Current Poll (Religion)

[Gealle]

Novium. They're scientists. Don't waste your breath, my dear. Give your time to people with souls.

[hr]

Funky flunky munky...

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 22:47, 11th Aug 2007
Except your perceptions of the universe are completely shaped by your innate (and yes, societal) biases. So it's a bit of a circle, isn't it? What you can detect and attempt to explain is limited to a)those things we are capable of detecting (directly or indirectly) and b)those things our minds are capable of conceiving.

The self is only capable of using the detecting equipment it has been endowed with. You and I can't see muons nor can we hear a black hole. Which is why we build devices which can.

Something is only incapable of being detected if it has no effect on nor interacts with anything. Such can thing's can be said to 'not exist'. I realise this opens to hole to "ah but what if they did? science wouldn't tell you if they did!', yes and neither would poetry. It's the same issue as that of god, people cling to it because there is no absolute disproof. If something cannot detected then it is not part of the physical universe and can quite easily dismissed as non-existant.

Perception is a difficult issue. No one is capable of picturing what an atom looks like, nor how an electron travels through spacetime. But we can still understand their behaviour and how they interact with the universe. Such understanding led to the invention of semi-conductors. So I'm not claiming to 'know what the universe looks like, simply that the only thing capable of such a thing is, and always has been, physics.

Science does not seek to answer "what does it all mean"... it's foolish to pretend that it does. Gravity may be a fact, but that does not make it a Truth. It's an observable phenomenon, granted. It exists, it can be measured...but it has no meaning, in and of itself.

Why must gravity have a meaning? Why must anything have a meaning? Such illogical thinking quickly leads to purpose, intent and creator. Nonsense. I am defining truth as that which is true. Gravity is the effect of bent spacetime, true. There's nothing personal about truth in this sense.

history (etc) cannot be a science:

You'll get no arguement from me here.

(imagine a physicist who did not seek out the law of falling bodies but talked about falls and their "causes”)

So the physiscist couldn't tell you why those people got killed? Is that what your meaning?
Fair enough I would say.
Though the brain and how it works is slowly unfolding before us. Technologies exist which can read thoughts to a limited degree. All your thoughts and feelings are physical manifestations in the brain, and they can be detected.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[munchingfoo]

Quoting novium from 22:47, 11th Aug 2007

"History does not repeat itself, and is only the history of variations; men will tell of the 1914 war, but not of the war as a phenomenon. (imagine a physicist who did not seek out the law of falling bodies but talked about falls and their "causes”)".

I know its a cliche, but most have some basis in fact: "It appears that history is repeating itself".

Some things that tend to repeat:

Fashion
Rise and Fall of Empires(or super-powers today)
If War then increased rate of learning/innovation.

I was always told at school that the main reason to study history was to learn from our mistakes/successes. If history never repeats itself why would we want to learn from our mistakes?

So the first half of the quote is pretty much rubbish.

The second half, again so.

Consider how the scientist comes to the conclusion of the law of falling bodies. He first considers individual falls and their causes and somewhere along the line he has a eureka moment.

Someone somewhere had first to make the connection that falling bodies were related. (but also the fact that on earth they are sometimes also unrelated due to friction)



[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Campbell]

see? i told you atheists were arrogant!

christian view - look at the world, god is obvious

atheist view - look at the findings of science, lack of god is obvious.

i think it is the assumption that human beings can ever actually access the truth about anything that makes these stances so flawed. this happens in everything but agnosticism, and probably most so in atheism. atheism is such an easy way out, easy to defend but ultimately just a knee-jerk reaction against religion. the actual reaction should be to oppose religion by countering its dogma and reluctance to adapt, not just re-enacting these qualities as some high and mighty arsehole.

also, like a lot of feminists, many atheists tend to assume that their stance is somehow global, a developed truth, rather than just another product of sheltered westernism and a lack of understanding about how human beings actually function.

ps, to whoever mentioned occam's razor... it is absolute, complete shite, surely? the simplest explanation is clearly not always right. If it is, then the moon landings were faked, quantum physics would not exist, etc etc

[novium]

No, the quote is not rubbish. History does not repeat itself. Lots of cliches are useful, but are logically and factually in correct. The cliche of the frog in the boiling water, for example.

