Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
unreality

Atheism discussion

241 posts in this topic

EDIT: By the time I posted this ADParker had replied to it as well, sorry if we're saying a lot of the same things!

As much as I wholeheartedly want this debate to end, I couldn't resist replying.... :)

I agree with what both of you are saying, especially you LIS. I think that there is not realy any proof for evolution or the existance of God. Well, there is evidence from my viewpoint, but for this arguement i will say there is none for fear of being ripped up and down(again).

I agree, there is no proof of either. The difference between those two propositions is in the plausibility and logical consistency of what is proposed, the reasons for thinking them true in the first place, the extent of evidence which supports them and their verifiability (through further discovery, or making predictions which can be tested, for example). More on that later, I was a bit pushed for time...

Although I see where you are coming from Octopuppy, I think we are on a different page here, not just in beliefs, but in the understanding of what religion is. Religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. God doesnt want us Christians being religous, as much as he wants us to simply obey his word and preach the Gospel. So as far as religion goes...well that's about as far as it goes.
I see religion as a complex and compelling form of superstition, which has come about through, firstly, a natural tendency in humans to have supernatural beliefs (our thought processes are far from perfect), and secondly, a long and effective process of memetic selection. In brief, religions exist in their present form because the ideas and behaviours which make up the religion are self-replicating and compelling. Naturally I don't expect you to agree on any of that, but it illustrates that, yes, we are not on the same page! :D

It really is far too ignorant to speak of it as the absence of reason, as you stated above.
I didn't say that. What I did say is that religion is incompatible with reason, and I should add that despite this many religious people use reason extensively and successfully, to some extent. But I contend that they do not apply it rigorously to their own beliefs. Where religion and reason coexist, something has to give. Either the religion is overturned by reason, or the reason is compromised by the religion.

Who is to say that religion and reason are unrelated? Do you not have to use reason to choose what you believe in? I have used reason(and quite frankly some knowledgable reason) in my decision that evolution is false, ergo God does exist.
You have, but as we have already discussed, your reasoning is based on misinformation (propagated by religions) and is applied faultily. Bad reasoning is less use than no reasoning at all.

You are treating reason as if it is some doctrine by which to base on a set of conducts, aka a religion. Reason is not something to believe, but something to use.
Yes, except that the "doctrine" in this case is self-evident and based purely on logic. So is it really a doctrine? Reason is something to use and something to believe. My "belief" in this sense is in the value of being rigorous in our application of reason.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C. S. Lewis
That's a revealing quote, and quite apt. Religion affects the way everything is perceived and understood, which is precisely why I have a problem with it! :D
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oct, I think you have already made many good points and above too on theism/non-theism.

What about the possibility that theists have already reasoned that there must be a God?

I for one do not know which has more evidence or reason, for me it's not actually important. I know we will as humans be swayed to believe by science or reason that something is proved to be good for us (wine up until the time we were told it is not). I am a great believer in nature balancing out the physical things that humans want to develop a switch for all the time - but that's probably another topic. I think that is our social development that is causing the issues as a human race. We cloud things with reasoning as to why we are here, which would be nice to have a final answer on. I the end we 'seem' to need science to understand rather than believe; if it be placebo or a spiritual need. science is now involved. Again belief is 'where did we come from/where are we going to (death)? Some people can't accept death and others are curious about the beginning, which I guess is natural.

Go mother nature - Go!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oct, I think you have already made many good points and above too on theism/non-theism.

What about the possibility that theists have already reasoned that there must be a God?

It's possible, though I can't help but wonder why they keep that line of reasoning such a big secret, while at the same time feeding us a load of fallacious twaddle to put us off the scent. That's just cruel. Come on theists! Stop teasing us!

I for one do not know which has more evidence or reason, for me it's not actually important. I know we will as humans be swayed to believe by science or reason that something is proved to be good for us (wine up until the time we were told it is not). I am a great believer in nature balancing out the physical things that humans want to develop a switch for all the time - but that's probably another topic. I think that is our social development that is causing the issues as a human race. We cloud things with reasoning as to why we are here, which would be nice to have a final answer on. I the end we 'seem' to need science to understand rather than believe; if it be placebo or a spiritual need. science is now involved. Again belief is 'where did we come from/where are we going to (death)? Some people can't accept death and others are curious about the beginning, which I guess is natural.
We need science to understand rather than believe - exactly!

Religion gives an answer to everything, but it's a hollow answer, transparently based on fiction. People want answers to questions like "why are we here?" and that's one of the reasons why religion proliferates, partly because it seems to provide an answer, and partly because it has influenced our thinking to the extent that we should ask the question in the first place, without recognising the hidden assumption within it. The assumption is that we are here for a reason, a purpose. Whose purpose could that possibly be? Only God. So the question implicitly assumes the existence of a "higher intelligence" that has a purpose for us. I was recently asking for examples of how religion has influenced our culture and language so as to create such hidden assumptions, and that's a very good one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading trough these pages... well not all of it ADParker writes really long posts, I lose interest half way through.

Try making a point in fewer sentences cause I like your reasoning ;)

This is my problem with religion - if God does exist why every religion has a different interpretation of God?

Why is Christianity itself so divers? If there would have been God... wouldn't he somehow "shown" to humanity what is the and only way of believing in him?

OK this will be trivial but, if one person is celebrating Christmas on 25th of December (Catholics) and the other on 7th of January (Orthodox Christians) and the third person doesn't go to school on Fridays (I can't remember what branch of the Christianity tree does that) because their religion is forbidding them... how can that come from the same God, can't he just make up his mind??

