for the following-
.the 10 plages of eygpt happend-they wer just caused by a volcano just at the same time as the jews wer praying for a mircle people have said they were possible for many reasons. the valcano was the reason list for them being able to cross the reed sea (not red sea. that is how it is explained. typo) and all though explanations require that you ignore that there is no evidance for a mass exodus of jewish slaves (or and slaves as far as I know) left eygpt in the first place.

.jesus existed and preached good will,love , forgivness and stoping sharhra law(wether or not he prformed miricles dosent realy matter)

He also said that you should not ignore the old laws (which were rather violent) and that he was not here to bring peace, but the sword.

. for the muslims out their-muhamed proberly existed he mite of just been a phylosofer,concurer and taght good will,or he was a phofit, watever u want. Don't know much about the muslim religion as it is not a major one around, so I have not learned much about it.

.recent scince shows the great flood mite have happend a bit,but didnt flood all the world.

Link. seriously. the most I heard on this is that it comes from sumerian(sp?) legend or was more than likely the higher than usual flooding of a river or a combination. either way the "flood story" has been around a lot longer than christianity.

its the oldest racord of imigration and genyology in the world(wen they talk about who fatherd who and which tribes decendents make up the founding of differnt countries in n.africa and m-east.

If the bible is shown to be a mishmash of stories and fiction how reliable is a geneology?

.in genisis they hav the order in which life evoved and the universe formed,probaly just common sence that first came plants than amimals then humans-1st draft of the theory of evolution(no thanks to darwin)

Evolution explains how life grew, not how it started. some people have no problem merging it and religion. other do, on both sides. Just don't try claiming God belongs in a Science class. Let him stay in Sociology(social studies, whatever the class is call where you are) with Odin.

now many parts may or may nor be made up,whater u belive , but u carnt say religion has no basis in fact as it was written by peolpe trying to make sence of the world and writing down wat happens around them, im not saying the nile turnded to blood but it is based on the fact that for som reason they **** explan the nile turned red.

see above

religion just like scenince is basted on the best gess and observatons of wat is happening in the world-remember the universe did form but why did it form us if all we are is dust with a superiority conplex.

Religion helps fill in the gaps of what we cannot see. Science fill in the gaps with what we can.

He also said that you should not ignore the old laws (which were rather violent) and that he was not here to bring peace, but the sword.


Wherever the heck in the Bible is that?

I'm actually curious, not saying he never actually said that.

Wherever the heck in the Bible is that?

I'm actually curious, not saying he never actually said that.

which one? I have this one off hand (had to find it a few days ago):
Passage Matthew 5:17-19:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


the other I need to go hunt down.

edit: found it:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I did not claim 'evidence' in your sense - in fact, I even recall calling it closest thing to the incontrovertible evidence that would render the whole faith thing null and void.
And the example you provided doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The fact that I can make you smell oranges by inserting electrodes into your brain doesn't make oranges a hallucination.
no but it makes the smell of oranges a hallucination

people have said they were possible for many reasons. the valcano was the reason list for them being able to cross the reed sea (not red sea. that is how it is explained. typo) and all though explanations require that you ignore that there is no evidance for a mass exodus of jewish slaves (or and slaves as far as I know) left eygpt in the first place.



He also said that you should not ignore the old laws (which were rather violent) and that he was not here to bring peace, but the sword.

Don't know much about the muslim religion as it is not a major one around, so I have not learned much about it.



Link. seriously. the most I heard on this is that it comes from sumerian(sp?) legend or was more than likely the higher than usual flooding of a river or a combination. either way the "flood story" has been around a lot longer than christianity.



If the bible is shown to be a mishmash of stories and fiction how reliable is a geneology?



Evolution explains how life grew, not how it started. some people have no problem merging it and religion. other do, on both sides. Just don't try claiming God belongs in a Science class. Let him stay in Sociology(social studies, whatever the class is call where you are) with Odin.



see above



Religion helps fill in the gaps of what we cannot see. Science fill in the gaps with what we can.

Nicely said on the whole post. Personally though I'd say religions might more belong in the history class . . . .that'd be nice.

Nicely said on the whole post. Personally though I'd say religions might more belong in the history class . . . .that'd be nice.

*shrug* either one works. I always thought of Social Studies as a history class for culture, while actual history classes were about the events the were shaper of or shaped by the culture.

Sorry about posting that twice before, i checked in after i posted it and it wasn't there, obviously there was just a delay.

And for the sake of the website not becoming overloaded with our ever extending argument, lets just say both our views are understandable yet it is too difficult to determine whom is correct, im getting tired of arguing on the internet and i'm going on holidays, thus no internet to argue on either.

O and i may not have read the Qur'an, but i have gone out of my way to find quotes from it, and i have actually heavily studied Ancient Islam(and modern Islam to a lesser extent), ironically in a subject of mine, and i have not just gone to pro-Islamic sites, because they are obviously biased and any Historian knows to argue a point you need to have knowledge from both sides of the fence. Like i said before most of the stuff you said i have heard so many times before from the media, you may not realise it but most modern media corrupts us. Everything you have said is Eurocentric there is no denying that, however, thats alright, there your views and i probably can't change them. Finally, discrediting my argument with lies and propoganda about me is what politicians do, hopefully your not a politician.

Please don't argue anything else here ill p'm you my email address and if you would like you can continue the argument there.

*shrug* either one works. I always thought of Social Studies as a history class for culture, while actual history classes were about the events the were shaper of or shaped by the culture.
ya agreed

Sorry about posting that twice before, i checked in after i posted it and it wasn't there, obviously there was just a delay.

And for the sake of the website not becoming overloaded with our ever extending argument, lets just say both our views are understandable yet it is too difficult to determine whom is correct, im getting tired of arguing on the internet and i'm going on holidays, thus no internet to argue on either.

O and i may not have read the Qur'an, but i have gone out of my way to find quotes from it, and i have actually heavily studied Ancient Islam(and modern Islam to a lesser extent), ironically in a subject of mine, and i have not just gone to pro-Islamic sites, because they are obviously biased and any Historian knows to argue a point you need to have knowledge from both sides of the fence. Like i said before most of the stuff you said i have heard so many times before from the media, you may not realise it but most modern media corrupts us. Everything you have said is Eurocentric there is no denying that, however, thats alright, there your views and i probably can't change them. Finally, discrediting my argument with lies and propoganda about me is what politicians do, hopefully your not a politician.

Please don't argue anything else here ill p'm you my email address and if you would like you can continue the argument there.
o I haven't discredited your ideas in that way have I???? if I have I apologize and I have no doubt that I came into my studies from a biased point of view. I agree completely with your first point as well and would be interested in continuing the discussions by email if you are . . . .but only if your interested . .. .if so tg me with it. Finally as to being Eurocentric. . . .hell I probably am . .. I don't see myself that way but w/e I don't think that that point alone invalidates my views though anyway disscusion will continuew later if your interested and in another venue.

no, we literally have done actual studies with religious people on this question. the experiences are described identically whether they are spontaneous or induced, knowingly or as part of a semi-blind trial.

Just out of curiosity, how did the subjects spontaneously produce the experience for the trial?

which one? I have this one off hand (had to find it a few days ago):
Passage Matthew 5:17-19:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


the other I need to go hunt down.

edit: found it:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


But then there is this ;)

Hebrews 8:7-13

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Also check out:


Jeremiah 31:31–34; Luke 22:20; 2Cor 2–3

Most of Christianity believes the new covenant displaced the vast majority of Mosaic law.:)

More like 'been there done that'. :p

Or, "been there, got done by that"

frankly cannot all be true.

While simultaneously, all CAN be false.

On NSG, however, people gather to discuss subjects they disagree on.
Yay!
I mean, NO!
I mean ... rgh, shut up, that's why!

Just out of curiosity, how did the subjects spontaneously produce the experience for the trial?

since the spontaneous experiences are spontaneous, we must rely on experiencers descriptions of their experiences. of course, we have to rely on that for the subjective component of the induced subjects experiences as well, so it's not really an issue.

Most of Christianity believes the new covenant displaced the vast majority of Mosaic law.:)

And there are historical reasons for that, not scriptural.


Paul, being the good little salesmen that he was (it being is former job) realized that not eating pork and shellfish and adult male circumsition would make the new religion hard to sell.


