View Single Post
Old October 17th, 2012 (10:04 AM). Edited October 17th, 2012 by FrostPheonix.
FrostPheonix's Avatar
FrostPheonix FrostPheonix is offline
    Join Date: Aug 2010
    Location: Bored-topia
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Quiet
    Posts: 449
    Can we please move out of the topic where we discuss whether or not Brock's ideas are logical or not? We're just gonna get into another flame war.

    Originally Posted by Went View Post
    For everyone who says "I can't prove X but you can't disprove it, so it's a matter of belief", I'd like you to read this article:

    It pretty much says that you can say the most craziest absurd thing ever and claim that people can't disprove it as long as you make enough excuses for it (ie: it's invisible! people haven't looked well enough for it! all traces of it were erased!). That's why usually the logical thing is trying to explain why X exists, not claiming it just does and challenging everyone else to prove you wrong.
    Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.
    Well, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone about the flood (I think, I dunno anymore i wrote that two days ago...). I stated that it wasn't possible to disprove it, therefore I will believe in it because of my religious beliefs. I suppose I should have added that I don't expect anyone else to believe in it just because of that.

    Originally Posted by Shining Raichu View Post
    I'm not asking anybody to leave, you are all still welcome here. But this is a club for atheists so there is a skew, even if only in numbers. Because of this, all I'm saying is that you can't expect the same fair shake you'd get in a religious discussion in Other Chat, because there is a certain 'home field advantage' in this thread. That's not to say that we're intentionally ganging up on you, just that you should have known by the name of the club what you were getting yourselves into.
    I'm fully aware, I've had a lot of interesting discussion here. But what I was asking was whether or not you would like to keep it to yourself to talk about whatnot without us butting in. I suppose, as you said, you can't ban non atheists due to rules, but if you would like to keep the discussion out of debate and more philosophical or something I'll respect that.

    Originally Posted by Shining Raichu View Post
    Welcome! I gotta ask the obvious question... what is a Thelemite? I might be the lone dense person here but I've never heard of that before lol
    Youre not the only one... I just found out

    Originally Posted by Shining Raichu View Post
    The thing is though, it does hurt other people. I don't think there would be even half as much as debate about religion in this world if it didn't hurt anybody else. If it could just keep to itself in its own self-contained bubble and not disturb those who have no interest in it, it'd be fine... but it has proven time and time again that it cannot. It has caused wars that have killed countless people and driven people to acts of terrorism that have done the same; it's been a contributing factor to many suicides in high schools alone; and it's a particular bane in the existence of the gay people who disgust you for no apparent reason. Not to mention the victims of clergy abuse, the... I could go on, but the list is too long and I don't like making tl;drs.

    The point is, the belief in God and the structures that have been created around it do hurt a lot of people. And what's it all for, in the end? Peace of mind that life doesn't end? Is the sketchy promise of an afterlife really worth the torment it has caused people in the life we know for sure we have? It's unfathomable to me.

    And then there's the potential for future damage. How many more people have to kill themselves or else be killed by others, how many more people have to live through any of the various forms of torment created by religion before people will realise that the book to which they so desperately cleave causes more problems than it solves?
    A few things. Other than the crusades, I can't really think of examples where Christianity in its essence has advocated or created damage or problems. Christianity is completely against it. I know some religions advocate this, not trying to be stereotypical, but a friend (he's muslim) told me that Islam has two versions of the Quran; one that advocates Jihad and terrorism and one that doesn't want to you killing people. I dunno about that then. And you are talking about christianity, right? Because
    Originally Posted by Shining Raichu View Post
    [When brock noted that he wasnt talking about christianity ]That would still be an exercise in fruitless wish fulfillment, though far less objectionable.
    I admit, Christians have commited horrible crimes. The recent clergy abuses. crusades. South America. But most christians don't do stuff like this. They advocate peace. I think you're being a bit generalizing here, as I think most christians do actually help, and not hurt the world. Or at least they don't hurt the world. And cases of christians commiting these 'vile' acts in the name of christianity are doing it because they either don't understand the Bible or don't try and use it as an excuse. The Bible is against anything of the sort. I think a quote from Gandhi sums it up (I couldn't find the exact quote, but its true nevertheless):
    Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ.
    Christ and his teachings are true and I hold to them. It's just many christians don't practice them and still call themselves christians.
    Its sad to see Christians' reputation go to shambles because of the few.

    And no, I didn't forget the philosophy argument!
    Originally Posted by Barrels View Post
    *puts on philosophical hat*

    Ah, but can you prove anything? Or disprove it, for that matter? Let’s say I want to prove that I don’t have a tail. I cannot observe any tail; it would be rather awkward when I sat down if I did, and I don’t experience any such discomfort; and really there’s no evidence to suggest that my tail exists.