I know, I know, people decided - this is how we will interpret things "We are right and you others are wrong" and they are all Christians... where's the sense in that. That's where the lack of credibility lays... so many interpretations! :huh:

Edited by andromeda
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I'd say more about whether evolution is proven, but felt it best to launch a new topic.

Here it is!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All religions are actually forms of Atheism, an example: Christians are atheists to the Norse god's and the Egyptian gods, Regular Atheists have taken it one god further, not believing in God.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe, I've wondered that myself. I mean, why does pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884... and e = 2.7182818284...? Why not 5.3896476625092854657... or 278.5? They just seem so random, and yet they work out so perfectly in certain situations.

As from what I know, pi is simply the perimeter of a circle divided by its diameter. How can it be different from the value 3.14.....

Like the perimeter of a square divided by the diameter of an inscribing circle is 4.00. Diameter of the inscribing circle is the length of one side of the square. So the ratio has to be 4.00. How can it be different ? Similarly pi has to be 3.14... Do I sound naive? If so please excuse me. Other wise comments please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As from what I know, pi is simply the perimeter of a circle divided by its diameter. How can it be different from the value 3.14.....

Like the perimeter of a square divided by the diameter of an inscribing circle is 4.00. Diameter of the inscribing circle is the length of one side of the square. So the ratio has to be 4.00. How can it be different ? Similarly pi has to be 3.14... Do I sound naive? If so please excuse me. Other wise comments please.

Everyone knows that, it's just why? I know what pi is, but I was merely speculating on the fact that things could theoretically be different, like different physical properties or laws of motion or one of various other things. I'm not saying that it is ever different, just wondering if it's at all possible. Of course pi is pi, but imagine if it wasn't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then we would be wondering why it was whatever it was instead :P lol

Pi is different, if you use a different numerical base or counting system or mathematical system (not sure if it changes in non-euclidean geometry) ;D

I think I linked something earlier why pi is close to 3

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pi is different, if you use a different numerical base or counting system or mathematical system (not sure if it changes in non-euclidean geometry) ;D

It still represents the same value, so no, it's not different in numerical sense, only it how it is written.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It still represents the same value, so no, it's not different in numerical sense, only it how it is written.
I think it's pretty much determined by how we define distance, so in another geometrical system it could be a different value.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This post may contain information which is confidential or proprietary or both or neither. Any dissemination, distribution, reading or awareness of this communication without prior written permission of OctopuppyCorp is strictly prohibited. OctopuppyCorp may monitor all your internet activity for purposes of world domination and staff training. If you have accidentally read this post and are not in possession of appropriate permission, please remain where you are and OctopuppyCorp representatives will arrive shortly to discuss arrangements for the removal or distruction of your memory. The contents, comments and views contained or expressed within this post do not necessarily reflect those of OctopuppyCorp, its subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, sister companies, shadowy alliances or agents, covert or otherwise, and are not intended to create any impression whatsoever. The Octopuppy persona, the words "Octopuppy", "OctopuppyCorp", "the", and "New World Order", and the number 12, are all registered trademarks of OctopuppyCorp. By reading this disclaimer you have signalled your agreement to comply with all demands made by OctopuppyCorp and all associated states, governments and armed forces.

:lol: :lol:

Something I do think about is why pi & e are so small. It seems that all the cool, important numbers are very small. From the important square roots to the two golden ratios (although those are explained, they have to be (1ñ5)/2 because of the quadratic equation), to the transcendental numbers like pi and e. They're all relatively small on our number line. It's not like pi is 17012687432371112223448784425435435787898966634221357487723243.07707709806232112

4812

you know? B))

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol::lol:

Something I do think about is why pi & e are so small. It seems that all the cool, important numbers are very small. From the important square roots to the two golden ratios (although those are explained, they have to be (1ñ5)/2 because of the quadratic equation), to the transcendental numbers like pi and e. They're all relatively small on our number line. It's not like pi is 17012687432371112223448784425435435787898966634221357487723243.07707709806232112

4812

you know? B))

Oh I don't know, I think any number bigger than 0.00001 is really big. You know how many numbers there are smaller than that?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew you would say that, tis why I said relatively small :P I also know that you know what I mean ;D hehe. But if 'small' isn't acceptable, then the question can be rephrased as: why are pi and e so close to each other [relative to most numbers that we deal with on our number line]?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew you would say that, tis why I said relatively small :P I also know that you know what I mean ;D hehe. But if 'small' isn't acceptable, then the question can be rephrased as: why are pi and e so close to each other [relative to most numbers that we deal with on our number line]?
Sorry, I was being facetious there. It is an interesting question really. A lot of such numbers are geometrical ratios and I suppose the nature of geometry means that interesting geometrical ratios tend not to be too far from 1 (because two related distances are probably going to be on roughly the same scale). Maybe some similar logic applies to other numbers like gamma (0.577...) and e (2.718...). If you take a random infinite series (whatever that is) I suspect that it is most likely to converge quite close to 1 or not at all. I must admit I'm a little unsatisfied by my own answer there. All the mathematical constants I can think of are within the 1/5 to 5 bracket. It is a very small bracket, you'd think one or two might have made it into the realms of 1/100 to 100, say.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah - other constants come from solutions to smaller quadratics or cubics, which tend to keep things smaller... but still, it doesn't do it justice :)

I was just looking at some other constants, and most of them are all pretty small ;D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.