What you are referring to is the meanings that we place on history. These can be extremely flawed. At best, there is always going to be about ten thousand different ways of looking at various historical events... and so much of interpretation is just the product of inherent bias. For example, the idea that an empire rises and then falls... you want rubbish? That's rubbish. First, that implies rising to a peak and then the inevitable onset of decline. (Which is a value judgment, and thus subjective.) It also implies that it is a universal and unchanging pattern. It's a view of history that is entirely focused on kings and generals. Take the Roman Empire. Looking at if from the point of view of 90% of the population, you can be convinced that not much changed, as far as they were concerned, when the empire "fell'. Looking at it from an ecological perspective, you can be convinced that the entire thing was merely the product of the blind forces of the environment and the weather. Looking at it from an economic perspective, you can be convinced that what happened was that everything slowly fell apart because of trade deficits. Also, you can be convinced that it was only part of a larger global pattern of trade and change, and that the so-called "Fall" was nothing more than a change of focus. Byzantium, for example, continued well into the middle ages.


The Romans fought a great many wars, yet there was no great leap in innovation. There was adaptation, but despite the fact that the ancient world knew about steam engines and other such thaumata, nothing much ever came of it.

I could go on and on...but Veyne said history is the history of VARIATIONS. There are patterns that crop up, but they are not the same. There are no Laws of History, and there never will be. Nothing in history is universal. You learn about history so you can learn about people. You learn about history so you understand how you got from there to here. You learn about history, yes, to understand other people's mistakes, but if you think it's a simple matter of saying "well, X didn't work in the past, so don't do X now", you are sadly mistaken. Everyone constructs a slightly different story.

Quoting munchingfoo from 12:15, 12th Aug 2007

I know its a cliche, but most have some basis in fact: "It appears that history is repeating itself".

Some things that tend to repeat:

Fashion
Rise and Fall of Empires(or super-powers today)
If War then increased rate of learning/innovation.

I was always told at school that the main reason to study history was to learn from our mistakes/successes. If history never repeats itself why would we want to learn from our mistakes?

So the first half of the quote is pretty much rubbish.

The second half, again so.

Consider how the scientist comes to the conclusion of the law of falling bodies. He first considers individual falls and their causes and somewhere along the line he has a eureka moment.

Someone somewhere had first to make the connection that falling bodies were related. (but also the fact that on earth they are sometimes also unrelated due to friction)



[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Senethro]

Quoting campbell from 14:32, 12th Aug 2007
see? i told you atheists were arrogant!

christian view - look at the world, god is obvious

atheist view - look at the findings of science, lack of god is obvious.

False equivalency surely.

If you can show some evidence for... oh, I'll give you a nice easy broad target. Anything supernatural. Otherwise, the christians are believing without evidence. How can that be less or equally arrogant as atheists?

i think it is the assumption that human beings can ever actually access the truth about anything that makes these stances so flawed. this happens in everything but agnosticism, and probably most so in atheism. atheism is such an easy way out, easy to defend but ultimately just a knee-jerk reaction against religion.

Why are you trying to trivialise atheism? In what sense does being knee-jerk (assuming this to be true, detract from it? In what sense is atheism easy?

the actual reaction should be to oppose religion by countering its dogma and reluctance to adapt, not just re-enacting these qualities as some high and mighty arsehole.

What does this actually involve? If you don't believe in theology, why debate using it?

also, like a lot of feminists, many atheists tend to assume that their stance is somehow global, a developed truth, rather than just another product of sheltered westernism and a lack of understanding about how human beings actually function.

Are you arguing again'st atheism by saying it isn't multicultural enough? (and would people lay off feminism already, just because the batshit feminists get the most airtime doesn't mean feminism wasn't one of the best things about last century)

ps, to whoever mentioned occam's razor... it is absolute, complete shite, surely? the simplest explanation is clearly not always right. If it is, then the moon landings were faked, quantum physics would not exist, etc etc

Way to state the obvious. I'm sure we're all well aware of the limitations of occams. Now demonstrate how this limitation means we shouldn't use it at all.

[novium]

What part of "directly or indirectly" did you not understand? The indirectly part covered machines; we still have to build the machines. We still have to conceive of them. We still have to conceive of something to detect.


As to things that aren't detectable..and this is apropos of nothing, really... aren't there quite a few people around nowadays dabbling in string theory?