    So if someone asked you to prove that they didn’t have a tail, those are the types of things you’d point to. And if they didn’t accept it – if they said that their tail was invisible, intangible and retracted whenever they sat down – you’d think they were an idiot.

    But here’s the thing – you haven’t proved that they don’t have a tail. As long as there’s some other possibility, we should strictly remain in doubt – and after all, it’s possible that their tail is invisible/intangible/retractable. We can’t prove it isn’t. We can say it’s highly unlikely, of course we can – but we could be wrong. So we haven’t proven anything.

    The logical conclusion to this line of thought is Descartes’ famous statement: ‘I think, therefore I am’. Having doubted every belief he held – because after all, a deceitful demon could be tricking him into thinking trees were green when in fact they had purple spots, and we can’t prove that such a demon doesn’t exist – the only thing Descartes felt he could be sure of was that he existed. Because, if he didn’t, who would be doubting his existence? (This is clearer in the extended version of the statement: 'I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am'.)

    I’ll wrap this up. You said that ‘the only thing is that no one can prove a major flood as described in the Bible’. Absolutely. Then you say, ‘but, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief’.

    Well, yes, but we don’t tend to think of most things that way! If someone asked you, ‘do you believe in cats?’ you’d think they were being irritating on purpose. But strictly speaking, belief is cats is just as uncertain as belief in a flood:

    ‘The only thing is that no one can prove that cats exist. But, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief.’

    But would you say, in casual conversation, ‘cats exist’ or ‘I believe that cats exist’? I’m betting on the former. And so we have to ask ourselves - does religion deserves special consideration? Are we justified in saying that the simple fact that you can’t disprove something makes it a reasonable belief? Or is arguing ‘well, you can’t disprove the flood!’ just as silly as arguing, ‘well, you can’t disprove my tail!’
    Forgive me if I answer this wrong. I haven't ever taken philosophy, despite it being so awesome. anyway. Cats and history are two different things, in my opinion. Cats are tangible. They live. You have one in several households. My teacher had about 6 and 4 dogs. History, in and of itself, is a concept, similar to love, liberty, slavery. Well, close enough. You can't really touch history, can you? But you can for a cat. If you say 'The only thing is that no one can prove that cats exist. But, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief.’ I would stop you at the first sentence, bring a cat, and therefore prove a cat exists. But take aliens, for example. We don't know they exist. But reason holds that if life exists on this planet, it must on others, right? Therefore, I'd say saying 'The only thing is that no one can prove is that aliens exist. But, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief.' seems sensible. Although the wording makes it wierd, i apologize, it is true. You can't prove aliens. You can't disprove them either. Therefore, you can either believe in them or not. It, like belief in the flood, doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone but you. But you know have a certainty in this. Whereas, if you say that no one can prove the world is flat, and can't disprove it either, you can give them either a satellite map, show them the often used example of the ship's front vanishing in the horizon first, or show them the greeks (or was it egyptians?) actually calculated the circumference of the earth by using the stars long before we even sailed around the globe. So I would say 'You can't disprove the flood!' has actually much more sense than saying 'You can't disprove that the world is flat!' I am sure the cat analogy was meant differently, but I can't think of another object that would work better in ur example. Sorry about that.

    Originally Posted by Barrels View Post
    I love having you here, personally! :D It’s great to be able to chat about religion with someone who knows the ins and outs better than I do. What does everyone else think?
    And thanks for this, it means a lot to me personally :D Although sometimes I feel overwhelmed of how much you guys know about religion.

    Originally Posted by Keiran777 View Post
    You're a product of ignorance and you don't even know it, and that is what is dangerous. When you can captivate the hearts and minds of young, impressionable people you harm and stall the progress of humanity. When you have people who believe God can make a planet out of nothing, so much as to worry not of the consequences of our actions on the environment, you put everything at risk; therefore, it is extremely dangerous to choose to be ignorant to things because you find them unsettling. Sure, you'd make people happy by telling them the Sun will never expand and engulf the Earth. But they won't be happy when the Sun is approaching and it is too late to do anything about it.
    I thought that was a bit mean. And he does say he wasn't christian, so that probably means he doesn't adhere to the morals of christianity. Although not taking drugs should be a bit more general. Ignorance, though, is dangerous. You're right, if you keep walking through life without trying to back up the beliefs you have, like the earth is flat or something (purely hypothetical) and everyone says its wrong, you should try thinking or researching it. Ignorance can be fatal. And I don't recall any christian arguments that global warming is not important because god is all powerful...? I don't think most sensible christians would say global warming is a useless affair because god will fix it.

    Oh yeah, I think a child also has more say about his beliefs than what the parent says. Take for example several members here; many have been converted to atheism and they have a religious background. A parent, I think, more suggests what to wear for life; its then the childs choice to wear it or not.

    omg, I wrote so much. I probably wrote a ton of stuff that people won't like and a ton that may be wrong. I might edit it. So please go easy on me if you reply.