momentsgolden wrote:Edit: - This could be my longest post ever, but Base has crossed the line with his assertion that his opinion is fact. No, i'm not saying its not true. Get it straight from the outset. I'm NOT saying there is a God or that there is no God. I'm saying there is enough rationality to RESPECT either position. Something you are blatantly blind to.
Right, first of all - nowhere have I asserted my 'opinion' as fact. Logic isn't 'my opinion', I don't own logic. Science is not 'my opinion', I don't own science.
Me saying "there is no god" is not my opinion. That's a logical conclusion based on the fact that there being a 'supernatural god' that created the Universe would violate the laws of science and therefore make everything we know wrong. Now, it is a FACT that the laws of science are RIGHT.
If they were not:
- cars would not run.
- computers would not work.
- calculators would not work.
Almost no technology you see around you using electricity or elements of mathematics or science would function properly or perform its tasks, if the laws of science were wrong. So we KNOW that science is correct. Science confirms itself through example.
SO, for there to be a god, these laws would all need to be incorrect (which we know they aren't) for the kind of god you mean to exist. And we know that they aren't. So yes we do know that there is no god, based on our reality. It's impossible.
So also please stop pretending they have nothing to do with one another. Religion asserts that it knows how we were created and that there is a god in the Universe. That ISSSSSSS a scientific question that is either true / or not true. You can't pretend it's outside of science because it's not.
If you wish to believe there is, in spite of clear logic that's your choice. But you cannot say there is 'enough rationality' to support either side as there is ZERO, ziltch, NADA rationality to support the idea of a personal god. The idea of an impersonal god which is more like an unconscious mega-center of the Universe is more plausible - still almost certainly not true but can glimmer the smallest inch of respect, enough so to allow itself a place in the conversation.
But the god you are asserting has 'enough rationality ' aka a personal god that answers your prayers, concerns itself in human affairs, chooses sides in wars and is basically a giant human being to comfort you is ABSURD. And no, there is no no no, none, zero, no rationality to support that idea. None at all. Please - share with me an ounce of 'rationality' to support it, as I've never heard a single rational argument for the idea in my life and I grew up in a Roman Catholic primary school and high school. So don't think I'm ill-informed.
Rationality is based on science. Rationality is science. Rationality is the exercise of reason and reason is logic. Logic and reason concerns ideas that you can put forward and then prove with evidence. Evidence that can be recorded and executed through experiment and seen with the human eyes.
There is no evidence for any god, there is no rational argument or reasoned arguments even for any god. So no, there is absolutely no rationality for your side. None at all. Believe what you like but please do not try and sneak your silly idea into science as if it deserves respect in that realm. As it doesn't and never has.
You make an exception in regards to god, because it concerns life and death, because you were indoctrinated to believe it's true and because you wish it were true. But do you make the same exception for any other ideas? let me ask you if you think there is 'enough rationality' to support either side of these following ideas...
- humans can climb inside themselves.
- I can turn invisible with concentration.
- I can mind read.
- I can lift up a house above my head.
- I can run faster than a 747 jet plane.
- I can jump 2,000 ft in the air.
- I could jump out of a plane at 40,000 feet, land on a bed of spikes and survive.
- I could have my head chopped off and then perform maths equations.
- I could grab a bullet in mid-air.
And on and on and on. And no, please do not pretend I'm being over-the-top or making unfair comparisons. As the idea of a personal god is more impossible and unprovable than all these ideas PUT TOGETHER. So, I would 'assume', though I'm still asking - that you would consider all or most of those absolutely impossible and would say it's ridiculous to say they're true or achievable?
I would hope so. Otherwise I'd seriously consider checking yourself in to a mental hospital.
So, if you agree those ideas are impossible and do not have sufficient or 'any' rational basis to support, how dare you be so arrogant, yes YOU are the arrogant one to assert your claim, which like I say - is more impossible than all those put together - has ANY rational basis, or enough to be respected or in the same circles, or next to - science.
You don't make the exception for all ridiculous ideas, you just make the exception for the one you happen to believe in and you only happen to believe in it because you happened to have been born where you were, into the family you were and happen to have been brought up on that religion. If you were brought up in a different country with a different family, you'd believe something else. Which shows how facile and variable, and pointless all religion is.
So yes, it IS stupid to believe in a personal god, it is unfounded, it is ridiculous, it is unscientific, it is illogical, it is not true and I couldn't care less if that offends you - it's not my opinion, it's reality. Just like it's all those things, to believe any of those things or any other impossible claim you may dream to think up. God is no different, you just think it is because you believe it and want it to be true.