So he started preaching that they were abolished.

But then there is this ;)

Hebrews 8:7-13

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Also check out:


Jeremiah 31:31–34; Luke 22:20; 2Cor 2–3

So which is it? continue to follow the old or forget it? since apologists think that there are no contradictions just "clarifications" it seems that the new deal isn't supposed to take affect until "everything is accomplished" which depending on who you talk to could mean anything from his death to the end times.

Most of Christianity believes the new covenant displaced the vast majority of Mosaic law.:)

A great many (don't know if it is the majority, I doubt it is) believe in the Rapture which, as far as I know, is not a biblical idea is the since that it is from the bible, but a biblical idea from a preacher.


edit part 2 (non-spelling error): I am not calling you an apologist, it just goes to multiple interpretations making the "word of god" the "ideas of man"

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.
I guess most people who'd select religion as the target for their hatred, right or wrong, would likely define themselves as atheists. Seems a bit chicken-and-egg to me, that one.

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.

...I take great offense at that insinuation.

I guess most people who'd select religion as the target for their hatred, right or wrong, would likely define themselves as atheists. Seems a bit chicken-and-egg to me, that one.

bullshit. most hatred towards religion comes from other religions. Anyway Atheists dont (I have found and very generally speaking here) actually hate religion. They just either find it ludicrous or dislike what it does to people.

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.

Yeah. We atheists are all incredibly shallow.

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.

:rolleyes:



Tell us more about the athiest-muslim-mexican-anti american conspirecy.

The problem is too many blend politics and religion together. They see a radical political nation do something in the name of religion and they think that is what is what the religion stands for. Islam is the finest example of this

The problem is too many blend politics and religion together. They see a radical political nation do something in the name of religion and they think that is what is what the religion stands for. Islam is the finest example of this

Yes but Thats why separation of religion and state is a very very good thing. When religions run countries BAD THINGS HAPPEN

...I take great offense at that insinuation.

As well you should, that's Kontor's evident intent - to wound people for not believing what s/he believes.

The problem is too many blend politics and religion together. They see a radical political nation do something in the name of religion and they think that is what is what the religion stands for. Islam is the finest example of thisWell, that's the way the abrahamic religions are designed. There is not supposed to be a division between religion, i.e. the complete submission to the Jewish deity, and all the other aspects of life.

:rolleyes:



Tell us more about the athiest-muslim-mexican-anti american conspirecy.

Doesn't s/he have a blog or something? Or at least, a link to the people who tell him/her what to think?

...I take great offense at that insinuation.

I agree.

As well you should, that's Kontor's evident intent - to wound people for not believing what s/he believes.

Keep on guessing. You'll get it right one of these days. ;)

Keep on guessing. You'll get it right one of these days. ;)

Speaking of guessing ... which Bob are you next to?
http://chaddarnell.typepad.com/runchadrun2/images/2007/07/13/bob_3.jpg

or

http://x2b.xanga.com/c00b462a4243340845442/b27837569.jpg

?

snip.

Ignorance makes my brain hurt.

Because some people need a focal point for their hatred, and for many atheists religion does just fine.
Which is why the overwhelming majority of religious wars are between atheists and religious people, right?

...Oh wait.

Which is why the overwhelming majority of religious wars are between atheists and religious people, right?

...Oh wait.

Maybe the world needs an atheist jihad?

learn to read?


Laugh? I nearly shat.

You posted sources to support your point that don't support your point.

Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

Laugh? I nearly shat.

You posted sources to support your point that don't support your point.

Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

i'm not convinced you even know what my point is if you think i "posted sources to support my point that don't". it's either that or you are seeing what you want see.

of course, given your stated standard of evidence, i suppose that must technically 'work' for you, despite it being stupid and wrong. but just as obviously, by your standard of evidence, you must think that my posted oed definitions are in fact evidence for my position - and you must therefore accept them as a totally valid contribution to the debate even if they really did directly contradict what i was saying. you have no legitimate means to distinguish between these positions.

Well, that's the way the abrahamic religions are designed. There is not supposed to be a division between religion, i.e. the complete submission to the Jewish deity, and all the other aspects of life.

Wow. Every day you impress me more with your near complete ignorance of that whichj you profess to disagree with. Out of all the world religions, the Abrahamic ones have the most separation between the sacred and the profane. For example, the rituals associated with the Jewish Sabbath are made to explicitly separate the sacred day from all the other non sacred days of the week. Compare this with the animism of Plains Indians, where there are no sacred rituals simply because all rituals are considered to be sacred.

UB, there are many problems with the Abrahamic traditions. Please try to criticise them correctly at least.

Is not intolerance for religion. It´s more or less a hunger for trying to understand why Christians believe so blindly. That´s all.

But if you had complete proof of the existence of God, would that really be faith ?

But if you had complete proof of the existence of God, would that really be faith ?

does it matter? faith isn't a virtue.

But if you had complete proof of the existence of God, would that really be faith ?

Nope, faith is faith. Complete proof of the existence of God is just that, proof. Perhaps it's better if we don't find any right now, right?:p

does it matter? faith isn't a virtue.

More of a vice it seems.

More of a vice it seems.

I like to think of it as a necessary evil.

I like to think of it as a necessary evil.

I like that.:D

I like to think of it as a necessary evil.

depending on how we define it, i'll give you an occasionally unavoidable problem that occurs due to our epistemic lot in life.

POPE CAT SAYS:
Im in ur mindz, eating ur brainz!!
http://www.bernieandjay.us/images/symie%20pope.jpg

But if you had complete proof of the existence of God, would that really be faith ?

No, it certainly wouldn't.

But I'd take that a step further by saying that even if there IS proof (And I'd argue that there is) then it would be interpreted to mean ANYTHING but that there's a God by those who simply don't want to believe it.

Human behavior is an interesting thing, sometimes contradictory, and one thing I've come to realize is that evidence has very little to do with why people believe what they do.

But I'd take that a step further by saying that even if there IS proof (And I'd argue that there is) then it would be interpreted to mean ANYTHING but that there's a God by those who simply don't want to believe it.

What would your proof of god be?

No, it certainly wouldn't.

But I'd take that a step further by saying that even if there IS proof (And I'd argue that there is) then it would be interpreted to mean ANYTHING but that there's a God by those who simply don't want to believe it.

Human behavior is an interesting thing, sometimes contradictory, and one thing I've come to realize is that evidence has very little to do with why people believe what they do.

Or, looking at it another way, if there were solid proof of God's existance say, for example, he got tired of the bickering and just appeared... it would be completely denied by some believers who simply wouldn't be able to accept that God was not their version of God.

*shrug* people is people no matter what they believe.

DO YOU KNOW GUYS!?! Raptor Jesus went extinct for YOUR sins!

But I'd take that a step further by saying that even if there IS proof (And I'd argue that there is) then it would be interpreted to mean ANYTHING but that there's a God by those who simply don't want to believe it.

In answer to the OP: ^^this kind of bullshit is a big reason I hate religion.

i'm not convinced you even know what my point is if you think i "posted sources to support my point that don't". it's either that or you are seeing what you want see.

of course, given your stated standard of evidence, i suppose that must technically 'work' for you, despite it being stupid and wrong. but just as obviously, by your standard of evidence, you must think that my posted oed definitions are in fact evidence for my position - and you must therefore accept them as a totally valid contribution to the debate even if they really did directly contradict what i was saying. you have no legitimate means to distinguish between these positions.

Eh?

Sorry - I really can't understand your convoluted response here. Blame the tiredness from a long week, maybe. Blame the wine. Personally, I am tempted to think this was just pretty incomprehensible, of course.

You seem to think that 'evidence' has some ridiculously tight definition, and you trotted out a source, when I asked you, that was supposed to back that up. But - well, it just doesn't. I say that your source allows for the book of Genesis as 'evidence' of the existence of God (which, of course, it is - even if it is neither empirical, nor objective... nor even verifiable), and you can't seem to pursuade your source to argue against that. And - of course you can't - the source doesn't agree with your tight delineations.

Show me any event that cannot be explained by physics. Until then, by construction everything you claim as evidence is explained purely by physics, and the god hypothesis gets its throat slashed by Occam's razor.

