|
Notices |
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-14-2010, 10:13 PM | #1027 (permalink) | |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
I feel like i've tried to be reasonable about religious discussions in this thread (I try not to resort to the likes of 'HAHAHAHA YOU RETARDED FAG RELIGION IS SO DUM"), and I feel like most of us have been pretty respectful and not so much "ganging up" on Dirty Harry just because we're talking to him about his issues and thoughts.
But I don't even know what BDH expects when he posts shit like this on Nubblies: Quote:
I just treat him like the troll he comes off as and ignore him when it gets this bad. | |
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
||
12-14-2010, 10:48 PM | #1028 (permalink) | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 267
Internets: 4908
|
Quote:
I’m not a “born again Christian” or anything. But I find the debate very interesting, and see a lot of legit arguments for a god, specifically Christianity. I don’t think anyone’s belief/non-belief in a god necessarily affects their motivation to study science. Science studies nature and the universe. If there is a god, he created nature and the universe. It would be impossible for nature to contradict god. So... you’re either into science to study god’s creation and how things work according to his natural laws (which is kind of the view Isaac Newton had). Or you study a nature and natural laws that came about by nothing (like Einstein? or was he a deist?). Either could be right. The only reason to believe in a god imo would be if you’ve had a personal experience that tells you that. I never have. But I’ve heard a lot of people that say they have, including a few on here. I’m not automatically believing them, but neither am I automatically dismissing them. I’m just going to continue to pursue the possibility based on people’s testimonies, some evidences I see for the bible, and I have a bias to believe that based on how I was raised (which I’m well aware of). However, I think that people that resort to “god has a plan” or “everything happens for a reason” aren’t necessarily retiring their intellect, they probably just don’t have an interest in science. There’s plenty of atheists that have no idea how natural selection works. Quote:
If there's no god, I completely agree with you. | ||
12-14-2010, 10:53 PM | #1029 (permalink) | ||||
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"It is amazing how many people seemingly cannot tell the difference between ‘X is true’ and ‘It is desirable that people should believe that X is true’. Or maybe they don’t really fall for this logical error, but simply rate truth as unimportant compared with human feelings. I don’t want to decry human feelings. But let’s be clear, in any particular conversation, what we are talking about: feelings, or truth. Both may be important, but they are not the same thing." | ||||
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
|||||
12-15-2010, 12:02 AM | #1030 (permalink) | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 267
Internets: 4908
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think there’re some things that give the bible a little more evidence than say “a flying spaghetti monster”. I can’t really speak for other religions, as I haven’t really studied any of them. But there seems to be a lot of historical evidence for all the events surrounding the resurrection, and the only thing going against the actual resurrection is its absurdity. But there was a huge boom of christianity in that time period. And people that claimed to be eye witnesses of him resurrected were all of a sudden willing to die for that belief. This wasn’t their ancestors myths they were sticking up for. This was something they themselves witnessed. And as much as people say christians used to be the idiots saying the earth was flat, there’re verses in the old testament, way before people knew the shape of the earth, that describe it as “a sphere suspended by nothing”. Little things like that. Don’t prove anything, but give reason to maybe dig a little deeper. Who were you quoting at the end, by the way? | ||
12-15-2010, 12:31 AM | #1031 (permalink) | |
Poor Sport
|
Quote:
But whenever the numbers are as they are, it is going to lead to the minority going a bit into a defensive shell. I'm not really blaming anybody or proposing or solution, or even saying there is anything to solve. Overall I think the discussion is intelligent, and I think we can keep it that way. But yea, that is a whole different flavor of crazy from BDH. | |
12-15-2010, 12:32 AM | #1032 (permalink) | |||
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Quote:
The Bible does indeed say that the Earth is "a sphere suspended by nothing", but it also says that it is "held up by pillars." The latter, of course, Christian apologists insist is a metaphor, but not the former. More on that here: Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason Quote:
That quote is from Richard Dawkins. Oh, and: Quote:
| |||
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
||||
12-15-2010, 12:35 AM | #1033 (permalink) | |
Poor Sport
|
Quote:
With an omnipotent god, however, he knows everything, meaning that there can only be one outcome, meaning that the decision has already been made and you can't do anything that he hasn't already decided you will do, nor can anything happen in the world that isn't his choice. | |
12-15-2010, 01:19 AM | #1034 (permalink) | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 267
Internets: 4908
|
Quote:
But I'm pretty sure with the scientific view, there is also only one outcome. Many scientists believe if we were able to factor in every factor, we could actually produce an equation that would calculate what a person will do. Its completely based on your body's make up and your environment. There obviously is no supernatural influences. I guess it comes down to how you'd define free will. I didn't really mean for this to be the focus of the conversation though. | |
12-15-2010, 01:26 AM | #1035 (permalink) |
Almost there...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
|
The problem is we base our understanding of the world on science, which is based on empiricism. If something were to exist outside the scope of science, not only would we have no way of being able to confirm its existence, it's arguable that it couldn't exist, at least in the way we understand existence. If someone says something exists outside of our ability to confirm or comprehend, then the thing might as well not exist to us at all.