Now, that's just the logical side of things. That's just the idea itself. Never mind the 'morals' or ideas, or history of religion itself. And for you to assert that religion and in particular Catholicism - which is responsible for mass-genocide and utter ignorance deserves as much respect as something that strives for truth and progression and holds unbiased, logical accounts of reality - for you to assert that, whether or not you think the idea of god is valid - is incredibly arrogant and shows you know little about the history of your own religion, to have the fucking audacity to say it.
momentsgolden wrote:This is what we call in religious circles hypocrisy. Are you familiar with the term? You say you cant choose a value system and say its, in absolute terms, TRUE and then go on to ascertain yours as true. WTF?!!!
No no no no no no. Once again. You're confusing my opinion with reality.
Science is NOOOOOOTTTT 'my opinion'. Science isn't 'a value' system you can 'choose to believe in or not' if you think it is - I invite you to go jump off a very tall building and challenge gravity. Furthermore, I invite you to smoke 1,000 cigarettes a day and see if you don't contract some form of cancer.
You can't choose to believe in reality or not. Science isn't just 'one of' many systems that explains what's around us, like there's many to choose from. Science is the ONLY thing in history that has successfully explained reality. Period.
Science doesn't assert things on subjective guesses or wishful thinking. There are many debates within science but the things we assert as fact or know as reality are backed up with mountains of observable evidence, evidence we can comprehend with our senses and explain through pure logic.
Religion doesn't do that. Religion makes impossible claims and then never backs them up in any way shape or form. Religion makes claims, asserts they're true 'because they just are' and says it's offensive to question that they are. That, is blind faith and bigotry.
See how they're COMPLETELY fucking different? not at all like. Don't dare compare them or try and say they're of the same realm of 'value systems' and on equal planes. One of them is blind and nonsensical, illogical and lacking of any conceivable basis other than wishful thinking, and the other (science) basis itself on absolute reality and provable evidence. And nothing else
momentsgolden wrote:Depending on which value system you choose to believe. Do i really have to go into this...? Fuck it, i will. MANY people have had the privilege of going through a multi cultured system of learning simultaneously (admittedly with varying levels of equality in principle) the merits and demerits of Religion, Science and Morality. Point is, YOUR stress is different from mine. Yours is HOW was i here. Mine is WHY am I here. The two CAN be answered by incorporating science's assertions with religious grounding for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution. Science has not, at least up until now, given me a satisfactory reason for my existence. Care to suggest? If you cant, its apparent that because of the difference in needs of people, its NECESSARY to have religion.
It is NOT necessary to have religion to answer 'why' we are here.
Philosophy does and always has done that job. Philosophy is an off-shoot of science, a science of the mind, that once again founds itself on many strains of logic and abstract reasoning. Religion doesn't do that, religion founds itself on the basis of a ruling dictator that you must blindly worship, believe in and follow without question.
As for asking 'why' we are here anyway, that is a ridiculous question. You just want some grand answer and somebody to hold your hand through life.
There is no 'why'. We are apes with big brains. The only reason humans can even ask 'why' is because we've evolved big enough brains to have consciousness of our own existence and can therefore ask the question. But that doesn't mean it has an answer, or is a sensible question to ask.
In context, it makes no sense. Because it 'assumes' automatically that there is a life plan for humans. Which is utterly arrogant - as it places humans on a pedestal as if the Universe is THAT concerned with our one fucking species which isn't even vital to the fucking food chain and all we do is destroy our planet and other species anyway.
We're here because we happened to evolve. Our only true reason, logical reason to be here is to reproduce. That's the only 'reason' for any species to be here. We wouldn't be here if we weren't good at that. There is no 'will' or final conclusion to evolution, we're here because we happen to have been naturally selected and shaped, and survived. That's it.
There's no fucking grand mystery. If you're asking the meaning of life - YOU MAKE IT.
You can choose your own meaning of life. If you love to write, you can make the reason 'why' you are here - to write. Or make it one of the reasons. But logically speaking, the only reason we are here is to mate and pass on our genes. That's the only reason all animals are here but unfortunately you probably don't like that answer and wish to think of humans and yourself as special and so turn to religion for some kind of pat on the back for existing.
When ironically, religion not only doesn't do that, it degrades humans. It turns humans into nothing more than blindly worshiping mental slaves that should be thankful to be a piece of dirt on their dictator's shoe and grateful to even breath his air. And if you're not thankful enough you burn in eternal hell. Yes, what utter beauty.
Clearly you just don't like the fact you're going to die and then there's nothing and that's why you 'believe in god' because it gives you a free pass and says you'll live forever. If it didn't offer you that, you'd almost certainly stop believing all together. So don't talk such a crock of shit and say it's because you want to know why you are here, which is an illogical question anyway and it's like asking "why is mountain?"'. Just because you can ask a question doesn't make it meaningful, or sensible.