Soviets: your actual point is irrelevant - the conclusion that the source does not support a purpoted point in itself has no implication that you were the bearer of said point but inter alia presupposing you do exhibit ibid that said source is of no utility for you and thus arguing for it reverts fait accompli to the initial state of unevidenced. Incomprehensible and meaningful.

Show me any event that cannot be explained by physics. Until then, by construction everything you claim as evidence is explained purely by physics, and the god hypothesis gets its throat slashed by Occam's razor.

Soviets: your actual point is irrelevant - the conclusion that the source does not support a purpoted point in itself has no implication that you were the bearer of said point but inter alia presupposing you do exhibit ibid that said source is of no utility for you and thus arguing for it reverts fait accompli to the initial state of unevidenced. Incomprehensible and meaningful.

Head. burst. see the mess.

Eh?

if everything is evidence for everything else, then you cannot demonstrate that my evidence isn't.

You seem to think that 'evidence' has some ridiculously tight definition, and you trotted out a source, when I asked you, that was supposed to back that up. But - well, it just doesn't. I say that your source allows for the book of Genesis as 'evidence' of the existence of God (which, of course, it is - even if it is neither empirical, nor objective... nor even verifiable), and you can't seem to pursuade your source to argue against that. And - of course you can't - the source doesn't agree with your tight delineations.

the relevant definitions for evidence were:

That which manifests or makes evident.
Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.
Information...that is given...to establish the fact or point in question
An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace.

the only one that even vaguely supports you is the last of these, and that is only because you are playing with some ambiguity in the phrase 'may be drawn'. but your reading of that ambiguity is not in keeping with the rest of the definitional terms surrounding 'evidence'. so lets go through them:

to manifest something is to make that thing "evident to the eye or to the understanding; to show plainly, disclose, reveal" and to "prove, attest". your usage implies that every crazy imaginary relation is manifest provided somebody somewhere thinks it is. no hint of 'the understanding', just a retreat to whatever somebody somewhere thinks.

to make something evident is to make it "obvious to the sight; recognizable at a glance" and "clear to the understanding or the judgment; obvious, plain". your usage requires us to not talk about the understanding or judgment in the abstract and normative sense in which they are employed here, but on a completely individual level such that a person who thinks herself napoleon evidently is. you can't even allow talk of obviousness and recognizability.

'a ground for a belief' is a valid reason or justification for holding that belief. the distinction here is between beliefs which we have grounds for and beliefs which we do not. your idea of evidence implies that there is no such thing as a groundless belief. all beliefs would be grounded.

i assume you aren't going to dispute the obviously objective nature of proving, right?

to establish something is to "render stable or firm" and to "set up on a secure or permanent basis" and particularly to "place beyond dispute; to prove (a proposition, claim, accusation)". your usage, of course, places everything beyond dispute, though it most certainly contains no hint of proof or stability.

as for drawing inferences, from a given set of facts some inferences may be drawn and some may not. this is a normative statement, not a psychological one. inferences, after all, are the results of inferring. And to infer is to "derive by a process of reasoning, whether inductive or deductive, from something known or assumed; to accept from evidence or premises; to deduce, conclude" and to "draw a conclusion or inference; to reason from one thing to another". if you reason poorly, your inferences are wrong and your alleged evidence for those inferences isn't evidence at all.

if everything is evidence for everything else, then you cannot demonstrate that my evidence isn't.



the relevant definitions for evidence were:



the only one that even vaguely supports you is the last of these, and that is only because you are playing with some ambiguity in the phrase 'may be drawn'. but your reading of that ambiguity is not in keeping with the rest of the definitional terms surrounding 'evidence'. so lets go through them:

to manifest something is to make that thing "evident to the eye or to the understanding; to show plainly, disclose, reveal" and to "prove, attest". your usage implies that every crazy imaginary relation is manifest provided somebody somewhere thinks it is. no hint of 'the understanding', just a retreat to whatever somebody somewhere thinks.

to make something evident is to make it "obvious to the sight; recognizable at a glance" and "clear to the understanding or the judgment; obvious, plain". your usage requires us to not talk about the understanding or judgment in the abstract and normative sense in which they are employed here, but on a completely individual level such that a person who thinks herself napoleon evidently is. you can't even allow talk of obviousness and recognizability.

'a ground for a belief' is a valid reason or justification for holding that belief. the distinction here is between beliefs which we have grounds for and beliefs which we do not. your idea of evidence implies that there is no such thing as a groundless belief. all beliefs would be grounded.

i assume you aren't going to dispute the obviously objective nature of proving, right?

to establish something is to "render stable or firm" and to "set up on a secure or permanent basis" and particularly to "place beyond dispute; to prove (a proposition, claim, accusation)". your usage, of course, places everything beyond dispute, though it most certainly contains no hint of proof or stability.

as for drawing inferences, from a given set of facts some inferences may be drawn and some may not. this is a normative statement, not a psychological one. inferences, after all, are the results of inferring. And to infer is to "derive by a process of reasoning, whether inductive or deductive, from something known or assumed; to accept from evidence or premises; to deduce, conclude" and to "draw a conclusion or inference; to reason from one thing to another". if you reason poorly, your inferences are wrong and your alleged evidence for those inferences isn't evidence at all.

You're wasting my time. The fact that you don't understand what, for example, "ground for belief" means, makes this whole discussion worthless.

It' okay - the beauty of something that IS objective, is that it is still true, even if you don't 'get it'.

You're wasting my time.

the feeling is mutual, though more so on my side, since i put some actual thought into my position.

The fact that you don't understand what, for example, "ground for belief" means, makes this whole discussion worthless.

is it possible for someone to not have grounds for a belief in your system? are there such things as groundless beliefs?

the feeling is mutual, though more so on my side, since i put some actual thought into my position.


On the contrary, you rote repeated a definition without even consuidering how it applied to the case.

If you'd really thought about it... you'd have agreed with me. QED.


is it possible for someone to not have grounds for a belief in your system? are there such things as groundless beliefs?

Only if one doesn't consider them to have any 'evidence'....?

Only if one doesn't consider them to have any 'evidence'....?

so no.

then how do you explain the existence of the phrase?
and what do you make of the definition of the phrase - "without a basis in reason or fact"?

Hey guys what's up

I really want to ruin this thread. :)

No, it certainly wouldn't.

But I'd take that a step further by saying that even if there IS proof (And I'd argue that there is) then it would be interpreted to mean ANYTHING but that there's a God by those who simply don't want to believe it.

Human behavior is an interesting thing, sometimes contradictory, and one thing I've come to realize is that evidence has very little to do with why people believe what they do.

how would you offer proof that there is a god exactly? And evidence only has very little to do with what one believes if the subjects your talking about are politics or religion. otherwise evidence is usually practically all that matters.

You're wasting my time. The fact that you don't understand what, for example, "ground for belief" means, makes this whole discussion worthless.

It' okay - the beauty of something that IS objective, is that it is still true, even if you don't 'get it'.
nothing is objective

nothing is objective

Heh would that be an objective truth you have just uttered?

first we cant actually know anything....now we have to accept things as evidence just because someone says it is?


no wonder religion is still around.

Show me any event that cannot be explained by physics. Until then, by construction everything you claim as evidence is explained purely by physics, and the god hypothesis gets its throat slashed by Occam's razor.


There's plenty of events not actually explained by physics. The usual argument is just that we haven't found out how it works yet. Also, they're not proof for any single God, since all unexplainable events may be the work of some other deity.

Heh would that be an objective truth you have just uttered?

lol of course my beliefs ARE the truth lmao
honestly though nope its not its just what i believe.

There's plenty of events not actually explained by physics. The usual argument is just that we haven't found out how it works yet. Also, they're not proof for any single God, since all unexplainable events may be the work of some other deity.

ok so mention one event I cant explain with physics or at least give a rational idea for why it happend. ANything anything at all . . . come on u cant just make a statment like that and NOT BACK IT UP. Its that kind of thing that answers the question this thread is asking

ok so mention one event I cant explain with physics or at least give a rational idea for why it happend. ANything anything at all . . . come on u cant just make a statment like that and NOT BACK IT UP. Its that kind of thing that answers the question this thread is asking

Can you explain why I lost my sunglasses yesterday?

