Religion and shit

lone wrote:We so need a topic for the discussion.

Go ahead and discuss religion here. This is where we left of:

lone wrote:

Saint wrote:LOL! Don't worry I had quantum 5 years ago, it is not that insuficiant. Please enlighten us how subatomic particles and string theory proves a physical or non-physical God does not exist.
Although I doubt you know anything beyond Schrödinger equation, whatever you read cannot prove your argument.

As things like consomogony, quantum-mechanics and more importantly string theory study the fundamental basics of every thus far discovered reality, and as these theories can be addapted to support studies for everything else that can be discovered they do have the power to talk about everything in existence.

To put it quite simply: Science can theoretically study everything in existance. If you talk about something that cannot be studied scientifically, it means it is put out of the box labelled "existance" and therefore can not exist.
If a transcendant being exists, it means by definition of the word "science" that it is in theory scientifically explainable.

If you put everything in a box, there is nothing outside that box.

I read astronomy/whatever has to do with the universe time to time on my freetime. So many questions and so little answers. I wouldnt mind a heaven and all that lol

72 virgins? Fuck yeah.

I'm not bothering with it anymore. I made my point in the last discussion.

You know you want to.

Done with the topic..
I wanna carry on posting überinteresting polls and wonderful songs instead

lone wrote:

Saint wrote:LOL! Don't worry I had quantum 5 years ago, it is not that insuficiant. Please enlighten us how subatomic particles and string theory proves a physical or non-physical God does not exist.
Although I doubt you know anything beyond Schrödinger equation, whatever you read cannot prove your argument.

As things like consomogony, quantum-mechanics and more importantly string theory study the fundamental basics of every thus far discovered reality, and as these theories can be addapted to support studies for everything else that can be discovered they do have the power to talk about everything in existence.

To put it quite simply: Science can theoretically study everything in existance. If you talk about something that cannot be studied scientifically, it means it is put out of the box labelled "existance" and therefore can not exist.
If a transcendant being exists, it means by definition of the word "science" that it is in theory scientifically explainable.

If you put everything in a box, there is nothing outside that box.

Saint is right, science can't and possibly will never be able to prove that there is no god.
Yes science can theoretically study everything in existence. But it can't yet.
We know so little about the universe it would be silly to throw out the possibility of a creator not matter how unlikely it is. And as long as god is in the realm of possibility people will believe there is one.
The only way science is going to prove that there is no god is to prove that a god did not create the universe.

Then you still admit "god" is scientific. If you call what ever created the universe "god" you can't randomly assign other powers to it. Also, seeing the 'creator' of the universe as an intelligent force is absurd and based on nothing.
Obviously there are things we do not yet understand. Calling them "god" is fine. Seeing them as transcendant and super-scientific is as unnecessary as it is random.


I find the topic rather interesting. It so strange how people defend believes that are never theirs to the last ditch.

Boooring

lone wrote:Then you still admit "god" is scientific. If you call what ever created the universe "god" you can't randomly assign other powers to it. Also, seeing the 'creator' of the universe as an intelligent force is absurd and based on nothing.
Obviously there are things we do not yet understand. Calling them "god" is fine. Seeing them as transcendant and super-scientific is as unnecessary as it is random.


I find the topic rather interesting. It so strange how people defend believes that are never theirs to the last ditch.

I have nothing to admit if there is a god yes he could be explained. I believe it is possible that if there is a creator that it could be intelligent. If you think it's absurd that people believe in a intelligent creator then you don't fully grasp the meaning of belief. It's not meant to be based on any rational theory or facts, if you had facts then you wouldn't need to believe. Belief is about believing in something without facts or proof.

I personally am an atheist through so I don't believe in a creator, but as a person of science I think it is absolutely necessary that we don't dismiss any theory that is possible no matter how unlikely. Science should remain unbiased.

edit:
I didn't quite get your last sentance.

I have no beliefs of religious sort what so ever. Thats all I have to contribute with.

