Religion: What it means to you

Quote:

If what he says starts to sound really ridiculous, then he's NOT especially intelligent, now is he? Because if what he said sounded credible and defensible, then we wouldn't have to lynch him in every thread he contributes to.

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

Quote:

If not chemicals then where do are thoughts come from?

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Token

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

I don't know.

Like Deni said, the kid is pretty uneducated, closed-minded, and by your own claim, says "ridiculous" shit.

Tell me what's so intelligent about lacking critical thinking skills?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I expect LS is getting away with being called "smart" for no other reason than that he doesn't lose his temper. You can say some incredibly banal shit, and it'll still sound a little profound if you act like you're handing down wisdom from the mount.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Token

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

It's his lack of conherant arguments that lead to the conclusion he lacks intelligence.

Originally Posted by Token

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

What causes your actions? Your thoughts. And what causes your thoughts? Chemical reactions in your brain.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

I expect LS is getting away with being called "smart" for no other reason than that he doesn't lose his temper. You can say some incredibly banal shit, and it'll still sound a little profound if you act like you're handing down wisdom from the mount.

I just hope he doesn't fall off his horse anytime soon. Its a long way down.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

You do not have any control over your actions, or anything else for that matter. As was said, your actions are ultimately the results of chemical and electrical functioning of your brain. The brain is composed of neurons, which in turn are made up of molecules, which themselves are made up of atoms, which are made of quarks. Now, we know that the universe is ruled by universal and immutable laws. Laws like gravity, and electromagnetism. All of the particles in the universe, including the particles in your brain, are subject to these laws, which cannot be broken. When particles, or atoms, or molecules interact, the result is determined by the laws governing the interaction.

Theoretically, if you had complete knowledge of all of the universe's particles, and a complete knowledge of all of the laws governing their behavior and interactions, you could predict the entire future of the universe with 100% accuracy, because you would know exactly what outcomes will result from any interaction. The cause and effect chains of these interactions would be laid bare before you, able to be traced all the way to the end of the universe. Likewise, these chains of cause and effect could also be traced, unbroken, all the way back until the very moment the universe came into existence, when all of the universal laws were created and matter came into existence. In that exact moment, the entire history of everything that would ever happen, ever, was set into stone.

Of course, some people believe that there is a certain element of randomness in the universe resulting from quantum effects. This may be true, but it still doesn't allow for free will. Instead of a determined will, you would instead have a random will. But at least your fate wouldn't be sealed. (Personally, I am a determinist.)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The above is what happens when science tries to explain human consciousness.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Are you saying that human consciousness can't be explained through science, or that it somehow functions outside of natural laws?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Sorry for the late reply, been fairly busy the past few days and I wanted to actually think when I was replying.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Again, how is this different from last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, as none of these proposals can be falsified in practical terms.

How is it any different than believing in the existence of particles we haven't observed yet or haven't determined a way to observe?

Quote:

Here's some more copy-and-pasting from the same article.

'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity)'

'Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Again, even with all of that, what is "as simple as possible but no simpler" can still be up to individual interpretation. Is it simpler to believe in the whole whatnot of the laws of the nature and that jazz, or is it easier to believe in something that put everything where it is. Frankly, I find nature to be a more beautifully simple explanation that I prefer it, but I understand how someone can feel it's just too absurd to happen on its own.

[quote]Skepticism is all well and good, but when it comes to things that can not be falsified then I find it best to disregard it rather than to stew over something that has no answer, other than 5 tons of flax of course.

I guess that's where we differ a little. I enjoy talking about all the different possibilities of what could be that we may not know. After all, what fun is science if you don't question everything?

Quote:

Snap, I don't believe in 'free will' either, although life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable if we allow ourselves the illusion that we have some sort of control over our actions.

Good to find a fellow determinist out there. Makes my solipsism rather frustrating since there seems to be nothing I can do to fight it.

I don't even know if I qualify as a solipsist since I'm not even sure if my own mind exists. ;_;

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

How is it any different than believing in the existence of particles we haven't observed yet or haven't determined a way to observe?

Could you give an example of a particle that we can neither directly observe, or observe the effects of.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Again, even with all of that, what is "as simple as possible but no simpler" can still be up to individual interpretation. Is it simpler to believe in the whole whatnot of the laws of the nature and that jazz, or is it easier to believe in something that put everything where it is. Frankly, I find nature to be a more beautifully simple explanation that I prefer it, but I understand how someone can feel it's just too absurd to happen on its own.

Again, the use of the word simple comes from paraphrasing and only used to give a quick insight into it. Personal interpretation has nothing to do with it, either an entity is neccesary for a theory to work, or it isn't.

'Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Quote:

I guess that's where we differ a little. I enjoy talking about all the different possibilities of what could be that we may not know. After all, what fun is science if you don't question everything?