2) Let's try going italic, maybe you'll actually pay attention this time: meaning is something science does not dabble in. you cannot disprove meaning, you cannot prove meaning. Meaning cannot be tested. Meaning does not equal believing in a grand design, deity, or anything like that. Meaning = interpretation of existence.
let's try going bold. you are going beyond science when you state that nothing has any meaning, because that itself is an interpretation...just as stating that it does have meaning is an interpretation, just as saying the meaning is [insert here] is an interpretation

Quoting Haunted from 11:42, 12th Aug 2007

A)The self is only capable of using the detecting equipment it has been endowed with. You and I can't see muons nor can we hear a black hole. Which is why we build devices which can.

Something is only incapable of being detected if it has no effect on nor interacts with anything. Such can thing's can be said to 'not exist'. I realise this opens to hole to "ah but what if they did? science wouldn't tell you if they did!', yes and neither would poetry. It's the same issue as that of god, people cling to it because there is no absolute disproof. If something cannot detected then it is not part of the physical universe and can quite easily dismissed as non-existant.

Perception is a difficult issue. No one is capable of picturing what an atom looks like, nor how an electron travels through spacetime. But we can still understand their behaviour and how they interact with the universe. Such understanding led to the invention of semi-conductors. So I'm not claiming to 'know what the universe looks like, simply that the only thing capable of such a thing is, and always has been, physics.

Science does not seek to answer "what does it all mean"... it's foolish to pretend that it does. Gravity may be a fact, but that does not make it a Truth. It's an observable phenomenon, granted. It exists, it can be measured...but it has no meaning, in and of itself.

2)Why must gravity have a meaning? Why must anything have a meaning? Such illogical thinking quickly leads to purpose, intent and creator. Nonsense. I am defining truth as that which is true. Gravity is the effect of bent spacetime, true. There's nothing personal about truth in this sense.

history (etc) cannot be a science:

You'll get no arguement from me here.

(imagine a physicist who did not seek out the law of falling bodies but talked about falls and their "causes”)

So the physiscist couldn't tell you why those people got killed? Is that what your meaning?
Fair enough I would say.
Though the brain and how it works is slowly unfolding before us. Technologies exist which can read thoughts to a limited degree. All your thoughts and feelings are physical manifestations in the brain, and they can be detected.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Gubbins]

Back again. Did you miss me? No? Oh well.

Quoting Alistair from 16:05, 11th Aug 2007
Secondly, evidence for God: Big Bang, constants of physics, sound, light, matter, life... I realise they don't require a god in one sense. But on the other hand they must have come from somewhere.

...This doesn't explain where that four dimensional space comes from.

...where did the laws of nature come from?...

Why do they have to come from anywhere? I've already tried to explain this once, but I probably didn't do a very good job. They don't have to come from somewhere. Physical constants are mathematical constructs from relationships in the world around us - as numbers, they are invented by humanity. On the other hand, if you're talking about cosmological parameters, and the nature of matter and its interactions throughout the Universe, these are only the manifest properties of the Universe we live in. It's a bit like saying "what created the holes in a sponge?". Or perhaps more relevantly, "what created God?".

What created the Universe is another matter. Really, that isn't a sensible question to ask, as time is a property of our Universe and was thus created in the Big Bang. So we should therefore ask "why does the Universe exist?". There have been several attempts to understand this, such as M-brane theory and cyclical universes; my favourite is perhaps that the Big Bang is a 'white hole' and that matter falling into black holes gets accelerated to superluminal speeds and hence goes back in time to reappear at the beginning of the Universe. Naturally all these are only theories, with little physical corroboration in the observed Universe, but then again, that's about the same standpoint as any religion can hold.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Gubbins]

Quoting gealle from 23:24, 11th Aug 2007
Novium. They're scientists. Don't waste your breath, my dear. Give your time to people with souls.

You presume they have them.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Gubbins]

Quoting campbell from 14:32, 12th Aug 2007
ps, to whoever mentioned occam's razor... it is absolute, complete shite, surely? the simplest explanation is clearly not always right. If it is, then the moon landings were faked, quantum physics would not exist, etc etc

1) Occam's razor does not say this. It says (broadly speaking) that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. There's a big difference.

2) Why on Earth would this mean the Moon landing were faked? And why would it mean QM wouldn't exist? In the first case, the bulk of the evidence points to them happening. In the latter case, QM arose in part out of Occam's razor, based on the evidence available during its discovery.

I hope I don't need to provide any other number of examples to show to you that Occam's razor does work. It doesn't necessarily always predict the truth, but see my first point for that eventuality.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Campbell]

Quoting Senethro from 15:49, 12th Aug 2007 False equivalency surely.