Religion has hijacked any of its good views or morals from philosophy and if you seriously wish to explore what you would call 'your soul' or ask the sorts of questions you're implying you are interested in, philosophy has and continues to ask all those questions in extremely interesting and profound ways. Where as religion is at a stand still and holds the same bigoted, childish positions it always has.
Science is always progressing, philosophy is always progressing. Religion is at a standstill.
momentsgolden wrote:i am well versed in Christianity (with the catholic church accounting for 1 billion of the world's population and being used as a "standard for Christianity), Buddism, and Islam. NONE, base NONE of these advocate racism.Of Islam, only 20% live in the Arab world and if you, by any chance, had read the news of Arab uprisings, its got NOTHING to do with MAINLINE OFFICIAL religion. Its about extremists (MINORITY groups) and dictators. Something science cant absolve itself off.
If you think Christianity does not advocate slavery within its texts you do not know your 'holy book' very well. You can pretty much find justification for ANY form of behaviour in The Bible which is why people pick and choose what they believe and all have different interpretations of it and why it's irrational and leads people to ridiculous behaviour.
I'm not saying your local priest tells you to be racist, but yes in The Bible there is justification for sexism, slavery, sacrifice and other disgusting ideas.
Something science can't absolve 'itself' of? what do you mean. Absolve 'itself' of what?
Are you saying science is responsible for dictators? religion is responsible for genocide, total ignorance and extremist fools. DIRECTLY responsible, because holy books justify their behaviour. They're not making it up.
Where as science doesn't advocate any kind of behaviour. Science doesn't tell you how to live your life. If somebody takes it upon themselves to use science for evil that's the individual but science is blind and unbiased. It doesn't tell you anything other than hard facts about reality.
Where as religions all dictate moral standards and tell you how to think and give you 'guidelines' of life and many things which are perverted and evil by themselves. And lead to extremism by the very fact they are circular and irrational. Science does not do that.
momentsgolden wrote:No, religion serves a DIFFERENT purpose than Science. In the same way that Education and Health are complementary, Religion (or spirituality ) excel in their disciplines.
How you may ask? Morals dummy. Any rational thinking man can tell you Anarchy, disdain for Human life, lack of purpose, despair, ambition and "basic" codes of ethics are as essential to human life and existence as a television is. All those are non-scientific. They are intuitive. Intuitive meaning, NATURALLY... honed and coded by Religion. In the same way things happen in the Universe NATURALLY honed, coded and used by science.
LMFAO. Morals? no chance.
Religion is the least moral thing possibly imaginable. Within the texts of religion you can find justification for stoning, beating, cheating, slavery, sacrifice, scapegoating, and pretty much every immoral action or thought you may choose to name.
Any 'decent' morals religion upholds or contains have been lifted from philosophy.
Basic morals such as the golden rule aka 'treat others as you would like to be treated' is NOT, I repeat NOT owned by religion. It wasn't originated by religion, it hasn't been 'honed' or 'coded' by religion.That basic rule is LOGICAL.
Ie. if you wish for somebody to treat you kindly, it is LOGICAL that you would need to treat them kindly to expect the same back. That's not religious, that's fucking logical. Any moral you may choose to throw at me, any good moral - was originated long before your shitty religion even came about. Your religion has hijacked its views from philosophy and other religions you totally ignorant ass.
Morality is innate and intuitive - you are correct there. And that's exactly why they do not come from or are not originated or owned by religion. If we did not have basic morality coded into us, coded into our DNA from social behaviour and evolution - we wouldn't of gotten as far as we have.
Morality existed PRIOR to religion, else we all would of killed each other off. Unity is a human trait based on empathy and empathy is based on social conditioning and consciousness. None of these things are religious in any way shape or form.
And if you think your morals 'come' from religion, how do you suppose you're able to disregard SOME of the things in The Bible and not others? how do you suppose you would be able to read a line in The Bible advocating rape or sexism and go "I don't agree with that". Because you KNOW it's wrong. If your morals CAME from religion, then you'd be unable to disagree with it.
Religion was created by man. And any morals within it, come from man. Morality exists with or without religion and religion only perverts morals.
Morality is a combination of genetic conditioning, empathy, social evolution and the ever-changing moral zeitgeist which changes the further we move along. Religion doesn't progress, but our morals do. Hence why much of religious' texts, ideas and so called 'morals' are outdated and offensive. The morals we hold today are through our psychological and social evolution, through discussion and debate, through questioning and REASON (what science is based on). NOT religion.
Unless they're serious about debating.
)