I enjoy talking about it, but I try not to let the fact that I may be a butterflies dream intrude into my life.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Do you have a particular deity in your belief system?
What shores up your convictions if you have any?

No. I don't.
Honestly, I'm a semi Existentialist/Buddhist. I'm completely responsible for everything that happens, and If I'm wrong, I start from scratch once I die.

It's like i've created my own religion, kind of.

The convictions that I have change with time, as do all things (the whole impermanence deal), and they are greatly affected by the world around me, how I see it, how I interpret it.


sorry, I'm in superior mode, I sound really pretentious at times.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

What causes your actions? Your thoughts. And what causes your thoughts? Chemical reactions in your brain.

Just becuase those are the nessesary brain functions to have thought, has almost nothing to do with the fact that I used the natural functions of my brain, to decide my own actions.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

How do you know you 'used' the functions of your brain, and you don't just think you did? What is this mysterious 'I' that seems to exist independantly of your brain?

Have a look at PiccloNamek's excellent post to see a good explanation of how our minds work.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I dont think that I did just "think" it, nor do I "think" what I just thought, becuase obviously I must not be capable of thought becuase I have no control over what I think becuase the chemicals of my brain are decieving me into think that I have thought.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Except for those that don't believe in an afterlife, such as Shinto. Stop overstating things, you zealot.

Yes, I am a zealot thank you. My argument to atheists is directed in favor of an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Ah, no sir, that is hardly the catholic message. Not even the protestant message. Which branch of Christianity would you be speaking for, then? Belief in Jesus is not enough. Belief and atonement for sins, are. Which takes ritual.

And where is the biblical passage to support this assumption?
Ephesians 2:5 & Galatians 1:6-10 is my answer to those "christians" who say that I have to work my way into heaven.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Since the dawn of civilization? Which civilization would that be? Care to back this up with some historical proof?

I wish I had the time to name my sources but I dont sorry. I've read books in the field of archeology and this is a claim from the field.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Stop talking about things you clearly have no knowledge of, you uneducated prat.

Here we go again with the name calling. We show ourselves to be educated when we practice concepts that we know are virtuous. If you are in need of a guide to learn & practice respect I recommend a NIV Bible. 1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You're the worst sort of christian, Lordsword. You cheapen your religion with your zealotry, you hurt intelligent, logical christians with your bullshit, and you insult intelligent people by attempting to argue your points in such a haphazard, hackneyed fashion. You've heard the lady doth protest too much? You seem to scream your faith in every post you make. Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?

Give it up, already.

By what standard do you judge me by? Obviously you have one to judge the bible as well, please show us your source of superior information. If you can't please, please reconsider your position.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Until you can give some evidence that the bible is a valid source of truth please refrain from using it as some sort of infallible guide in any serious argument.

I use it because its the best guide I have. The principals of living that are in the bible have improved my life and formed the foundation upon which my country was built. This is why I am so pro bible. The book is the foundation of "what my religion means to me".
Many of you judge the way I practice my belief as if you have a superior source of wisdom. Show me the source of your wisdom that places you in the position to judge others with such religious zeal.

You and others here are unified in this practice as if ALL of you a following the same source material, this seems like a religious practice to me.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I wish I had the time to name my sources but I dont sorry. I've read books in the field of archeology and this is a claim from the field.

You have the time to prattle off ridiculous statements about the Bible. Please find these sources and tell us, because that MIGHT actually help your position.

If you're preaching in the highways, here, you really aren't good at it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LordsSword

:words:

You really shame Christians. $20 says most Christians witness you and hang their head in shame.

You truly are a scab on humanity.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You really shame Christians. $20 says most Christians witness you and hang their head in shame.

You truly are a scab on humanity.

You just won yourself $20.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I use it because its the best guide I have. The principals of living that are in the bible have improved my life and formed the foundation upon which my country was built.

Actually, if you want to get technical, the foundation on which you speak of was started by landing here, in the country, and then slowly erradicating the peoples that had already established their own form of religion and life, doing our best to convert them to OUR way of life, and if they didn't comply, resisted so to speak, we did them a favor and killed them.

Then a few years later we got a bunch of blackies on a ship, sent em over to do our manual labor and so forth and so on. So if you are proud of that, I can't stop ya, but I don't know anyone who can be truly 'proud' of how our civilzation here started, but then again, most civilizations start out just like ours did.

The bible is a double edged sword, in some aspects...It's like the drunken step father that loves you, but if you do something he doesn't like, your ass will be beaten till you're unconscious.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

You have the time to prattle off ridiculous statements about the Bible. Please find these sources and tell us, because that MIGHT actually help your position.

If you're preaching in the highways, here, you really aren't good at it.

If ALL of you people promise to cut out the name calling & harsh statements, I will gather my sources and present them.