If you can show some evidence for... oh, I'll give you a nice easy broad target. Anything supernatural. Otherwise, the christians are believing without evidence. How can that be less or equally arrogant as atheists?

Well, if i was to be a pedant i'd say that there's a hell of a lot of people who report events that are not (at least, are not obviously) explainable by the rationales of science. In the world of science, if something can't be caught, tested, and/or repeated, it doens't exist. I disagree with this. I'm not saying that it's not a good enough stance to have, given the alternatives, but it clearly leaves the potential for error and omission.

I'm sure you've heard the classic problem with science, the assumption that if you see something happen a number of times then you can make great assumptions about it always being the case. Eg all the swans you ever see are white, but there are in fact black swans/albino ravens etc that don't fit the pattern. I'd say that science is also actually pretty shit at predicting things, at making jumps, and surely that's the real test of understanding. I mean, we're still lookng for planets that have temperatures between 0 and 40, as if that means anything. Science just extrapolates, usually wrongly (for instance, the long held scientific belief in an Ether, because they saw that sound/light had to pass through the vibration of something, and to explain us being able to see the sun they invented the Ether. They proposed tests in the upper atmosphere to test Ether drag and figure out the speed of rotation of the earth, etc, and ignored the results which didn't fit. They were of course utterly wrong ad light can travel through a vacuum. Science is not a huge enlightening, all encompassing thing, but it is - and always has been - a very small match in an extremely big black room.)

Why are you trying to trivialise atheism? In what sense does being knee-jerk (assuming this to be true, detract from it? In what sense is atheism easy?

because i don't think most atheists ever doubt themselves truly, and i think it's not a particularly wise or evolved stance. i think it is trivial, and essentially useless as a stance on anything. It's just modern confidence in our ability to provide our own answers, which i think is probably hugely misplaced. i think a lot of people inherit atheism in the same way they do religion, making it as much an idiotic non-decision. And it's easy because it requires no practice, no introspection, no questioning, just a sort of quiet arrogance.

If you don't believe in theology, why debate using it?

uh... precisely because of that reason. obviously.

Are you arguing again'st atheism by saying it isn't multicultural enough?

no, i'm saying it isn't the objectively rational conclusion that every atheist i've ever met thinks it is, it is as much culturally based as anything, as is science, and it's not globally applicable, or just true by it's own merits.

Way to state the obvious. I'm sure we're all well aware of the limitations of occams. Now demonstrate how this limitation means we shouldn't use it at all.

because it's therefore useless, surely

[Senethro]

Paragraph 1:
Science has limitations. We know this. Showing the limitations of science does not mean god or the supernatural is hiding in one of the gaps.

Paragraph 2:
The atheists you describe exist. That does not discredit atheism.

Offer an alternative stance you think acceptable based upon the apparent non-existence of the supernatural.

3:

the actual reaction should be to oppose religion by countering its dogma and reluctance to adapt, not just re-enacting these qualities as some high and mighty arsehole.

I must have misunderstood you and so do not understand what you meant by this previous post.

4. Can you show that science is culturally based? How does Chinese science differ from Western science?

(additionally, how ironic that your criticisms of science are an order of magnitude more applicable to religion, something that varies far more by culture)


5.
Its not religious scripture. Just because its wrong under some circumstances doesn't mean we throw the whole thing out the window. Its a useful reasoning principle that prevents us falling into needlessly complicated explanations. Upon new and better evidence a new explanation is preferred.



Edit: It sounds like you could make a better atheism than atheists can. I invite you to do so and put us out of our misery.

[Alistair]

Haunted, you still haven't grasped my point. The Big Bang was an example. Everything must have an ultimate cause. I just mentioned the Big Bang as it happened a while back. What I am saying is that there are two ways of looking at it. The universe (as in the space/time entity) and all its properties such as light, sound, electro-magnetism etc. could either (a) have been created by a deity of some sort or (b) just exist. I prefer choice (a), atheists choose choice (b). None of science has actually contradicted choice (a). What I am saying is that although the idea of a god is a difficult one to understand, it is also difficult to imagine that the universe and all its properties exist of their own accord. This is why there is a debate on this board.

I choose choice (a) because I believe that the properties of the universe such as light, gravity and electro-magnetism were designed, a Christian faith and that I feel God affects my life.

Science can merely conjecture each property based on the relations between matter. Science can never explain the original existence of the property or matter. It is not that it hasn't managed it yet, it merely is impossible for science to explain existence itself.

