Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Metaverse

View
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

73. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 15, 2013, 15:31 nin
 
Faith kept the intelligent mind alive during times when any logical person would have given up all hope. Likewise, science maintains our hope today despite the fact we know we live in a finite universe and are hopelessly afar from anything else worthy of mention. If that's not faith, I don't know what is.

Well put.

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 15, 2013, 13:54 NewMaxx
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
And what we learn from science directly improves our quality of life, whereas religion's only practical function is to give people hope. On the other hand most religions tell people faith is good whereas my entire k-12 and post-secondary education told me that was horseshit and that whenever something was unknown I should either research or experiment or use a proof to come to a (reasonable) answer. Again, one of these systems is practical. The other is less than worthless. I don't have faith because I have a brain.

Everybody has a brain, but very few actually use it. Faith kept the intelligent mind alive during times when any logical person would have given up all hope. Likewise, science maintains our hope today despite the fact we know we live in a finite universe and are hopelessly afar from anything else worthy of mention. If that's not faith, I don't know what is.

I find it ironic that you rebel against the rigid structures that are popular, only to find shelter in one of your own construction.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 13:54 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
No. We don't know the end (if there even is one) of the trail.

I mean right now. Right now the end of that tail has to be taken on faith. Sure, 100,000 years in the future that tail may be closed and we may know everything about everything.

But today we know nothing about most things. We're still discovering new matter. We have to have faith that things like the origin of matter can be explained by science.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with belief in higher power or alien conspiracies or tales of sasquatches and yetis. They are by themselves harmless. When religious people get together and start pushing agendas, though, we have a serious problem. Doctrines professing either faith or reason/logic are diametrically opposed. They can't coexist forever. And the day faith wins over thought is the day the human race effectively begins to wither and die.

Entirely. This is why I hate Dawkins, despite having extremely similar beliefs as him (or lack of beliefs, whatever) about as much as I hate all the religious fanatics RollinThundr and others here have accused me of being biased against.

I do appreciate that, in the span of 5 months, I've been called a god-hater and a god-lover at different times on this board.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 13:25 Jivaro
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 09:13:
Jivaro wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 01:28:
"I don't believe there isn't a God or gods, I don't believe they exist either. I simply don't know."

That's agnosticism, not atheism.

Yeah, I know. I was just slow to the fact that I was getting trolled. I should have dropped out shortly after that post and let everyone else argue semantics.

@Toad: It is an interesting read however my stand remains the same. To me there is a clear difference between an atheist and an agnostic and while I appreciate the definition put forth of what it means to call ones self an "agnostic atheist", I personally do not consider myself one nor do I fully understand why something as seemingly clear cut as atheism needs to have "shades of grey". The key word there is "personally". If other people do feel differently on the subject that is of course their prerogative.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 12:03 yuastnav
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:

[...]
Science is in essence experimentation repeated until a clearly predictable result is defined.
[...]

That is not entirely correct for two reasons:
1. You only described experimental science. There are also theoretical sciences that come to conclusion based on mathematical calculations. The anti-particle is a good example of this because the idea, that something like that exists, wasn't even conceivable until the theoretical predictions of Dirac.
It was an experiment that verified this, yes, but the prediction itself was theoretical.
2. If science would only describe theories that completely predict a phenomenon then quantum mechanics would not be a scientific theory. It predicts a lot of outcomes but it ultimately fails to predict which one will actually happen.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...] I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion from blind faith but from inductive or deductive reasoning (which I learned in the 8th grade). [...]

I would be careful with inductive reasoning.
If I use inductive reasoning to say that the sun will rise tomorrow I need to have faith in the fact that the universe does not change in a way that science wasn't able to predict due to a lack of data; there are a lot of things we do not know yet.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
No. We don't know the end (if there even is one) of the trail.

I think Beamer was talking about the end of science, not the end of everything. While the end of everything arguably does not exist you can actually historically guess when scientific argumentation may have begun.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
And what we learn from science directly improves our quality of life, whereas religion's only practical function is to give people hope.
[...]

Which also improves their lives because it gives them, psychologically speaking, comfort which can result in physiological changes.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
Science will make gods of men.
[...]

I know you are being hyperbolic but that is impossible by definition because you will never be able to create energy out of nothing. That is, most likely, scientifically impossible.


PHJF wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 11:30:
[...]
Actually, that already happened back in the Dark Ages. Ironically it was monks who painstakingly preserved what knowledge humanity had by then accumulated.

Afaik most of the preserved knowledge that led to the renaissance actually came from the middle east, i.e. from the Arabic countries which were the stronghold of civilisation.


[edit]
Hmm, my syntax seems to be faulty but currently I don't see the problem (i.e. where I forgot to open or close a quote). Sorry about the mess

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2013, 12:51.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 11:30 PHJF
 

Also, the strongest connection between science and religion is that they both ultimately rely on blind faith.

It is faith to a degree, but to say it is blind is completely disingenuous. Science is in essence experimentation repeated until a clearly predictable result is defined. Expecting a clearly predictable result is not "blind faith".