My above statement might be in fact be very arrogant, but it does raise some interesting questions. I've been meaning to make a long post about this for a while now. Really, it all comes down to epistemology: How do we know we know things, and what is our knowledge of the world based on? People who believe in the Bible practice a form of faith and rationalism. It's not as preposterous of a position as it's made out to be. Respected, 19th century Americans, such as Emerson, practiced Transcendentalism, a cousin of rationalism, which is a belief in the ability to transcend the material world to arrive at greater, personal truths. There is empiricism, which is the belief that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. There's more, obviously, and each one has a different level of compatibility with God. But I go back to my first paragraph: we understand the world through science, which is based on empiricism. And when I say that, let me put it into context: you wouldn't fly in an airplane if the design of the plane was based on rationalism. You wouldn't take life saving medicine at a hospital that was based on transcendentalism. But you'd probably be okay petting a sedated lion, as long as the sedation was based on empirical evidence. |
12-15-2010, 01:36 AM | #1036 (permalink) | |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Quote:
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire | |
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
||
12-15-2010, 01:47 AM | #1038 (permalink) |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Doubt it, it would likely involve something out of Lord of the Flies. But most people who are steadfast believers are indoctrinated from birth, the rest are sucked in later in life. What would a person do if no one was around to tell them about the glories of scripture? See: Voltaire quote.
It's just in human nature. Like what Beebs said: a very human need to find explanations for things that are (seemingly) unexplainable. |
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
|
12-15-2010, 01:50 AM | #1039 (permalink) |
Almost there...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
|
Regardless, science is fundamentally limited in that it can only answer how questions, not why, i.e. why am I here? You can only regress so far back until you get to the really big questions. It's in that way that empiricism, and science as an extension of it, is unsatisfying. That is why people turn to religion, and that is why atheists becomes hopeless existentialists - the why is beyond our comprehension. At that point the only thing that can save you is to base the why on personal experience - it's why personal testimonies are such a strong selling point in proselytization. But you can't implement personal experience into mass epistemology because it falls apart.
|
12-15-2010, 02:15 AM | #1041 (permalink) |
Bokononist
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,595
Internets: 11801
|
I've already been planning on doing this, but it is coincidentally relevant here...
I have no intention of telling my newborn son anything about religion, god, etc. for as long as is possible. My family already knows not to mention it as well, and I'm pretty sure that he won't come into contact with it until he's at least 4 or 5 and going to daycare/preschool/kindergarten and in the presence of other kids and adults. That in mind, I'll be sure to let you know if he comes upon any sort of religious ideas on his own accord by that point in time. I'm doubting that he will, and equally sure that he'll mind his P's and Q's (as much as any young child can) assuming I do my job as a parental influence. "Religion: A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the Nature of the Unknowable." -Ambrose Bierce |
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." |vonnegut
|
|
12-15-2010, 02:52 AM | #1043 (permalink) |
Bokononist
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,595
Internets: 11801
|
I'm surely going to do that, but probably when he's older than the 4 and 5 year old range. I might have a dumbed down version of the discussion at that point, but I figure it would probably be best if he's a bit older and can grasp what I'm telling him better.
|
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." |vonnegut
|
|
12-15-2010, 03:28 AM | #1044 (permalink) |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Have you considered putting him into a biodome and watching what happens?
|
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
|
12-15-2010, 01:05 PM | #1047 (permalink) |
G'd up from the feet up.
|
No studies to my knowledge because we're still trying to figure out what all (if anything) babies know when they're born. They say there are innate fears such as loud noises and falling, but that could be an acquired genetic thing based on years of our ancestors getting hurt related to those things. The flinching involved could be more of a reflex than actual knowledge.
Without science, it's basically the argument of innatism and depends on which philosopher you choose to believe. Descarte (and I believe Plato) believed we're born with innate knowledge of God, from God. John Locke is more along the lines of the "blank slate" philosophy, where we're basically dumb as shit when we're born and learn everything through experience. Neither theory promotes a disbelief in god, but I suppose you'd first have to have knowledge of something in order to not believe it. |
Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.
|
|
12-15-2010, 06:35 PM | #1048 (permalink) | |
Jelqing for Jesus
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte's spare bedroom
Posts: 3,079
Internets: 194538
|
Quote:
| |
|
||
12-15-2010, 08:14 PM | #1049 (permalink) | |
G'd up from the feet up.
|
Quote:
| |
Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.
|
||
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|