The Religion thread

[Mulu]

I never said science was *just* speculating, I said that at the point where new ideas are emerging, it's speculation. Some of those speculations evolve to hypotheses, and some of those make it to theory, but most just die on the vine.

And GF, you obviously don't remember the last time we talked about QM. It was in a thread that got locked, and in that thread I posted regarding the spiritual beliefs that were incorporated into QM. Calling it a religion may be a stretch, but QM is tainted with Jungian sychronicity, which is a mystical belief in the collective unconscious.

And yes, "anything" includes Santa Claus.

[NickD]

Try telling that to people who go around calling people idiots for speculating that it may be possible to go faster than the speed of light one day, or for saying they're not entirely convinced by quantum physics.

That would be nice if Mulu were correct. Science is not just speculation. All science starts that way, but your ultimate goal is a theory--and a theory is as far from speculation as it gets. It's all about evidence and a cohesive explanation of the world, one that is proven accurate by its predictive power and the aforementioned mountain of evidence.

*points out GF to Mulu* Like this guy.

[Mulu]

I think GF simply misunderstood both of our posts, since he contradicted himself, or rather indulged in a straw man.

Nick's point (I believe) is that QM may very well have some errors, and many parts of it have not been proven, though certainly some are supported by experimental outcome. And pointing that out shouldn't lead to absolute condemnation.

QM works great at the subatomic level, but taken to the macroscropic it stops making sense and creates paradox. If anything is possible, and anything possible will happen given sufficient trials, then anything will also happen more than once. But then uniqueness isn't possible, which is a paradox. This is just a quick example.

And if anything is possible, than traveling faster than the speed of light is possible. In fact, it's been done on the subatomic experimental level. For that matter, if anything is possible, then it's possible that QM is totally incorrect.

QM lacks precise language outside of math, and physicists like to make headlines by making exaggerated remarks that are easily misinterpreted.

[Nyarlathotep]

People are horribly flawed. Horribly. You don't have to be a lecturer in a forensic psychology department that specializes in serial killers, genocide and mass rape to know this, but it helps. The flaws of humanity are my lecture material. If there is a creator force that gave us purpose, that purpose then necessarily includes all of our most evil behaviors, which makes that creator force one sick bastard. But I stray from the topic....

Technically doesn't describing humanity as flawed in and of itself postulate and imply the existence of a standard by which humanity falls short of? And why not a sick evil bastard god? Lets be honest when humanity gets around to finally creating a true AI (which could be described as life) then that being will have a creator that will fall pretty much into that category. Hell, just imagine the SIMs with a sentient AI, which is more than likly the fate of any AIs we do manage to create.

Also it should be noted that theistic belief is not the same as the belief in an afterlife, the commonly go together but it is not an exclusive arrangement.

As for QM, it raises questions we do not have answers for because we are still in the earliest stages of understanding what it is.

[Veilan]

Oh, this can be turned on its head quite easily. Humans are quite often able to interpret purposes into something, or assign purposes to things.

But it's subjective, not intrinsic. "Purpose" isn't a measurable quantity, it's just a subjective belief. It doesn't actually exist.

Just because it's qualitative doesn't make it unreal .

Congratulations, you are a Creationist.

Congratulations, you're an ignorant pigeon-holer mistaking debate for label-slapping .

But in science you admit that you are just speculating, and even then you only speculate about things that have some logical or rational origin.

But I admit I'm just speculating too... I stressed several times that I don't know. By the way, speculating about "faster than light" because we know there is speed... and we can imagine speeds can be greater than other speeds... is about the same as saying, well, we humans can apply a purpose to many things... so maybe there's something able to apply a purpose to more things than we can. It's wild dreaming and speculation.

It takes far more courage to admit that there is no cosmic being out there, and all that it implies, than to hold on to hope of God, because what you are really hanging onto isn't just the possibility of a creator god that makes this universe have meaning and purpose, it's the possibility of an afterlife. You are afraid of permadeath, you munchkin!

Pure conjecture. In fact, I found the lamest aspect of religion to be the scare-mongering "afterlife" idea, which I believe is simply a tool to encourage compliance. You however stating to know what I'm afraid of is ridiculous . Personally, I'm with... who was it, Virgil?, that I don't have to worry about death - for when I'm dead, it doesn't matter... and while I'm alive, apparently I'm not dead .

