Do you see anything wrong?

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Good stuff here. I'm really liking the idea that applies biological evolution to the cosmos. Now as far as existence goes, where it comes from etc...it seems highly unlikely that, even through scientific means, we can arrive at an answer to "how did anything come into existence?" This really becomes a philosophical task and you start playing with the idea of perception and reality and so forth. Non-existence seems to be the biggest mind-dart ever though...how can one possibly imagine a universe where there is nothingness? And even if there once was, how to get something from nothing? I'm considering the idea that the amount of matter/energy can never equal zero, there's this constant imbalance that will always yield some sort of existence. An anomaly, a remainder, that forever keeps the existential ball rolling. After all, if somehow it was possible for non-existence, there would be absolutely no way to come back into an existential reality.

I'm far from an expert on any of this but it's something everyone should contemplate or at least attempt to every once in a while

A long time ago, when Einstein was walking with a friend (I forget who -- I think it was George Gamow), the friend proposed the idea that the universe is just a massive imbalance of positive (rest mass) and negative (gravitational) energy that net out to 0 due to Einstein's own equations -- and this caused Einstein to stop in his tracks in the middle of the street (forcing many cars to throw down the brakes immediately). XD

Worth a watch (Lawrence Krauss):

(40:33)
"The universe is flat, it has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. And I've written a piece, although of course I got a lot of hate mail, saying that in my mind this answers this crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out, which is 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' The answer is 'There had to be.' If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something. It's that simple! It doesn't convince any of those people, but it's true."

[devonin]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

*Tidy tidy*

Believe it or not we CAN have civil religious discourse on this forum. It's happened before. Just keep the pointless "yup" and "lol" posts out, and the posts that just say someone is wrong without any evidence, and we'll be fine!

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Every week, people pay this man money.

First dude is Duane Gish -- originator of the infamous "Gish Gallop" debating strategy. XD

"Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents"

Entire video is hilarious nonsense though lmfao

But I raise you one worse:

[A2P]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

*Tidy tidy*

Believe it or not we CAN have civil religious discourse on this forum. It's happened before. Just keep the pointless "yup" and "lol" posts out, and the posts that just say someone is wrong without any evidence, and we'll be fine!

theres never a civil religion/theism thread because it's all boils down to "my beliefs are better *cockwave*" in the end.

[devonin]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Well, with that attitude no. But there have been discussions between religious and non-religious people that ended perfectly amicably, where both sides admitted they'd come away with interesting things to think about, even if neither side "won"

I had conversations with Guidohunter like that all the time back in the day.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

"If you take the universe, everything we see -- stars and galaxies and clusters -- everything we see, if you get rid of it, the universe is essentially the same. We constitute a 1% bit of pollution in a universe that’s 30% dark matter and 70% dark energy. We are completely irrelevant. Why such a universe in which we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me." -Lawrence Krauss

(from the video I linked earlier)

[rushyrulz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

My God, that banana video..

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5009540_sy...s-allergy.html

These people weren't made by God. Spawn of the Devil, in fact.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Well, with that attitude no. But there have been discussions between religious and non-religious people that ended perfectly amicably, where both sides admitted they'd come away with interesting things to think about, even if neither side "won"

I had conversations with Guidohunter like that all the time back in the day.

no ur dum lol







::checks forum to make sure he's not in CT::

Nailed it.

--Guido

[Pseudo Enigma]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

"If you take the universe, everything we see -- stars and galaxies and clusters -- everything we see, if you get rid of it, the universe is essentially the same. We constitute a 1% bit of pollution in a universe that’s 30% dark matter and 70% dark energy. We are completely irrelevant. Why such a universe in which we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me." -Lawrence Krauss

(from the video I linked earlier)

Plot twist; It's not for us. I have no clue where/why people got the idea it was for us. There is no evidence other than the fact that we evolved to a state where we were intelligent and could acquire knowledge easily, and even then that's just another product of chance. If we have infinite Big Bangs, that's infinite chances to get into this situation.

Also if I were god I'd ragequit because everyone is fighting with each other over whether or not I exist. If you were god, would you like what you created?

edit: lmao guido out of nowhere.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Also if I were god I'd ragequit because everyone is fighting with each other over whether or not I exist. If you were god, would you like what you created?

If I were God, I wouldn't go through such toil to hide myself and create a universe that didn't require my interference/design in the first place.