I hope that when I past on my energy will be converted into something resourceful.
;(

Bruce wrote:

lone wrote:Then you still admit "god" is scientific. If you call what ever created the universe "god" you can't randomly assign other powers to it. Also, seeing the 'creator' of the universe as an intelligent force is absurd and based on nothing.
Obviously there are things we do not yet understand. Calling them "god" is fine. Seeing them as transcendant and super-scientific is as unnecessary as it is random.


I find the topic rather interesting. It so strange how people defend believes that are never theirs to the last ditch.

I have nothing to admit if there is a god yes he could be explained. I believe it is possible that if there is a creator that it could be intelligent. If you think it's absurd that people believe in a intelligent creator then you don't fully grasp the meaning of belief. It's not meant to be based on any rational theory or facts, if you had facts then you wouldn't need to believe. Belief is about believing in something without facts or proof.

I personally am an atheist through so I don't believe in a creator, but as a person of science I think it is absolutely necessary that we don't dismiss any theory that is possible no matter how unlikely. Science should remain unbiased.

edit:
I didn't quite get your last sentance.

You didn't just use the cliché "you gotta have faith", did you? I've seen that one a thousand times, and it's really no good argument for believing in a god.

Then you fail to understand the meaning of the word belief.
Like I have already said believing in god isn't logical, so yea there is no good scientific argument.

I'm sure you have had faith in something/someone even through your logical mind tells you your wrong.
For example someone is dieing of cancer you have faith that he/she will get better no matter how unlikely it is or impossible.
If someone tried to argue the point that he/she is going to die you would not be able to defend your position. But you will still believe he/she will get better.

Many atheists can be just like religious people they believe they will pass a test, win a football match, win a race, get a job. No matter how likely/unlikely or predictable the outcome is uncertain and this is were belief comes in to play.
So how come it's wrong for religious people to believe in a god? Yes there is no evidence that we all go to heaven when we die, but there is also no evidence disapproving it. Once again even through it is unlikely or near impossible that we all go to heaven people put their faith in the idea and believe in it.

Having faith and belief is therefore complete bullshit.
Don't believe you'll pass your test. Study. Don't believe in god, live.

I wish we had a creationist, those guys are fun to talk with. Atleast they know what they talk about.

lone wrote:Having faith and belief is therefore complete bullshit.

The only way it could be complete bullshit is if you know the outcome of every single event that happens in your life.

Don't believe you'll pass your test. Study

..........Really? Stop being stupid I never said substitute study for belief. Have you never doubted that you wont pass a test even after studying for weeks on end for it while waiting anxiously for the results? Oh no... according to you that's silly because you studied enough to get a pass. Hoping that you passed it would be silly since you know you already passed it. Since logic tells you that you have studied enough to pass right?

Don't believe in god, live.

In what way does believing in god stop you from living? And we aren't talking about religious practices here, just believing. Explain to me how just believing in god stops you from living?

I wish we had a creationist, those guys are fun to talk with. Atleast they know what they talk about.

I wish I could talk to a athiest who isn't so blind. You seem to be ignorant of any view apart from your own.

The next time you go to the hospital why don't you go to the terminal ward and explain to all the patients that there is no point believing they can still get better because it's near impossible. I'm sure they will thank you for enlightening them and draining that tiny bit of hope they have left.

^_^
I believe the universe was created by some flying creature made of paste, sauce and meatballs.

Bruce wrote:The next time you go to the hospital why don't you go to the terminal ward and explain to all the patients that there is no point believing they can still get better because it's near impossible. I'm sure they will thank you for enlightening them and draining that tiny bit of hope they have left.

Depends on their beliefs, I wouldn't deny them any thoughts or push my thoughts on them. But I'd have much more "faith" and belief in the doctors and surgeons at the hospital, rather than a "strange mystical force". I certainly didn't have faith when my aunt had a huge tumor and a severe lung cancer and neither did she. She accepted that little could be done and she had a good life, she spent her last years as she wanted and used sleeping pills to end it when the pain started becoming too strong.

Personally I'd rather know I'm most likely going to die and live with that, and well enjoy my last time. Rather than living in a false hope that I might get better.

I'm not sure were to put your Bruce, but you seem to point towards Agnostic atheism

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist."

I'm having a hard time of placing my self correctly, so I won't judge you.