Or maybe everything is special

Uhm yeah but then it really isn't .

but I've already pointed out that purpose is nothing more than an idea.

So are most ideas before we can prove them, or make them happen.

Somehow I doubt you will ever understand this, as most people don't. Realizing the impossibility of god is the ultimate IQ test. As few as 0.42% of us make it.

Hm. If you saw sufficient basis in my argumentation to say it was based out of fear, then surely, here I have overwhelming evidence that your argumentation is motivated by nothing else but elitist, arrogant vanity . All you're trying is to consider yourself part of an elitist group that's supposedly more intelligent. Gasp.

Did you know that about 80% of all people believe they are more special and think more in-depth than the other people around them? They also believe they are more emotionally complex. Wow... seems you didn't make the cut after all .

I also don't think I need to tell you what aspired to, or proclaimed, group affinity does to how you work mentally - about having an bias in processing information, putting more value to arguments and events supporting your group than against it, and so on. Seems I'm back at the claim that you, in fact, are more narrow-minded - ruling out something to hold on to a stupidly vain belief that you are somehow more elite.

You may have noticed I'm only half-serious in all of the above, but it's as easy an argumentation tactic for a psychology student as to discount someone else's argument by saying they are motivated by fear of eternal and irrevocable death for... well, whatever you are .

Nonsense, two people can tell similar stories that they learned from others but still make them mutually exclusive.

And it's still the same story ::roll::... which was the point here.

The rest is mostly repetition easily catering to my "arrogant elitist group member defending his group perception ego" pot shot, so I'll leave it be for now .

I'm having fun by the way .

Cheers,

[Mulu]

Just because it's qualitative doesn't make it unreal .

"Purpose" doesn't even make the cut for qualitative, and it does require a creator that gives everything its purpose, hence your belief in purpose does indeed make you a Creationist in a general sense. Belief in purpose in the natural world = belief in a creator. Belief in a creator = Creationist. You don't have to buy the entirety of the Creationist argument to buy its essence, that it all started with some omnipotent being. That is the core belief of creationism, and you apparently possess it.

Congratulations, you're an ignorant pigeon-holer mistaking debate for label-slapping .

Overuse of the word ignorant makes it have less impact. Learn to vary your insults. Your overuse of "ignorant" has become equivalent to Kalbar's past overuse of "pickle chugger." It becomes tiring, and at least half the point of this debate is entertainment. You're failing the entertainment half due to lack of variety and creativity.

But I admit I'm just speculating too...

No, this started with a statement of your belief in the possibility of something that is totally imaginary, which is irrational. I'll give an example to clarify. I believe in alien life. I admit it's speculative, but it's more than just mere speculation. I am willing to defend that speculation, because I believe it's true. Now, IMO, my belief in alien life is rational, because it's premised on logical foundations, namely there is life on this planet, it arose naturally, the same natural occurences could happen elsewhere, and there are trillions of other opportunities for it to happen elsewhere, thus statistically speaking there should be many other examples of life out there. Is it possible my belief is fallacious, and that abiogenesis was a unique occurence in the Universe? Sure, it's possible, but I don't think it's very likely. Now, compare that to a belief in an omnipotent being. There is no logical foundation for it. There is no evidence of it (evidence of alien life is us, since we are one example of life on a planet). There is not even any good reason for it to be true, it's simply a wishful idea. I'll admit this is a very hard concept, so I'm not surprised you don't understand it. Most people having been raised with such beliefs simply see them as "normal" and never question the origin of such beliefs.

By the way, speculating about "faster than light" because we know there is speed... and we can imagine speeds can be greater than other speeds... is about the same as saying, well, we humans can apply a purpose to many things... so maybe there's something able to apply a purpose to more things than we can.

No it isn't, because there is no purpose to the Universe. Purpose is a label that you create, it's the product of ignorant label-slapping to use your vernacular. For the Universe to have purpose, it must have been Intelligently designed to have purpose, and there is no evidence of such intelligent design. Indeed, there is much evidence to the contrary.

Pure conjecture. In fact, I found the lamest aspect of religion to be the scare-mongering "afterlife" idea, which I believe is simply a tool to encourage compliance. You however stating to know what I'm afraid of is ridiculous . Personally, I'm with... who was it, Virgil?, that I don't have to worry about death - for when I'm dead, it doesn't matter... and while I'm alive, apparently I'm not dead .