If that were the case I wouldn't be much better than this guy:

[rebelrunner26]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Actually, it can. All sorts of things in, say, the Bible, are demonstrably false. Young Earth Creationism is a huge example. Science has utterly gutted it, along with countless other claims.

You refer to non-overlapping magisteria, which is unfortunately not what we see. Religion oftentimes makes claims about real-world things, which is inherently stepping on the toes of science and empiricism.

To make it clear:

We are quite confident that we know how humans evolved over billions of years. We think we know where morality comes from and how it was molded. We think we know the kinds of events that gave rise to life itself. We think we know how the Earth was formed, how our sun was formed, and how our galaxy was formed. We can calculate things about the Big Bang with absurd levels of precision/accuracy that is supported by independent bodies of evidence.

No religion, at all, is required or necessary to explain any of it. This is why posts as denoted in the OP are just sad. Religion is oftentimes such a divisive, isolating concept.

I usually consider you a pretty smart dude, but I think sometimes you take things a bit too literally or consider them in a way that's a bit too linear for the circumstance. I know you're really good at computational/algorithmic thinking, but in the context of religion, social patters, etc., you really have to think outside of the box a bit more sometimes.

Also, fixes in bold. We knew that the sun revolved around the earth for a long time too based on the observations and tools available back then.

The Bible is a book full of contradicting statements and obscure symbols that can be interpreted in many different ways. It was/is used to support the Crusades, the burning of "witches", slavery, and political slanderings for years. It also has a lot of pretty cool stuff in it, regardless of if you believe in God/Christ or not. In fact, many historians consider it to be a very important text for historical purposes.

That being said, you cannot say that something that was said in The Bible was "utterly gutted" by science. I encourage you to read the first chapter of Genesis when the Bible discusses creation. The verses actually line up with the "proven" historical occurrences fairly well (minus the stars being created after the grass, I'll give you that one. Although this was written over 2000 years ago, sooo not so much was known about science, and it was generally believed that the sun revolved around the Earth at that time). Just because it says 7 days and lacks dinosaurs doesn't make it completely irrelevant, it just means people back then hadn't ever dug down into the earth looking for t-rex bones. 7 days is considered even by most Christians (minus some extremists) to be an entirely symbolic representation of the time frame.

I know science says "_____ is probable/impossible because ______," but the Bible has to be considered with a different approach. It's just not a black and white text, regardless of what some groups may argue to the contrary.

There are also a lot of crazy rules/laws in the Old Testament that many Christians today consider essentially irrelevant, but still acknowledge because of the historical context. People thought about a lot of things differently back then.

I understand that a lot of people think many components of religion are hogwash, and quite frankly I won't argue against that, but I believe that the pros greatly outweigh the cons. You just have to remember that religion has a huuuuuge political side to it (thus, the Christian Dark Ages), and any time there are politics involved with anything, things will never run very efficiently. It was not Christianity that lead to the abolition of science at that time, it was the projection of Christianity by a few self-proclaimed righteous men who were actually just power-hungry greedy bastards.

I've been a Christian for a long time, and I will be the very first to say that not all of us are the same. A Christian, as we are "supposed" to be, is about hearing other people out and helping where we can. We are meant to be servants, not "holier than thou" pricks that go around telling everybody what they're doing wrong and throwing a verse at anything that doesn't go how we want it to. And that's not even to mention "God said I should do this." That is THE most overly-used thought/statement in history, leading almost entirely to negative consequences.

I completely understand why many people dislike Christianity. I think Ghandi's quote, "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" has held true for a very very long time. Anything in the news about Christianity is about some madmen protesting at funerals or burning copies of the Quran, yelling at their congregations that they should beat the gay out of their children, etc. We are conveyed as (and in many cases, sadly, ARE) bigots or closed-minded, unaccepting doucebags. I apologize for those Christians that give us this image, and I assure you that there are many more level-headed ones that are just generally nice people who shake their heads at the loud, rude ones.

I will happily discuss any aspect of this type of conversation with you or anyone else via PM or another thread if you'd like. I assure you that I am not the -typical- Christian as thought of by many atheists. That being said, I think I've participated in derailing this thread enough.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Also, fixes in bold. We knew that the sun revolved around the earth for a long time too based on the observations and tools available back then.