Can you explain why my kids think being attacked by their grandmother is hilarious?

Or if you want to stick to physics, can you explain the exact shape of an electron?

Can you explain why I lost my sunglasses yesterday?

Can you explain why my kids think being attacked by their grandmother is hilarious?

Or if you want to stick to physics, can you explain the exact shape of an electron?

1)cause ur forgetful
2)because kids have an odd sense of humor (anyway im sure not all of them do)
3)probably spherical due to the fact that the electric force from and electron acts equally in all directions

1)cause ur forgetful
2)because kids have an odd sense of humor (anyway im sure not all of them do)
3)probably spherical due to the fact that the electric force from and electron acts equally in all directions

1) is not an explanation by physics.
2) isn't either.
3) is wrong and shows a lack of understanding about physics.

So that's three things that you can not explain by physics.

Can you explain why I lost my sunglasses yesterday?

Can you explain why my kids think being attacked by their grandmother is hilarious?

1 and 2 are answerable by biology. The first is down to neuroscience, the second is probably due to a conflict between rationality and instincts: the instincts tell them to be afraid of the 'attack' but their rational mind tells them that they're in no danger, and the conflict results in hilarity. It's the same mechanism behind tickling someone.

EDIT: W00t! 666 posts on a thread about religion! :p

1) is not an explanation by physics.
2) isn't either.
3) is wrong and shows a lack of understanding about physics.

So that's three things that you can not explain by physics.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/wrong-mike.jpg

ok so mention one event I cant explain with physics or at least give a rational idea for why it happend. ANything anything at all . . . come on u cant just make a statment like that and NOT BACK IT UP. Its that kind of thing that answers the question this thread is asking

Rationality =/= physics. Physics are, if I remember correctly, an explanation of how the physical world functions.

They don't yet explain all events or phenomenons that don't fall into that category. Your other question has been answered already I think.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/wrong-mike.jpg

So, what exactly did I get wrong?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/wrong-mike.jpg

ROFLMAO!

1) is not an explanation by physics.
2) isn't either.
3) is wrong and shows a lack of understanding about physics.

So that's three things that you can not explain by physics.

ok so the top two your right on but that doesnt mean god made you forget ur glasses. second I was responding to a post saying that there were many things that could not be explained by physics and therefore there must be a god. sorry i shoulda said things that can be rationally explained.
As to number three . . . .if an electron was not spherical then it would not produce a spherical magnetic field (square magnets form elliptical charges for example. . . . how is that wrong?

Rationality =/= physics. Physics are, if I remember correctly, an explanation of how the physical world functions.

They don't yet explain all events or phenomenons that don't fall into that category. Your other question has been answered already I think.

yes sorry I was responding to a guy who claimed that "because many events cannot be explained by physics there must be a god" and i used his language. . . . .i should have said rational my bad

... Physics are, if I remember correctly, an explanation of how the physical world functions. They don't yet explain all events or phenomena that don't fall into that category....There are no phenomena that do not happen in the physical world.
If they did no human would know about them, so they would not be an issue of discussion. However it may be, if it exists at all then metaphysics is out of human scope of experience. So all the ideas about god are pointless, empty and vain.

There are no phenomena that do not happen in the physical world.

Cute.

Now prove it. :D

Show me any event that cannot be explained by physics.
Well, for a start, we (by which I mean scientists and philosophers) are still having a hard time explaining all aspects of human thinking and emotion via physics. The problem of qualia (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) remains a large one.

Cute.

Now prove it. :DThat's easy. The physical world encompasses everything. There is nothing outside of it (because there is no outside). So if anything manifests itself in a manner that is detectable by humans, it is part of the physical world. If a god talks to a human, it is part of the physical world.

Well, for a start, we (by which I mean scientists and philosophers) are still having a hard time explaining all aspects of human thinking and emotion via physics. The problem of qualia (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) remains a large one.
wtf? thinking (which includes emotion) is only the software running in the brains and is based on chemical processes (which is a detail of physics). there is not a whole lot to explain there.

That's easy. The physical world encompasses everything.


Cute. AND circular.

Everything is physical because everything is physical. The universe can be defined within those terms because I have defined it within those terms.

That's not a proof - that's your assumption, and exactly what I was asking you to 'prove'.

Fail.


There is nothing outside of it (because there is no outside). So if anything manifests itself in a manner that is detectable by humans, it is part of the physical world. If a god talks to a human, it is part of the physical world.

Okay. Prove it. What is it that assures you that there is no way for humans to 'detect' something that is NOT of the physical world? WIth their actual physical ears or eyes... maybe... but those are our PHYSICAL senses. How can you be assured there are no 'non-physical' senses?

wtf? thinking (which includes emotion) is only the software running in the brains and is based on chemical processes (which is a detail of physics). there is not a whole lot to explain there.
:D Quite a claim!

You’ve got a couple of problems there though. Firstly, you’re limiting thinking and emotion only to brains that are physically identical to humans. In effect, you’re saying that thinking is the chemical processes of the homo sapiens, and that any other brain that is not physically the same as a human one cannot be capable of thinking. A rather problematic position if one considers non-human minds.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you’re ignoring qualia; how it is to feel sad, to feel queasiness, to experience love. It would seem to me to be utterly foolish to deny that we directly feel these phenomenal mental states, yet there are, AFAIK, no corresponding brain states. Reducing our experiences to chemical signals (although these signals certainly are important in some way) ignores the very presence of qualia.

Cute. AND circular.

Everything is physical because everything is physical. The universe can be defined within those terms because I have defined it within those terms.

That's not a proof - that's your assumption, and exactly what I was asking you to 'prove'.

Fail.Hmm. How do I prove the existence of the universe?


Okay. Prove it. What is it that assures you that there is no way for humans to 'detect' something that is NOT of the physical world? WIth their actual physical ears or eyes... maybe... but those are our PHYSICAL senses. How can you be assured there are no 'non-physical' senses?There is no reason to assume that there is anything non-physical. To start out from such an assumption, there ought to be hints suggesting thus, but there are none.

Hmm. How do I prove the existence of the universe?


Shifting the burden?

Dude - this is your little scenario, you made the claim.

And frankly, if you think you can make claims about something you now seem to imply you can't even verify the existence of? Well - my hopes aren't high.


There is no reason to assume that there is anything non-physical. To start out from such an assumption, there ought to be hints suggesting thus, but there are none.

Utter wank.

Dreams are a 'reason' to assume there is something non-physical. You're really bad at this.

Shifting the burden?

Dude - this is your little scenario, you made the claim.

And frankly, if you think you can make claims about something you now seem to imply you can't even verify the existence of? Well - my hopes aren't high.I am shifting no burden at all. The universe obviously exists. But if you claim that there is something metaphysical like god in it then there must be something that permeates the universe's space and time. And if you cannot tell me what that would be in the first place there is no reason to assume the existence of such an entity as god. The absence of any hint, evidence, or proof for the metaphysical is sufficient proof for its absence.

Dreams are a 'reason' to assume there is something non-physical.Not at all. Dreams have no connection to anything outside one's mind. They are just neural action inside a brain.

Well, for a start, we (by which I mean scientists and philosophers) are still having a hard time explaining all aspects of human thinking and emotion via physics. The problem of qualia (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) remains a large one.

Saying 'we can't currently explain X with science' is a very different statement from saying 'we will never be able to explain X with science.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you’re ignoring qualia; how it is to feel sad, to feel queasiness, to experience love. It would seem to me to be utterly foolish to deny that we directly feel these phenomenal mental states, yet there are, AFAIK, no corresponding brain states. Reducing our experiences to chemical signals (although these signals certainly are important in some way) ignores the very presence of qualia.

But there are corresponding brain states: feelings can be induced by altering brain chemistry. To quote Wikipedia's article on the drug Ecstasy (bold mine):

The drug is well known for its tendency to produce feelings of euphoria, a strong sense of intimacy with others, diminished feelings of fear and anxiety, and pronounced overall civility, and is commonly associated with the rave culture and its related genres of music.

This is a very strong argument for feelings being reducable to a material level.

Cute. AND circular.

Everything is physical because everything is physical. The universe can be defined within those terms because I have defined it within those terms.

That's not a proof - that's your assumption, and exactly what I was asking you to 'prove'.