"The only way it could be complete bullshit is if you know the outcome of every single event that happens in your life."
Unlikeliness. When something is unlickely, even though possible, accepting it as a truth would be believing. A possible truth doesn't make a truth. The highest chance of truth almost does.
This is also why I am not agnost. Agnosts accept the possible existence of a God. So do I, but I also accept how unlikely it is, and therefore, so I think, it should not be seen, by anyone, as a truth. That's why I am ok with the agnostic vision. It accepts everything.
It's much the same as what I do, only I add chance.

"Since logic tells you that you have studied enough to pass right?"
Passing a test contains more factors than just studying. It was only an example. Belief however, is most likely not one of those factors.
I do accept however that in some rare cases belief can actually cure diseases (eg most miracles), as can belief make you sick (eg mass histyria). This has actually more to do with self-convincement, and is a medically accepted truth. (the same principle is applied through the use of placebo's)

"In what way does believing in god stop you from living? And we aren't talking about religious practices here, just believing. "
Obviously, I was referring to the undeniable, commonly known, bloody history and present of many global religions. It has actually little to do with the 'belief' issue. It is not related, that is true.

"Explain to me how just believing in god stops you from living?"
I shouldn't explain to you the issue of indoctrination. It is commonly accepted. It wasn't a rethorical question was it?

"I wish I could talk to a athiest who isn't so blind. You seem to be ignorant of any view apart from your own. "
My parents tell me that too. Actually they have no clue what they believe. Others say my views are overall correct. Discussion, however, is always interesting, as it reveals other peoples ideas that are often acceptable, but sometimes rubbish.

"The next time you go to the hospital why don't you go to the terminal ward and explain to all the patients that there is no point believing they can still get better because it's near impossible. I'm sure they will thank you for enlightening them and draining that tiny bit of hope they have left. "
What can I say? Dying sucks.
Actually, I knew someone, she was an atheist, and she had no believes whatsoever. She accepted the truth that she was going to die. And yet, she survived the time the doctor had given her about 5 times. Not very long ago, she commited euthanesia.


Belief can do good things for people, but overall, if you look at the history of religions, it's a bad thing.

Tony* wrote:^_^
I believe the universe was created by some flying creature made of paste, sauce and meatballs.

Ramen.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE LULZ

Xavior wrote:
Depends on their beliefs, I wouldn't deny them any thoughts or push my thoughts on them. But I'd have much more "faith" and belief in the doctors and surgeons at the hospital, rather than a "strange mystical force". I certainly didn't have faith when my aunt had a huge tumor and a severe lung cancer and neither did she. She accepted that little could be done and she had a good life, she spent her last years as she wanted and used sleeping pills to end it when the pain started becoming too strong.

I feel the same and I was talking about any kind of faith in gods or doctors.

Personally I'd rather know I'm most likely going to die and live with that, and well enjoy my last time. Rather than living in a false hope that I might get better.

Same but that differs per person.

I'm not sure were to put you Bruce, but you seem to point towards Agnostic atheism

I consider myself an atheist, yes I can't say for sure that a god does not exist but I also can't say for sure that there is not a tea put orbiting the sun. Anyway It doesn't matter to me what category people put me in.

Belief can do good things for people, but overall, if you look at the history of religions, it's a bad thing.

I think it's important to separate belief from religion. Religion with belief can be dangerous, belief without religion is not.
But I agree with most of what you said in your last post with one or two exceptions.

Christians do good things because they will otherwise be punished in Hell (in theory, active fear).
Atheists may do good things because they want to do good things.

Christians are obviously morally superior with their highly revered faith to God and the all-loving Jesus compared to godless atheists who question beliefs and don't trust on old books filled with fairy tale bullshit.

Goddammit, Xris.

in my oppinion the bible and such books are just convenient tools of religious organisations (like chatolic church) for the purpose of controling mass ppl

i think organisations and books have nothing to do with original christianity or any other religion. I wonder why religious organisations don't want to update those books. it's not like we still live in middle age or something. Those books still talk about slavery and shit like that...

i have nothing against religions but alot against religious organisations.

agreements? Well now be damned

It's no fun when everyone agrees.