If you want to get super-pedantic about it, we don't "know" anything for certain, especially if you take an epistemologically solipsistic view of reality that everything's just in your mind or whatever -- but this isn't a helpful distinction. It is true that "we are quite confident that we know" is more precise/accurate.

However, the level of confidence is sufficiently high, and you can't pull the geocentricity card. Technically speaking, the earth and sun rotate around each other, but the center of gravity is just closer to the sun and in fact is INSIDE the sun, as its mass is comparatively huge. Arguing over whether I put peanut butter in your chocolate or you put chocolate in my peanut butter is not useful here.

Something like evolution, for example, is fact. It's not something "we think we know" unless you are OK with me telling you that you only "think" you're in front of your computer right now and may not "actually" be. When you have independent bodies of abundant, consistent evidence that is explained and predicted by your theory, that theory becomes absurdly strong. So when we say "we know that humans evolved and how they evolved," we have a level of confidence about it that is just as strong as me telling you that the sun will set tonight or that a tennis ball will drop to the floor if you let it go.

Either way, the strength of science is that it indeed changes. The requirement of falsification is built into the scientific method. With each new layer of understanding, untruth is whittled away, bringing us closer to truth and thus a more accurate depiction of reality. The theory of gravity itself is falsifiable too, as is every other theory, but falsifying it doesn't mean things are suddenly going to start floating up like you fukken broke the Matrix. It just means a better theory exists to explain the evidence. Replacing something like evolution or the explanation for how the Earth formed would be a ridiculously massive undertaking. We can look into space and literally see planets and stars and galaxies forming in all their different stages, and the sort of evidence we observe is consistent with what we see about the Earth, and so on.

So yes, we do "know" these things with high levels of confidence.

That being said, you cannot say that something that was said in The Bible was "utterly gutted" by science.

When the Bible makes real claims about real things, it's getting into the realm of empiricism, which is science's turf. We can show that many things about the Bible are *demonstrably false* from every angle, which in my mind is the same as "gutting."

I encourage you to read the first chapter of Genesis when the Bible discusses creation. The verses actually line up with the "proven" historical occurrences fairly well (minus the stars being created after the grass, I'll give you that one. Although this was written over 2000 years ago, sooo not so much was known about science, and it was generally believed that the sun revolved around the Earth at that time). Just because it says 7 days and lacks dinosaurs doesn't make it completely irrelevant, it just means people back then hadn't ever dug down into the earth looking for t-rex bones. 7 days is considered even by most Christians (minus some extremists) to be an entirely symbolic representation of the time frame.

But see, here is the problem with that line of thinking:

How do you tell apart which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which parts are allegorical/symbolic/etc? You're picking and choosing by implying that if the Bible gets something right with respect to science, it's meant to be taken literally, but if it's contradicted by science, it's just symbolic. It's a constant moving of the goalposts that way and people have been doing it for years.

You see the same thing with morality. "Of course," almost nobody takes the Bible *fully* literally because such a moral view is incompatible with today's society. You can always go back through and pick out the good bits you like, but you have to ignore all the awful things. In the end, we don't get our morals from the Bible since we use a secular moral reasoning foundation to pick and choose in the first place!

So it is embarrassing when you see people pointing to the Bible going, "Look, right here, homosexuality is an abomination!" but then when you turn to slavery, which it also condones? "Oh, we don't believe in that anymore" or "Well, clearly they meant slavery as a metaphor for being imprisoned in your own heart" or whatever.

How do you distinguish literal truth from allegory? Do you think Homer's Odyssey is any different? How about Harry Potter?

I understand that a lot of people think many components of religion are hogwash, and quite frankly I won't argue against that, but I believe that the pros greatly outweigh the cons. You just have to remember that religion has a huuuuuge political side to it (thus, the Christian Dark Ages), and any time there are politics involved with anything, things will never run very efficiently. It was not Christianity that lead to the abolition of science at that time, it was the projection of Christianity by a few self-proclaimed righteous men who were actually just power-hungry greedy bastards.

I think I can adequately sum up my response to this with the following quote:

“With or without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
-Steven Weinberg

This is especially lethal when people justify the killing of others based on unfalsifiable interpretations of religion that they've been indoctrinated with from youth.

I've been a Christian for a long time, and I will be the very first to say that not all of us are the same. A Christian, as we are "supposed" to be, is about hearing other people out and helping where we can. We are meant to be servants, not "holier than thou" pricks that go around telling everybody what they're doing wrong and throwing a verse at anything that doesn't go how we want it to. And that's not even to mention "God said I should do this." That is THE most overly-used thought/statement in history, leading almost entirely to negative consequences.