Fail.



Okay. Prove it. What is it that assures you that there is no way for humans to 'detect' something that is NOT of the physical world? WIth their actual physical ears or eyes... maybe... but those are our PHYSICAL senses. How can you be assured there are no 'non-physical' senses?

You cannot prove the Disexistence (yes I made up a word) of something. Theres no way. I can say that there is a tiny little green furry monster too small to be able to be seen by our satellites orbiting around Jupiter and theres no way to disprove that. Its just very very very unlikely as is the existence of non physical sense. The Onus is on YOU to prove that these senses exist.

:D Quite a claim!

You’ve got a couple of problems there though. Firstly, you’re limiting thinking and emotion only to brains that are physically identical to humans. In effect, you’re saying that thinking is the chemical processes of the homo sapiens, and that any other brain that is not physically the same as a human one cannot be capable of thinking. A rather problematic position if one considers non-human minds.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you’re ignoring qualia; how it is to feel sad, to feel queasiness, to experience love. It would seem to me to be utterly foolish to deny that we directly feel these phenomenal mental states, yet there are, AFAIK, no corresponding brain states. Reducing our experiences to chemical signals (although these signals certainly are important in some way) ignores the very presence of qualia.

No .. . . just no
1) All living things have a "brain" of some kind that acts based on an electro-chemical gradient.
2) can you show a study? cause everything I've seen suggests that all emotion is based on brain states and Qulia is either conversion disorder or just mass hysteria.

Saying ‘we can’t currently explain X with science’ is a very different statement from saying ‘we will never be able to explain X with science.
Sure.

But there are corresponding brain states: feelings can be induced by altering brain chemistry. This is a very strong argument for feelings being reducable to a material level.
Again, sure. I’m very sympathetic to the type-identity theorist’s thesis, but there’s some interesting issues that need clearing up first. Part of me feels qualia is an interesting example of where type-identity theorists are going wrong, and part of me feels that qualia is simply a misunderstanding of our conciousness.

No .. . . just no
1) All living things have a “brain” of some kind that acts based on an electro-chemical gradient.
Plants have a brain?

Moreover, the fact of brains unique to individual species brings up again the problem I mentioned earlier; that of equating certain mental states with certain brain states. It’s not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but a problem all the same:

If what it is to be happy is simply having brain state X, then this means that any organism with a brain (let’s say a chimp) that has a different physical make-up to our own cannot ever experience the same brain state as us, and thus never experience the same mental state as us. So, applying human mental states, such as happiness, anger, sadness, etc., to other lifeforms is a useless enterprise. As I said above, this isn’t necessarily a terrible thing, and indeed it follows on from a number of theories. Think of Wittgenstein’s claim that if a lion could speak we wouldn’t ever be able to understand it as we don’t have the mind of a lion; we don’t lead a lion’s life. Type-identity mind theory, as outlined above, would agree heartily with this.

However, it does present a problem if we ever wish to communicate with other lifeforms. How could we say that the human and the chimp (or the hypothetical Martian) could ever appreciate the other’s mental processes, if they could never share a mental state?

2) can you show a study? cause everything I’ve seen suggests that all emotion is based on brain states and Qulia is either conversion disorder or just mass hysteria.
I don’t need to point to a study to show qualia, I’ll just ask you to engage in a little thought experiment. In the room in which you are sitting, look at something brightly coloured. The experience of perceiving that bright colour has certain qualities, it is claimed. These phenomenal qualities are themselves qualia.

Sure.


Again, sure. I’m very sympathetic to the type-identity theorist’s thesis, but there’s some interesting issues that need clearing up first. Part of me feels qualia is an interesting example of where type-identity theorists are going wrong, and part of me feels that qualia is simply a misunderstanding of our conciousness.


Plants have a brain?

Moreover, the fact of brains unique to individual species brings up again the problem I mentioned earlier; that of equating certain mental states with certain brain states. It’s not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but a problem all the same:

If what it is to be happy is simply having brain state X, then this means that any organism with a brain (let’s say a chimp) that has a different physical make-up to our own cannot ever experience the same brain state as us, and thus never experience the same mental state as us. So, applying human mental states, such as happiness, anger, sadness, etc., to other lifeforms is a useless enterprise. As I said above, this isn’t necessarily a terrible thing, and indeed it follows on from a number of theories Think of Wittgenstein’s claim that if a lion could speak we wouldn’t ever be able to understand it as we don’t have the mind of a lion; we don’t lead a lion’s life. Type-identity mind theory, as outlined above, would agree heartily with this.

However, it does present a problem if we ever wish to communicate with other lifeforms. How could we say that the human and the chimp (or the hypothetical Martian) could ever appreciate the other’s mental processes, if they could never share a mental state?


I don’t need to point to a study to show qualia, I’ll just ask you to engage in a little thought experiment. In the room in which you are sitting, look at something brightly coloured. The experience of perceiving that bright colour has certain qualities, it is claimed. These phenomenal qualities are themselves qualia.

Wow . .. .u just said that color is . . . .wait for it . . . .color . .. . nice. as too the first part yep plants have a brain . . .of sorts . . .. an electro chemical gradient in certain cells "tells" them to open and close in relation to sunlight heat etc. Its primitive as hell but it is a "brain".

ok your making a few assumptions here that arent entirely correct. One brains do not need to be identical in order to have similar processes. Every experience is different for every person because it not only reflects the experience itself but also previous experiences (changes to brain chemistry). therefore two people can never see blue in the exact same way. this does not mean that they don't both see blue. Again no I chimp cannot have an identical experience but it can have one that is similar and thats true across all levels of life. The more "different" the brain gets the less similar the experience (and the reaction to that experience. As too the if a lion could speak thing? thats bull. NO one has the same "brain type" as anyone else yet we understand each other none the less finally dogs can learn to follow instructions and can comunicate feelings of happiness (wagging tail tounge hanging out) or pain (making low noises. limping.) despite the fact that ther have an entirely different brain from us. finally Qualia. Qualia is basically a way of saying everything has intrinsic qualities which are the same for us all . . .. not true. we are taught that blue is blue at a young age but a person who is color blind can still tell you that something is blue despite the fact that to them it is only a different shade of grey. Why? not because of some intrinsic value of blue but because over the years this person has learned that that shade of gray is , in fact, blue by being told it is by his parents/teachers/ whoever else despite the fact that to me what he or she see's is not something I would recognize as blue.

Wow . .. .u just said that color is . . . .wait for it . . . .color . .. . nice.
Nope, I said the experience of viewing colour is a phenomenal experience, one that can be analysed introspectively.

The experience of viewing redness is quite distinct from the colour red itself.

as too the first part yep plants have a brain . . .of sorts . . .. an electro chemical gradient in certain cells “tells” them to open and close in relation to sunlight heat etc. Its primitive as hell but it is a “brain”.
Plants don’t have central nervous systems or ganglia, and thus do not have brains.

ok your making a few assumptions here that arent entirely correct. One brains do not need to be identical in order to have similar processes.
It does if you’re also claiming that mental states are equatable to brain states.

Every experience is different for every person because it not only reflects the experience itself but also previous experiences (changes to brain chemistry). therefore two people can never see blue in the exact same way. this does not mean that they don’t both see blue.
Well, yes it does if you define ‘seeing blueness’ as equatable with a certain brain state. If two people have two different experiences of seeing what they refer to as ‘blue’ then neither is seeing what the other sees, and neither is seeing some objective ‘blueness’. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t say that two people are seeing two different interpretations of colour and that both individuals are seeing the same colour.

Again no I chimp cannot have an identical experience but it can have one that is similar and thats true across all levels of life. The more “different” the brain gets the less similar the experience (and the reaction to that experience.
That’s much more sensible.