So, do you believe in the possibility of an afterlife? If you do, you are still holding out hope, in response to a fear of oblivion. You claim to be a student of psychology, but you don't understand the fear of death? Interesting.

but I've already pointed out that purpose is nothing more than an idea.

So are most ideas before we can prove them, or make them happen.

And how would one go about "proving" purpose? I have an idea, I think that religion and magical thinking cause brain damage. Specifically, I think continuous irrational beliefs cause certain cognitive deficits. Now, I could prove that, with sufficient testing. That a rock has "purpose" is not a testable hypothesis, since whatever "purpose" it has is totally subjective to the observer. Indeed, it would potentially change with each observer, because it doesn't exist. To use a psychology term, implying purpose in a natural object is a "projection."

Hm. If you saw sufficient basis in my argumentation to say it was based out of fear, then surely, here I have overwhelming evidence that your argumentation is motivated by nothing else but elitist, arrogant vanity .

Nah, that's just for entertainment value. Too bad you didn't grasp that. Jokes that fly over people's heads are nowhere near as funny. My argument that belief in the unreal is irrational is motivated by nothing more than a very good understanding of the definition of the word "irrational," and a realization that some of the things that people believe in are unreal.

Did you know that about 80% of all people believe they are more special and think more in-depth than the other people around them? They also believe they are more emotionally complex.

Yes I did know that. I have a degree in Pscyhology, you know. However, I've been quantitatively tested by professional psychologists as being more intelligent than others. It's a proven trait.

I also don't think I need to tell you what aspired to, or proclaimed, group affinity does to how you work mentally - about having an bias in processing information, putting more value to arguments and events supporting your group than against it, and so on.

Yes, but the group of rational thinkers is a good group to be biased towards.

Especially since the alternative is to be biased towards the group of irrational thinkers, unless you want to pretend that you don't affiliate with any groups.

You may have noticed I'm only half-serious in all of the above, but it's as easy an argumentation tactic for a psychology student as to discount someone else's argument by saying they are motivated by fear of eternal and irrevocable death for... well, whatever you are .

But it's not a very effective one, though I admit to doing it myself. If you want to have a *serious* debate about rational v irrational beliefs, we're going to have to put down some definitions first. Though the fact that you can't comprehend that finding purpose in the natural world is just a projection bodes poorly for any serious debate.

So does the fact that you can't understand how similar stories can be mutually exclusive. It's really very easy. Hindus say when we die we are reincarnated. Judaics say that when we die we are allocated to an afterlife of heaven or hell. They are both stories about what happens after you die, but they are mutually exclusive because they state different absolutes regarding the same subject matter, which means at most one of them can be true. Does that make sense now? Probably not.... I'll try to explain it better later.

Cheers!

(I just noticed the mental welfare queen title. You guys crack me up).

[dergon darkhelm]

I like Aetheism -----the simplest point of view.

It's an Occam's Razor thing for me. ((Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.))

I'll admit to complete wikiplagia for this post (( *wikiplagia* being a word I just coined for plagiarism from wikipedia entries due to personal laziness or lack of independent thought process))

Occam's Razor & Religion

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away. While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

There is controversy over whether such compelling reasons exist or not. The history of theistic thought is rife with attempts at formulating them: the cosmological argument, for example, states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God. Similarly, the teleological argument credits the appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural intelligence. Many people believe in miracles or have what they call religious experiences, and creationists consider divine design to be more believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history of life on earth.

The majority of the scientific community generally does not accept these arguments, and prefers to rely on explanations that deal with the same phenomena within the confines of existing scientific models. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in a survey conducted 1998. According to the typical scientific view, the necessity of a God in the teleological argument is challenged by the effects of emergence, leading to the creation-evolution controversy; likewise, religious experiences have naturalistic explanations in the psychology of religion. Other theistic arguments, such as the argument from miracles, are sometimes pejoratively said to be arguing for a mere God of the gaps - whether or not God actually works miracles, any explanation that "God did it" must fit the facts and make accurate predictions better than more parsimonious guesses like "something did it", or else Occam's razor still cuts God out.