[Alistair]

Quoting Haunted from 22:13, 11th Aug 2007

Belief in the nature of god can change, just as views of atheists on the world also change. It is not because God doesn't exist, it is merely through science that my definition had to change, as do definitions used by atheists.

How can the nature of something omnipotent change? Did that mean he was previously not perfect? Or do you mean something like, we no longer believe god causes the lightning because science and observation have told us better? Is that an instance of his nature changing?

What I am saying is that an idea of what God is has changed, not God Himself. It is the same with atheists. Many atheists struggled with the idea that the world is so beneficial to life, so they came up with the idea there are infinitely many universes and we just live on one that works well for us. Not all atheists believe this, but it is an example of an atheist changing their mind on the nature of the universe.

[Senethro]

Quoting Alistair from 17:55, 12th Aug 2007

Quoting Haunted from 22:13, 11th Aug 2007

Belief in the nature of god can change, just as views of atheists on the world also change. It is not because God doesn't exist, it is merely through science that my definition had to change, as do definitions used by atheists.

How can the nature of something omnipotent change? Did that mean he was previously not perfect? Or do you mean something like, we no longer believe god causes the lightning because science and observation have told us better? Is that an instance of his nature changing?

What I am saying is that an idea of what God is has changed, not God Himself. It is the same with atheists. Many atheists struggled with the idea that the world is so beneficial to life, so they came up with the idea there are infinitely many universes and we just live on one that works well for us. Not all atheists believe this, but it is an example of an atheist changing their mind on the nature of the universe.

Atheism isn't a dogma that claims Truth. It doesn't have to be held to such high standards as that which is Divinely inspired. It is also in the nature of atheists that the difficulty of getting them to agree on anything can be compared to cat-herding.

Anyway, you're talking rubbish. You can "wish" that god created the universe but lacking evidence, you're just as likely to be correct as anyone with a different fairytale, including true believers of the FSM.

The correct position is to not assume anything until there is reason otherwise.

[novium]

To the contrary: it does claim Truth. It makes claims regarding the end all and be all of life, existence, the universe, which then is seen as having implications for everyday life.

You yourself, senethro, have argued many times on this very board that it is important that people believe as you do for the sake of humanity, for the sake of the greater good. You find it important because from that one belief, you infer a great many of other things that apply to how how people should act, and what they should do, and what is worthwhile, and what is pointless. And you have argued very passionately for these things.

If your beliefs were not about Truth, you would not be so quick to defend them nor as eager to convert others to your way of thinking.
In this sense, only apathetic agnostics can truly claim to not be pushing any Truth.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Senethro]

If I ever said that in those words, I'm sure I was fakeposting. Assuming that you yourself are being serious (I can't tell anymore [img]littleicons/yellowsadface.gif[/img] ) it is apparent why you find atheists so threatening as a rival "belief" system.

[Frank]

Quoting Haunted from 22:22, 11th Aug 2007
What? Gravity is the result of bent spacetime, that is a fact, it is also the truth. Poetry will tell you nothing about the truths of the universe.

What tripe!

Disproof:

Newton said as he gazed off afar,
"From here to the most distant star,
These wond'rous ellipses
And solar eclipses
All come from a 1 over r."



[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Bizarre Atheist]

I leave the internet for 8 days and The Sinner reverts to A-level philosophy of Religion! Usually I love to wade into these murky waters and I have all sorts of barely-relevant but extremely interesting demonstrations of this and that, but right now I am too tired to read through four pages of tripe.

For your reference, I personally flicker between defiant, active atheist and fearful, nervous, passive agnosticism. For a while I labelled myself a 'consciencious objector to organised religion' but that doesn't fit in boxes on forms and I have real difficulty spelling consciencious the same way twice.

The Bizarre Atheist has spoken (typed).

I'm so very tired.

[hr]

http://www.charities-campaign.org.uk

[novium]

You did indeed. Try looking for one of the threads that was about dawkins.

I am curious what gave you the impression I find atheism threatening. I was merely engaging in a little deconstruction... as away to point out the flaws in the reasoning that science = nothing in the universe has meaning. And even that was not part of an effort to argue that the universe does have meaning.

Quoting Senethro from 19:25, 12th Aug 2007
If I ever said that in those words, I'm sure I was fakeposting. Assuming that you yourself are being serious (I can't tell anymore [img]littleicons/yellowsadface.gif[/img] ) it is apparent why you find atheists so threatening as a rival "belief" system.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.