As too the if a lion could speak thing? thats bull. NO one has the same “brain type” as anyone else yet we understand each other none the less
But that’s because (according to Wittgenstein) that we are playing the same language games, most of the time. You and I can communicate our feelings because we share a common language that has been shaped by our common experience. A lion, with whom we share no common experience, could not communicate with us because its language (if it had any) would be utterly shaped by its experience of being a lion. We don’t know what it’s like to hunt and kill a zebra, but more importantly, we don’t know what it’s like to hunt and kill a zebra as a lion.

finally dogs can learn to follow instructions and can comunicate feelings of happiness (wagging tail tounge hanging out) or pain (making low noises. limping.) despite the fact that ther have an entirely different brain from us.
Firstly, how do we know that a dog’s ‘happiness’ is equatable to our happiness? How do we know that a dog feels the same way we feel when we are happy. If brain states are different in dogs and humans, then it is just as plausible to say that a dog, when ‘happy’, feels a feeling more equatable with our feeling of sadness.

finally Qualia. Qualia is basically a way of saying everything has intrinsic qualities which are the same for us all . . ..
How is it?

It’s conceivable that one’s phenomenal experience of seeing blue is different to another’s. Indeed, you claim this is the case above.

I am shifting no burden at all.


Yes you are. Denial isn't absolution.


The universe obviously exists.


It does? So why did you say "How do I prove the existence of the universe?"

It's a good question, though.. how DOES one prove the universe exists? The best you can do is say you're PRETTY sure about some of the universe, and optimistic about some more.

You seem to thing stating your assumption is proof.


But if you claim that there is something metaphysical like god in it then there must be something that permeates the universe's space and time. And if you cannot tell me what that would be in the first place there is no reason to assume the existence of such an entity as god.


Well, if there is something metaphysical like god, then there IS something that permeates the universe's space and time. Claiming that "If A, then B" isn't actually proof of "Not A".


The absence of any hint, evidence, or proof for the metaphysical is sufficient proof for its absence.


Nope. It's not a proof at all. You can't prove a negative.


Not at all. Dreams have no connection to anything outside one's mind. They are just neural action inside a brain.

Prove it.

You cannot prove the Disexistence (yes I made up a word) of something. Theres no way. I can say that there is a tiny little green furry monster too small to be able to be seen by our satellites orbiting around Jupiter and theres no way to disprove that. Its just very very very unlikely as is the existence of non physical sense. The Onus is on YOU to prove that these senses exist.

UB claimed that the universe is limited in a certain way:

"That's easy. The physical world encompasses everything".

...which is entirely circular. It is because it is.

I call upon him to 'prove' it, he has avoided the issue. His best offering, was to ask ME "Hmm. How do I prove the existence of the universe?"

The onus isn't on me - UB made the claim.

UB claimed that the universe is limited in a certain way:

"That's easy. The physical world encompasses everything".

...which is entirely circular. It is because it is.

I call upon him to 'prove' it, he has avoided the issue. His best offering, was to ask ME "Hmm. How do I prove the existence of the universe?"

The onus isn't on me - UB made the claim.
not my point. You claim that there are extra physical senses. prove it.

Nope, I said the experience of viewing colour is a phenomenal experience, one that can be analysed introspectively.

The experience of viewing redness is quite distinct from the colour red itself.


Plants don’t have central nervous systems or ganglia, and thus do not have brains.


It does if you’re also claiming that mental states are equatable to brain states.


Well, yes it does if you define ‘seeing blueness’ as equatable with a certain brain state. If two people have two different experiences of seeing what they refer to as ‘blue’ then neither is seeing what the other sees, and neither is seeing some objective ‘blueness’. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t say that two people are seeing two different interpretations of colour and that both individuals are seeing the same colour.


That’s much more sensible.


But that’s because (according to Wittgenstein) that we are playing the same language games, most of the time. You and I can communicate our feelings because we share a common language that has been shaped by our common experience. A lion, with whom we share no common experience, could not communicate with us because its language (if it had any) would be utterly shaped by its experience of being a lion. We don’t know what it’s like to hunt and kill a zebra, but more importantly, we don’t know what it’s like to hunt and kill a zebra as a lion.


Firstly, how do we know that a dog’s ‘happiness’ is equatable to our happiness? How do we know that a dog feels the same way we feel when we are happy. If brain states are different in dogs and humans, then it is just as plausible to say that a dog, when ‘happy’, feels a feeling more equatable with our feeling of sadness.


How is it?

It’s conceivable that one’s phenomenal experience of seeing blue is different to another’s. Indeed, you claim this is the case above.

1)yes I understand. But that doesnt actually mean anything. all you said (in nicely fluffed out words btw) was that seeing blue and understanding seeing the color blue are two different things. prove it. I dont frankely think theres a difference.

2)I disagree. the colour red IS the experience of viewing redness.

3)depends on how you define brian i said that a brain "is an electro chemical gradient" that controls something under that definition plants have a brain.

4)No it doesnt.. . . .note my language . . . HAVING A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVE IDENTICAL brain state. (sry caps).

5) no ur misunderstanding. there is no objective red. there is only a color we learn to be red which is slightly different for everybody. thus while everybody experiences what they think of as red nobodys "red" is the same as anyone else's.

6)glad you agree

7)Agreed but that doesnt mean that the lion could not be taught a language. nor that if the lion could speak to us in our language that we would not understand it. Language tho is also a function of the brain so an English speaking lion would have a very human language cortex.

8)right sorry I got that the wrong way around. There is no objective colour that we all see therefore red and our experience of red is-to us-the same thing therefore there is on QUalia which means that qualia is in fact what we think of as seeing and is therefore a physical process.

yes I understand. But that doesnt actually mean anything. all you said (in nicely fluffed out words btw) was that seeing blue and understanding seeing the color blue are two different things. prove it.
Simple: just think of blue without staring at a blue-coloured object.

Moreover, note the connotations that come along with it. They’ll be different for each individual, but blue often denotes calmness, serenity, sometimes cleanliness, etc. This is what I mean by the difference between the colour blue, i.e. “the [blue] spectrum of light interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors” (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour).), and the perception of blueness.

I disagree. the colour red IS the experience of viewing redness.
Then how am I able to think of the colour red without seeing it in front of me? I agree that the visual component to experiencing colour is vital (we can show this by pointing to the futility of trying to describe colour without using colour terms), and that it would be impossible to think of redness without first seeing red at some point in our lives, but there is a distinct difference between the colour red and the experience of seeing the colour red.

depends on how you define brian i said that a brain “is an electro chemical gradient” that controls something under that definition plants have a brain.
True, but that’s a rather strange definition of ‘brain’.

No it doesnt.. . . .note my language . . . HAVING A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVE IDENTICAL brain state. (sry caps)...

no ur misunderstanding. there is no objective red. there is only a color we learn to be red which is slightly different for everybody. thus while everybody experiences what they think of as red nobodys “red” is the same as anyone else’s.
No argument here.

Agreed but that doesnt mean that the lion could not be taught a language.
I sincerely doubt it could. It might be able to be taught how to respond to certain sounds, and thus it would be able to equate certain sounds with certain actions, but that is a very limited understanding, and certainly not a grasp of language.

right sorry I got that the wrong way around. There is no objective colour that we all see therefore red and our experience of red is-to us-the same thing
I’m with you so far...

therefore there is [no] QUalia which means that qualia is in fact what we think of as seeing and is therefore a physical process.
But we can appreciate and examine qualia without seeing, thus the two cannot be the same thing.

Simple: just think of blue without staring at a blue-coloured object.

Moreover, note the connotations that come along with it. They’ll be different for each individual, but blue often denotes calmness, serenity, sometimes cleanliness, etc. This is what I mean by the difference between the colour blue, i.e. “the [blue] spectrum of light interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors” (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour).), and the perception of blueness.


Then how am I able to think of the colour red without seeing it in front of me? I agree that the visual component to experiencing colour is vital (we can show this by pointing to the futility of trying to describe colour without using colour terms), and that it would be impossible to think of redness without first seeing red at some point in our lives, but there is a distinct difference between the colour red and the experience of seeing the colour red.


True, but that’s a rather strange definition of ‘brain’.


No argument here.


I sincerely doubt it could. It might be able to be taught how to respond to certain sounds, and thus it would be able to equate certain sounds with certain actions, but that is a very limited understanding, and certainly not a grasp of language.


I’m with you so far...


But we can appreciate and examine qualia without seeing, thus the two cannot be the same thing.
i disagree. I would say that even when we visualize we are still seeing. Thus when we visualize red we are seeing it . . .. though admittedly not in the conventional sense as in through the eyes but I would argue that this is still seeing using solely the brain rather than the brain and the eyes.
As to the lion. I think the lion that could speak our language probably wouldn't really be a lion anymore but rather a lions body with a human brain lol.