I completely understand why many people dislike Christianity. I think Ghandi's quote, "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" has held true for a very very long time. Anything in the news about Christianity is about some madmen protesting at funerals or burning copies of the Quran, yelling at their congregations that they should beat the gay out of their children, etc. We are conveyed as (and in many cases, sadly, ARE) bigots or closed-minded, unaccepting doucebags. I apologize for those Christians that give us this image, and I assure you that there are many more level-headed ones that are just generally nice people who shake their heads at the loud, rude ones.

I will happily discuss any aspect of this type of conversation with you or anyone else via PM or another thread if you'd like. I assure you that I am not the -typical- Christian as thought of by many atheists. That being said, I think I've participated in derailing this thread enough.

Many religious folk are genuinely good, nice people. Again, though, the problem is that the moment we give faith a free pass, we find ourselves trying to reason with people who have justified their stance *outside* of reason itself, and thus will not budge from their agendas of impinging on others. I can reply to this more but I am lazy and starving for lunch right now.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

oh boy.. I was gonna refute some of those points, but I'd just be mirroring what rubix is gonna say, so *popcorn.gif*
EDIT: and there we have it.

EDIT2:

I encourage you to read the first chapter of Genesis when the Bible discusses creation. The verses actually line up with the "proven" historical occurrences fairly well (minus the stars being created after the grass, I'll give you that one. Although this was written over 2000 years ago, sooo not so much was known about science, and it was generally believed that the sun revolved around the Earth at that time). Just because it says 7 days and lacks dinosaurs doesn't make it completely irrelevant, it just means people back then hadn't ever dug down into the earth looking for t-rex bones. 7 days is considered even by most Christians (minus some extremists) to be an entirely symbolic representation of the time frame.

And I encourage you to reread the first chapter of Genesis and you'll come to find the Earth was created in 6 days and the 7th was the "sabbath" or day of rest, which is kind of why you go to church on Sunday.

[A2P]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Well, with that attitude no. But there have been discussions between religious and non-religious people that ended perfectly amicably, where both sides admitted they'd come away with interesting things to think about, even if neither side "won"

I had conversations with Guidohunter like that all the time back in the day.

But the problem is people DO try to win these arguments, and nobody ever wins in a religious debate. The walls of text are redundant to read because it can always be summarized with "yeah um youre wrong heres why", and "nuh uh youre wrong heres why" and there's never any peace with these discussions. It's all worthless ego-boosting.

If the whole point of debate is to find out something interesting, read some books. For religious debates, read the Bible, Summa Theologica (St. Thomas Aquinas), and various other scriptures on philosophy and life, instead of posting about why your beliefs are superior to another.

EDIT: Also, take some time to realize what started this particular argument...which is a ****ing facebook post by some no-name person who's only flaw (in the eyes of the OP at least, I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a flaw) was that the person is vocal about their faith. Think about that for a second.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

But the problem is people DO try to win these arguments, and nobody ever wins in a religious debate.

IMO false.

The walls of text are redundant to read because it can always be summarized with "yeah um youre wrong heres why", and "nuh uh youre wrong heres why" and there's never any peace with these discussions.

The problem isn't about "nuh uh you're wrong here's why" from both sides... I mean, that's what a debate IS. Both sides argue a point. The real problem arises when people are unwilling to change their minds no matter what, even if their positions are exposed as being incredibly weak/inconsistent/etc.

For some reason people feel like there's some huge social cost to conceding points or acknowledging fault/being incorrect over something.

It's all worthless ego-boosting.

Nothing to do with ego-boosting. People just get tired of seeing their country to go shit over things that aren't based in reasoned discussion or evidence.

For religious debates, read the Bible, Summa Theologica (St. Thomas Aquinas), and various other scriptures on philosophy and life, instead of posting about why your beliefs are superior to another.

1. Plenty of people have read that stuff and still argue this topic, so I don't see your point here.
2. It's not about superiority. It's about fairness and equality.

EDIT: Also, take some time to realize what started this particular argument...which is a ****ing facebook post by some no-name person who's only flaw (in the eyes of the OP at least, I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a flaw) was that the person is vocal about their faith. Think about that for a second.

Huh? Her being vocal about it isn't the flaw, here...