If not I can only assume that what I provide will be a platform for more ridicule.

I am showing where I am on the landscape of myriad beliefs and a course to a defined concept of virtue. This is what my religion means to me and this is what a christian is supposed to do.

Can you or anyone else here do the same?

All I can see right now is a body of people that slam ideas but present no particular source of their own (with quotes or statements) as their guide for the concept of virtue. Its easy to walk around with a hatchet and destroy things but what do you build your life on?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If ALL of you people promise to cut out the name calling & harsh statements, I will gather my sources and present them.

If not I can only assume that what I provide will be a platform for more ridicule.

I am showing where I am on the landscape of myriad beliefs and a course to a defined concept of virtue. This is what my religion means to me and this is what a christian is supposed to do.

Can you or anyone else here do the same?

All I can see right now is a body of people that slam ideas but present no particular source of their own (with quotes or statements) as their guide for the concept of virtue. Its easy to walk around with a hatchet and destroy things but what do you build your life on?

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I am showing where I am on the landscape of myriad beliefs and a course to a defined concept of virtue. This is what my religion means to me and this is what a christian is supposed to do.

Good for you, you are showing where you stand on the pedestal of christianity, that's fine and dandy, that's wonderful news.

And about 50 years ago to when christianity began, you would probably be looked upon with admiration. But you see, in this day and age people see through all the bullshit, we've become smarter than the average "flock" and realized that there are too many contridictions in that little book of yours to have any merit on why we should build our life around it. I certainly don't wish to be a hypocrite, hence I don't follow the bible.

Quote:

All I can see right now is a body of people that slam ideas but present no particular source of their own (with quotes or statements) as their guide for the concept of virtue. Its easy to walk around with a hatchet and destroy things but what do you build your life on?

As I said before, in my last post, I'm pretty sure you have just quotted Sitting Bull.

I have just one, miniscule question for you...What right do WE have as people to tell people what to think, what 'moral' rules to follow? I'll admit, most things the bible teaches is to love, and not judge...to not hurt the fellow person...but...once again I'll be damned if only about 2% of people who follow that book actually live that kind of life.

The other 98%, well...

"You don't read the bible? Oh FUCK YOU...Go to hell ya blasphemous bastard"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This is the second time I've seen you take the stance that only christianity provides a moral basis for human action. Do you really think that without your religion, which is young compared to many, the world would fall into anarchy and cruelty?

This is why I say you're uneducated. And yes, do explain to me how the earliest civilizations all practiced this universal concept, and I will slap you with 100 academics who will tell you no universal exists, and that you're an amateur if you think it does. Not smart.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Grail

And about 50 years ago to when christianity began, you would probably be looked upon with admiration.

At the risk of sounding like I'm siding entirely with LordSword (which I'm not), Christianity actually began roughly 2,000 years ago with the teachings of a man named Jesus. Whether or not Jesus was who He said He was is up to the individual to decide.

LordSword: Not everyone needs some kind of ultimate platform to build their lives on. Morality is not an absolute concept for everyone, it's not that hard to come to that sort of realization. People can be good without being Christian - even the Bible attests to this fact. I see this in people all the time. Athiests aren't stupid or evil, they just have a different belief system, and trying to say they can't be moral because they don't have some sort of higher guiding source to direct their lives is just plain stupid.

And assume for the sake of this paragraph what you said about spiritual concepts since the dawn of civilization is true. Why does the fact that people have believed something for hundreds, or even thousands of years, make it true? A common example is how people once believed the earth was flat. Just because people believed this did not make it true. I am not commenting on the ultimate truth of your statement - merely the flawed reasoning behind it. The "correctness" of concept or idea is not determined on how many people have believed in it for however long a time.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

Ok, now we are gettin somewhere. What does this mean to you? How has humanism proven to you to be superior in its definition of virtue?

Can anyone else lay down their hatchet for a moment and share their position?

Originally Posted by Grail

But you see, in this day and age people see through all the bullshit, we've become smarter than the average "flock" and realized that there are too many contridictions in that little book of yours to have any merit on why we should build our life around it. I certainly don't wish to be a hypocrite, hence I don't follow the bible.

The bible clearly defines what it means to be a Christian. If you see a person claiming to be a follower of Jesus and then acts like a hellion you can't blame the book. This is the stregnth of the book its a guide to set believers straight. The person acts the way they believe and if its ungodly behavior that person doesn't follow Jesus Christ.

Dont let a few bad people undergird prejudice.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

This is the second time I've seen you take the stance that only christianity provides a moral basis for human action. Do you really think that without your religion, which is young compared to many, the world would fall into anarchy and cruelty?

Consider the previous posts and see if you can find love & compassion linked with the stated beliefs of the people who typed them in for me to see. Let that be proof of my position.

I was speaking idiomatically.