THIS THREAD GIVES KITTY THE POOPIES!
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7421/n5791364891387716150vc1.jpg
THINK OF KITTY...

'cuz religion turns people into puritanical sex hating prudes.

can you tell I'm bitter? :D

nothing is objectiveShould there be some quotation marks in there somewhere?

Should there be some quotation marks in there somewhere?

nothing 'is' objective

That's my guess.

That's my guess.
Agreed! :fluffle:

That's my guess.
lol i like it

i disagree. I would say that even when we visualize we are still seeing. Thus when we visualize red we are seeing it . . .. though admittedly not in the conventional sense as in through the eyes but I would argue that this is still seeing using solely the brain rather than the brain and the eyes.
I find it hard to call something ‘seeing’ which doesn’t use the eyes, but I take your point.

As to the lion. I think the lion that could speak our language probably wouldn’t really be a lion anymore but rather a lions body with a human brain lol.
Yeah, something like that. Goes to show how important language is in defining ourselves.

Agreed! :fluffle:
lol i like it

I'm not one to use the fluffle lightly, so recieve this fluffle with back pain and whatever else comes with it.

:fluffle:

As to number three . . . .if an electron was not spherical then it would not produce a spherical magnetic field (square magnets form elliptical charges for example. . . . how is that wrong?

Well, because little balls don't act like waves, while electrons do.Also, only moving electrons have a magnetic field, which implies that at the subatomic level, motion may be more important than shape in determining properties of magnetic fields. It would also imply that quarks are shaped like little 1/3 balls

There are no phenomena that do not happen in the physical world.
If they did no human would know about them, so they would not be an issue of discussion. However it may be, if it exists at all then metaphysics is out of human scope of experience. So all the ideas about god are pointless, empty and vain.

The patriarchy. There is no physical thing we can call 'the patriarchy', yet only an idiot would deny its existence. There we go. I just disporved your claim that there are no phenomena that do not happen in the physical world.

You cannot prove the Disexistence (yes I made up a word) of something. Theres no way.

Yes you can. Watch. I can prove that there is a complete absence of text between these two lines:
------------------------

------------------------
Look between the lines. Do you see any text? No, you don't. There. I just proved a negative.

http://www.petitionspot.com/uploads/9634-jesus-thread-sucks.gif

not my point. You claim that there are extra physical senses. prove it.

I didn't claim that at all.

MY point is that UB has ruled out somethign that can't BE ruled out, and is refusing to address his illogical and circular arguments.

UB also claimed there were no 'extraphysical' senses. I'm not saying there ARE any - I just question his supposition.

The onus really IS on UB.

Well, because little balls don't act like waves, while electrons do.Also, only moving electrons have a magnetic field, which implies that at the subatomic level, motion may be more important than shape in determining properties of magnetic fields. It would also imply that quarks are shaped like little 1/3 balls



The patriarchy. There is no physical thing we can call 'the patriarchy', yet only an idiot would deny its existence. There we go. I just disporved your claim that there are no phenomena that do not happen in the physical world.



Yes you can. Watch. I can prove that there is a complete absence of text between these two lines:
------------------------

------------------------
Look between the lines. Do you see any text? No, you don't. There. I just proved a negative.

1)Heard of matter waves? someone called DeBroglie? so yes they do. secondly not true. All electrons project a magnetic field (electrons have a magnetic charge of -1??? yes???). when they are moving the electric field becomes larger because the electrons become separated from the proton which usually neutralizes their field causing an apparent magnetic field. and no it wouldn't it would suggest only that three quarks form an electron which is spherical. (there is a difference)
2)no the patriarchy is a concept. It does not exist except as a set of beliefs. just in the way that god does not exist except as a set of beliefs. And I would deny his existence in any other sense.
3)nope there is invisible writing there that controls the after life. now disprove it.

I find it hard to call something ‘seeing’ which doesn’t use the eyes, but I take your point.


Yeah, something like that. Goes to show how important language is in defining ourselves.

fair enough. And ya language seems to shape us pretty definately

I didn't claim that at all.

MY point is that UB has ruled out somethign that can't BE ruled out, and is refusing to address his illogical and circular arguments.

UB also claimed there were no 'extraphysical' senses. I'm not saying there ARE any - I just question his supposition.

The onus really IS on UB.
fair enough but I would claim that it is impossible to disprove the existence of extraphysical senses thus the onus must be on those who claim they exist to prove that they do. And I would say that as a premise the non-exitance of extraphysical senses is fairly reasonable.

1)Heard of matter waves? someone called DeBroglie? so yes they do. secondly not true. All electrons project a magnetic field (electrons have a magnetic charge of -1??? yes???). when they are moving the electric field becomes larger because the electrons become separated from the proton which usually neutralizes their field causing an apparent magnetic field. and no it wouldn't it would suggest only that three quarks form an electron which is spherical. (there is a difference)

An electron is not spherical. Something that acts live a wave and a particle can not be a little ball. If that were the case, it would only behave as a particle and never as a wave. The magnetic field, while interesting, is not proof in itself.

2)no the patriarchy is a concept. It does not exist except as a set of beliefs. just in the way that god does not exist except as a set of beliefs. And I would deny his existence in any other sense.

United Beleriand made the assertion that nothing exists unless it is physical. The patriarchy exists. You may say it exists solely as a concept, but it definitely affects things and has a measurable impact on our objective reality. Therefore it must exist on some real level, and it is not a physical phenomena.

3)nope there is invisible writing there that controls the after life. now disprove it.

Look, you seem to be fairly intelligent. All I was doing was pointing out that you can prove an absence or a negative. Look, here (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf) is an essay written by a logician about proving negatives. Here's (http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html) another one written by an atheist, who wrote it to help atheists debate people like me, and it also claims that you can prove a negative.

fair enough but I would claim that it is impossible to disprove the existence of extraphysical senses thus the onus must be on those who claim they exist to prove that they do. And I would say that as a premise the non-exitance of extraphysical senses is fairly reasonable.

There's the rub.

UB invoked the concept. All I've said is, it ain't necessarily so, which isn't an unreasonable position.

Do I, personally, 'believe' the universe is more than it seems, and that we hae seses we don't even know about, and that there is 'god' sprinkled throughout our existence? Actually - no. But I'm not about to make as illogical and unfalsifiable claim as an absolute denial of the possibility.

UB claims he can describe the absolute nature of the universe, yet his whole 'evidence' boiled down to 'it is as I say it is, BECAUSE I say it is'. He can't even verify the existence of the universe, much less it's nature.

That's a pretty fragile platform to be making claims from.

There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

NSG leans heavily left. Religion, and organized religion in particular, is a social force that stands in the way of the left achieving its objectives and imposing its values on society.

Furthermore, religions often define norms of conduct and classify some behaviors as evil. People who engage in such behaviors resent being called on it.

Just my opinion.

NSG leans heavily left. Religion, and organized religion in particular, is a social force that stands in the way of the left achieving its objectives and imposing its values on society.

Furthermore, religions often define norms of conduct and classify some behaviors as evil. People who engage in such behaviors resent being called on it.

Just my opinion.

Jesus promoted caring for your community, self-impoverishment, absolute sacrifice, and subsuming the individual for the greater good. Jesus was far more 'left' than the left.

NSG leans heavily left. Religion, and organized religion in particular, is a social force that stands in the way of the left achieving its objectives and imposing its values on society.

Furthermore, religions often define norms of conduct and classify some behaviors as evil. People who engage in such behaviors resent being called on it.

Just my opinion.

So, its the left, you know, those of us who think the individual should be able to live however makes them happy, that is out to impose our values on everyone else? Yet the great force that is religion, you know, the thing that says "This is how it is, and this is how it has to be or God hates you", that same force that has been enforcing its bigoted and narrow minded morality on everyone since the creation of religion is what is going to save us?


Im glad you at least said it was your opinion. Because its unbacked by facts, frankly wrong and...l hell Ill say it, really fucking stupid.

Jesus promoted caring for your community, self-impoverishment, absolute sacrifice, and subsuming the individual for the greater good. Jesus was far more 'left' than the left.

But....but....I thought Jesus voted Republican? He ws all about everyone looking out only for themelves...