Rather than argue for the necessity of God, some theists consider their belief to be based on grounds independent of, or prior to, reason, making Occam's razor irrelevant. This was the stance of Søren Kierkegaard, who viewed belief in God as a leap of faith which sometimes directly opposed reason; this is also the same basic view of Clarkian Presuppositional apologetics, with the exception that Clark never thought the leap of faith was contrary to reason. In a different vein, Alvin Plantinga and others have argued for reformed epistemology, the view that God's existence can properly be assumed as part of a Christian's epistemological structure. (See also: Basic beliefs). Yet another school of thought, Van Tillian Presuppositional apologetics, claims that God's existence is the transcendentally necessary prior condition to the intelligibility of all human experience and thought. In other words, proponents of this view hold that there is no other viable option to ultimately explain any fact of human experience or knowledge, let alone a simpler one.

Considering that the razor is often wielded as an argument against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself was a theist. He considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data, equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997). In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid.

[Vaelahr]

Now... Jesus definetely is an impressive inspirational figure, so maybe he's not divine, but him saying "come and burden me with your doubt" - i.e. it's quite okay to not fanatically believe in the "truth" of god, but to come to your own conclusions and questions that don't automatically damn you to purgatory. But that's german protestantism for you - we even have this thing that Jesus said it's wrong to pray in public and rub symbols of your faith into other people's noses. Imho, that is -very- close to reality... which was one of your initial questions, Rick.

Jesus saying it's wrong to pray in public - not necessarily. I think the source of that is Matthew 6:5-8, "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." In other words, don't pray for show. Don't seek the praises of men with flamboyant displays of religiosity. It's really a great quote. He's not saying it's bad to show your faith out in public, just check how and why you're doing it. Keep it real, if you will. I like the part about 'thinking they'll be heard because of their many words'. Plenty of athiests like that too.

Jesus saying 'come and burden me with your doubt' - I think you meant, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." from Matthew 11:28. The weariness and burden there is that of religion - particularly that of the Levitical Law. The zealots of the Law included a group called the Pharisees who concerned themselves with ritual purity and are also among the praying hypocrites we just looked at. Basically saying, how's all that washing, bowing, kneeling, lighting, chanting, waving, burning, doing this, not doing that - bringing you closer to God? How is observing (and enforcing) all that, loving your fellow man?

Jesus definetely is an impressive inspirational figure, so maybe he's not divine...

Maybe he is? If the answer is a solid 'no', how did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

[Vendrin]

No, science is a quest for understanding the physical universe even if that understanding is uncertain, religion is a means of control through dogma or "certainty," spirituality is a desire to escape death and meaninglessness by indulging in wish fulfilling beliefs, just to clarify.

No they aren't. I'm not particularly religious or spiritual anymore, but even I can recognize this. The ideals that religions set down, are not means of control, they have merely been turned into such by "horribly flawed people".

Religion/spiritualism is not the problem, people are. And even if you get rid of religion, you'd see just as much evil in the world perpetrated in the name of the greater good, science, communism, a country, or any other unifying belief.

For all the problems religion has created, it does help many, as many of it's followers do, so let it help those people, and instead of trying to destroy their beliefs, which they have a right to believe in, just as you have rights to believe in yours, use your energy in more productive means such as helping out at your local homeless shelter, or becoming a big brother.

There's so much more you can do with the intelligence you posses then just trying to destroy other's beliefs systems. Try creating for a change, it's so much more rewarding.

[Jeppan]

Jesus definetely is an impressive inspirational figure, so maybe he's not divine...

Maybe he is? If the answer is a solid 'no', how did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

Haha! This is your argument? Pffft

Then I claim Che Guevara to be a god. Don´t argree? How did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

Our Che, who art in your grave
Guevara be thy Name,
thy socialist republic come,
thy will be done,
in Cuba as it is in socialist after-death place.
Give us this day our daily beard
And forgive us our trespasses,
even if we won´t forgive those
who trespass against us.
And please lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from capitalist pigdogs.
For thine is the socialist republic,
and the power, and the gore,
for ever and ever.
Hasta siempre.

Hail Che!

[Nekulor]

Jesus definetely is an impressive inspirational figure, so maybe he's not divine...

Maybe he is? If the answer is a solid 'no', how did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

Haha! This is your argument? Pffft

Then I claim Che Guevara to be a god. Don´t argree? How did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

Our Che, who art in your grave
Guevara be thy Name,
thy socialist republic come,
thy will be done,
in Cuba as it is in socialist after-death place.
Give us this day our daily beard
And forgive us our trespasses,
even if we won´t forgive those
who trespass against us.
And please lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from capitalist pigdogs.
For thine is the socialist republic,
and the power, and the gore,
for ever and ever.
Hasta siempre.