And we all know Jesus wanted those who were sexually "immoral" to be stoned. That part where he stands in front of the woman and says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" never happened, its just leftist propaganda!

But....but....I thought Jesus voted Republican? He ws all about everyone looking out only for themelves...


And we all know Jesus wanted those who were sexually "immoral" to be stoned. That part where he stands in front of the woman and says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" never happened, its just leftist propaganda!

Jesus went on to tell the woman, "Go and sin no more." That's a problem for those who want to say that love is all about letting people do what they want. Love wants what is best for the beloved and will tell the beloved to avoid a destructive lifestyle.

The New Testament teaches that each one ought to bear his own burden (responsibility) and to bear the burdens of others (love.) It has both aspects.

BTW it never tells the government to bear anyone's burden, just to keep justice coming.

There's the rub.

UB invoked the concept. All I've said is, it ain't necessarily so, which isn't an unreasonable position.

Do I, personally, 'believe' the universe is more than it seems, and that we hae seses we don't even know about, and that there is 'god' sprinkled throughout our existence? Actually - no. But I'm not about to make as illogical and unfalsifiable claim as an absolute denial of the possibility.

UB claims he can describe the absolute nature of the universe, yet his whole 'evidence' boiled down to 'it is as I say it is, BECAUSE I say it is'. He can't even verify the existence of the universe, much less it's nature.

That's a pretty fragile platform to be making claims from.

fair enough

Jesus went on to tell the woman, "Go and sin no more." That's a problem for those who want to say that love is all about letting people do what they want. Love wants what is best for the beloved and will tell the beloved to avoid a destructive lifestyle.

The New Testament teaches that each one ought to bear his own burden (responsibility) and to bear the burdens of others (love.) It has both aspects.

BTW it never tells the government to bear anyone's burden, just to keep justice coming.

But, if we're really going to argue bible as inspiration for law... 'render unto caesar, that which is caesars... and unto god that which is gods' is a clear argument for separation of church and state. See how popular THAT one is amongst the radical religious right.

An electron is not spherical. Something that acts live a wave and a particle can not be a little ball. If that were the case, it would only behave as a particle and never as a wave. The magnetic field, while interesting, is not proof in itself.



United Beleriand made the assertion that nothing exists unless it is physical. The patriarchy exists. You may say it exists solely as a concept, but it definitely affects things and has a measurable impact on our objective reality. Therefore it must exist on some real level, and it is not a physical phenomena.



Look, you seem to be fairly intelligent. All I was doing was pointing out that you can prove an absence or a negative. Look, here (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf) is an essay written by a logician about proving negatives. Here's (http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html) another one written by an atheist, who wrote it to help atheists debate people like me, and it also claims that you can prove a negative.

1)All matter behaves both as a particle and as a wave. The physicist DeBroglie proved this. as to the magnetic field . . . .ya interesting is the right word to describe it. But heres the bare facts all things can act as both a particle and a wave if they are suitably small electrons are suitably small. Also shape has nothing to do with whether something can be both a particle and a wave. Protons electrons alpha particles. etc. all express this trait.

2)No. what "the patriarch" is is a collection of beliefs stemming from various biological and historical facts. I might as well say that anything at all that you can possibly imagine exists because it has an effect on YOU (for example your spending time imagining it). Thus "the patriarch" exists exactly as much as the bright blue dancing alien that the guy in the insane asylum sees (or girl sry).

3) Both those articles talk about proving the falsehood of a negative. It cannot be proven that something (given certain parameters) does not exist. I can say that I believe this universe actually contains thousands of billions of particles so small they are impossible to see on any equipment we could ever design. can you disprove the existence of these particles? I doubt it. Or I could claim that there is a great being who is entirely on another plain of existence who we can neither comprehend nor fathom who I will name blc and this being has set down some rules which will determine where your (also impossible to detect in any way) xlj. Ill call it will go when you die. O and he managed somehow to transfer planes for a while and invaded the bodies of a couple of guys who were (fortunately) well hooked up enough that they kept his "laws goin" and who passed down his word to others. O and he had a kid who brought himself back from the dead. Can you disprove me?

Jesus went on to tell the woman, "Go and sin no more." That's a problem for those who want to say that love is all about letting people do what they want. Love wants what is best for the beloved and will tell the beloved to avoid a destructive lifestyle.

The New Testament teaches that each one ought to bear his own burden (responsibility) and to bear the burdens of others (love.) It has both aspects.

BTW it never tells the government to bear anyone's burden, just to keep justice coming.

heh heh heh
ok so how to put this one into law?
Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire.
or this one?
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes."
or maybe we should make repentance mandetory?
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

1)All matter behaves both as a particle and as a wave. The physicist DeBroglie proved this. as to the magnetic field . . . .ya interesting is the right word to describe it. But heres the bare facts all things can act as both a particle and a wave if they are suitably small electrons are suitably small. Also shape has nothing to do with whether something can be both a particle and a wave. Protons electrons alpha particles. etc. all express this trait.

That's all well and good. It does nothing to disprove my point that you cannot describe the shape of an electron with current scientific models.

2)No. what "the patriarch" is is a collection of beliefs stemming from various biological and historical facts. I might as well say that anything at all that you can possibly imagine exists because it has an effect on YOU (for example your spending time imagining it). Thus "the patriarch" exists exactly as much as the bright blue dancing alien that the guy in the insane asylum sees (or girl sry).

If this is true, then concepts such as democracy and freedom are also not real. Nor are human rights, for that matter. Are you going to tell me that these things don't exist?

3) Both those articles talk about proving the falsehood of a negative...snip tangential stuff.. Can you disprove me?

See, what you are doing is taking a situation where it is logical to claim that the burden of proof rests on the person making the postive claim (i.e. god exists) and extending that to all situations.

You can honestly and accurately say that it is impossible to exhaustively enumerate through all possibilities within the domain in a reasonable amount of time. In normal english, that means that it would take too much work to look in every nook and cranny of the universe for evidence of god. In this case, we can reasonably expect the burden of proof to be on the theist, as (s)he has only to provide one example of god. This link (http://threadtheneedle.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-cant-prove-negative.html)provides a good example of an atheist correctly using this argument.

But that doesn't mean that we can't prove any negatives at all. In fact, some scientists would argue that the only thing you can prove is a negative. This is where we get the notion of falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

That's all well and good. It does nothing to disprove my point that you cannot describe the shape of an electron with current scientific models.



If this is true, then concepts such as democracy and freedom are also not real. Nor are human rights, for that matter. Are you going to tell me that these things don't exist?



See, what you are doing is taking a situation where it is logical to claim that the burden of proof rests on the person making the postive claim (i.e. god exists) and extending that to all situations.

You can honestly and accurately say that it is impossible to exhaustively enumerate through all possibilities within the domain in a reasonable amount of time. In normal english, that means that it would take too much work to look in every nook and cranny of the universe for evidence of god. In this case, we can reasonably expect the burden of proof to be on the theist, as (s)he has only to provide one example of god. This link (http://threadtheneedle.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-cant-prove-negative.html)provides a good example of an atheist correctly using this argument.

But that doesn't mean that we can't prove any negatives at all. In fact, some scientists would argue that the only thing you can prove is a negative. This is where we get the notion of falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

1) No but you can predict it. I predict that it is round.
2)yes . . .. these things do not exist save as stated above (as a grouping of beliefs under a arbitrarily chosen name) . Yes they affect the world but that doesn't mean that they are physically a part of it. Btw I do believe in freedom but (and this is a guess btw) I would a assume that you believe in a religion of some type. and im guessing christian this is a guess btw and if im wrong then tell me 9or not w/e) if so then how can you believe in freedom? Your God is omnipotent and thus controls all actions so how can freedom exist at all???
3) yes but again were not talking about proving negatives and I already went over this. In cases following my stated guidelines above then the burden of proof should be on the person who is making the statement. And can anyone here prove that god exists? anyone? please? lol

For Me Its Because Ive had religion pushed on me my whole life so i finally just denounced it

1) No but you can predict it. I predict that it is round

What we refer to as an 'electron' is the geographical area of maximum probability of charge equal (but opposite) to the charge of a proton.

It isn't a tangible 'shape', at all.