Hail Che!

If you want to worship Che Guevara, none of us will try and stop you. However, Che never was even shown to have possibly performed miracles, Jesus has that at least. He was also great for those weddings with little alcohol. Thus Jeppan, you lose teh internetz.

[Mulu]

No, science is a quest for understanding the physical universe even if that understanding is uncertain, religion is a means of control through dogma or "certainty," spirituality is a desire to escape death and meaninglessness by indulging in wish fulfilling beliefs, just to clarify.

No they aren't. I'm not particularly religious or spiritual anymore, but even I can recognize this. The ideals that religions set down, are not means of control, they have merely been turned into such by "horribly flawed people".

And when did that change from ideals to control occur? I postulate that the ideals of religion and control through religion have always coexisted. In fact, I know they did, as I've studied the history of religion. It is possible to study the ideals within religion separately from the reality of the practice of religion, but that doesn't mean religion is just about the ideals. It also doesn't mean religion is the source of those ideals, nor that those ideals can only be pursued through religion. Moral ideals come from an innate understanding of fairness, that evolved as a function of reciprocal altruism. Though the explanation of that is a long one.

Religion/spiritualism is not the problem, people are.

I don't think you can separate the two.

And even if you get rid of religion, you'd see just as much evil in the world perpetrated in the name of the greater good, science, communism, a country, or any other unifying belief.

What if the unifying belief is a desire to be a kinder, gentler society? I don't believe that just become some organizational ideas result in organized evil, that *all* organizational ideas would result in organized evil. It's an overgeneralization.

For all the problems religion has created, it does help many, as many of it's followers do, so let it help those people, and instead of trying to destroy their beliefs, which they have a right to believe in, just as you have rights to believe in yours, use your energy in more productive means such as helping out at your local homeless shelter, or becoming a big brother.

There's so much more you can do with the intelligence you posses then just trying to destroy other's beliefs systems. Try creating for a change, it's so much more rewarding.

Starting from the end and working back, as a teacher I create understanding. And yes, it is rewarding. Enough so that I take a significant hit to my earnings to continue.

As for trying to destroy the beliefs of the religious, you do realize that atheism has maybe 1/10,000th as much voice historically and even in modern times as religion, right? My puny little voice in this trivial little forum is a unique grain of sand on a beach of religiosity. To suggest that my voice should be silenced, but not the gross masses of religious voices, is rather unfair, don't you think? To put it simply, I'll shut up when all of them shut up.

And honestly, I don't think religion helps anyone. How does being delusional help? You can get far more comfort from actual compassion and social justice than from imaginary stories about imaginary beings. And let's not forget the evolution of society. Stem cell research, birth control, science in general, all are threatened by religious belief, and always will be. Also, religion encourages homophobia, ethnic hatred, intolerance, and indeed most of the really bad aspects of humans. Sure, those same traits can be encouraged by other belief systems too, but that falls under the category of "pointing out the evil of another doesn't reduce the evil of yourself." Religion doesn't just harm individuals, it harms society as a whole by retarding its development towards a socially just, enlightened, and compassionate future system. People who embrace ignorance and superstition and reject reason and egalitarianism aren't good people, and religion isn't a force of good in this world, either historically or currently.

[Zakharra]

Mulu wrote

Religion doesn't just harm individuals, it harms society as a whole by retarding its development towards a socially just, enlightened, and compassionate future system.

And the Soviet Union was a shining example of what a society with no religion allowed can be?

[Mulu]

And Iran is a great example of a religious society. *shrugs*

Not all religious societies are fundamentalist societies like Iran, and not all athiest societies would have to be like Soviet Russia (which btw is still plenty bad even though it's no longer Soviet and mostly religious now). But *all* religious societies are necessarily trapped in religious dogma that retards development. An atheist society would not be. Soviet Russia was unfortunately trapped in Communist dogma, but a humanistic society would have no dogma other than a belief in due process, equality under the law, and humanity's capability to become better, and those are rather beneficial dogmas.

Of course, there are no examples of humanistic society. Humans aren't evolved enough yet to do it.

[Vaelahr]

Jesus definetely is an impressive inspirational figure, so maybe he's not divine...

Maybe he is? If the answer is a solid 'no', how did you come to that conclusion? Was there particular evidence you looked at? Something historical or philosophical?

Haha! This is your argument? Pffft

It's not an argument. I'm asking sincere questions.