And allow me to clarify belief:

As an atheist, I don't believe in a god. As an atheist, I don't believe there is no god. I also don't believe there are flying pigs (on this planet), I don't believe NASA faked the moon landing, and I don't believe in bigfoot. Belief isn't an acceptable way to arrive at conclusions. I would instead say that, given the lack of evidence to support a given claim, this conclusion is unlikely to be true. I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion from blind faith but from inductive or deductive reasoning (which I learned in the 8th grade). And a big part of atheism is in burden of proof. It is not my job to disprove the existence of god

Science has more evidence, and science is significantly less stupid, but if you follow its trail to the end you get to blind faith.

No. We don't know the end (if there even is one) of the trail. We are tiny, tiny beings on a tiny planet in a smudge of a solar system in the ass end of a galaxy in the middle of an inconceivably large universe. And that's just on the macro scale. We are learning new things on the subatomic scale. And what we learn from science directly improves our quality of life, whereas religion's only practical function is to give people hope. On the other hand most religions tell people faith is good whereas my entire k-12 and post-secondary education told me that was horseshit and that whenever something was unknown I should either research or experiment or use a proof to come to a (reasonable) answer. Again, one of these systems is practical. The other is less than worthless. I don't have faith because I have a brain.

Science has given us so much and will give us so much more. The powers to create, the powers to destroy, the powers to manipulate on any scale. Science will make gods of men. At least until some still-superior species from some distant planet comes and squishes us, anyways.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with belief in higher power or alien conspiracies or tales of sasquatches and yetis. They are by themselves harmless. When religious people get together and start pushing agendas, though, we have a serious problem. Doctrines professing either faith or reason/logic are diametrically opposed. They can't coexist forever. And the day faith wins over thought is the day the human race effectively begins to wither and die.

Actually, that already happened back in the Dark Ages. Ironically it was monks who painstakingly preserved what knowledge humanity had by then accumulated.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 09:24 Beamer
 
Also, the strongest connection between science and religion is that they both ultimately rely on blind faith.

Science has more evidence, and science is significantly less stupid, but if you follow its trail to the end you get to blind faith.

I'm sure InBlack will argue with that (and, just so he knows, I'll spell out in his Fisher-Price blocks that my argument is totally independent of anything yuastuav is saying which I haven't bothered reading.)

Ultimately, though, we have no clue what spurred the big bang. We have no clue where matter came from. We don't even have very strong or well-based hypotheses about this. Ultimately, we're putting blind faith in science. But we're doing so because science has accurately proven so much. Our theories on where matter comes from likely are stupid, because our early scientific hypotheses on almost everything is stupid in retrospect, but our belief that science will ultimately explain it isn't (though I think you can make an argument that humanity will never manage to prove or understand where matter came from. And it hardly matters. It doesn't damage our other understandings.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 09:20 Beamer
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 04:53:
I love it how Beamer actually tried to convince some of us that our lack of a belief system is somehow a belief system itself.

Nice try dude, but the ounis of proof is on you. You want to have a God? Fine you can have one, or ten for all I care. As far as Im concerned they DONT exist, since there is no evidence of their existence if you could provide me with some I would be glad to change my mind.

Motherfucker. Mother goddamn fucker.

I NEVER SAID THIS APPLIES TO ALL ATHEISTS! How goddamn bad are some of you at reading?
Beamer said "It is a religion in the way Dawkins treats it" That's pretty specific to one goddamn man, and that one man is not you.
Beamer said "I'm not saying all cases, most cases, or even many cases." Again, how can I cut that back more?
Beamer said: "But Dawkins fanaticsism makes him come across as religious." Again, this is specific to one man.
Beamer said: "And, while not a religion in all cases, unlike organized religions, but some make it a religion." Not in all cases. Some make it. How is this fucking hard?

Some people make ANYTHING a religion. Weed is a goddamn religion for some people.



And jesus fuck, dude, if you actually went into any of the political threads this year, of which there were many, you'd know I certainly don't want a god or have a god.
It's a ridiculous strawman that you think this is even arguing for a god.

I'm just saying that SOME people, not many but A FEW, such as DAWKINS, take their belief system (in this case atheism) so far that it becomes a religious. They become fundamentals with it.

I am not saying all atheists do this.
I am not saying you do this.
I am not saying this means there is a god.
I am not saying this means atheists are wrong.
I am not saying atheists are misguided.

I AM saying that you suck at reading comprehension and it's so goddamn unfathomable to me that I was so careful in spelling out that I mean the actions of Dawkins and you goddamn think I was arguing that I want a god. How goddamn low were your SAT reading comprehension scores? Even RollinThundr understands arguments and fights fewer strawmen than you do. What's next? If someone says that they enjoy a game you dislike is that them trying to prove a god? Because that's how fucking close you are to ANYTHING I said.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 09:14 yuastnav
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 08:38:
@yustnav:

1. Science is nothing like religion, please look up the definition of the scientific method because nothing you (or Kuhn) have stated actually holds water. The only reason science 'appears' in some ways to resemble religion is because humans are irrational beings who live in their imagination. Remember that an 'appearance' of similarity does not indicate similarity itself.
[...]

Are... are you serious?
I do have to say that I am a bit speechless now.
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", the book that was written by the physicist and philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, caused an uproar in the scientific community and forever changed how science was viewed, by scientists but also by non-scientists, in the whole world.
Don't get me wrong, you can still claim that "nothing that Kuhn has stated holds water", but I would at first advise you to acquaint yourself with his works and think properly about it because the way I presented it may have been not entirely true and does Kuhn no justice.
It's not some "crazy idea" that someone thought up overnight and which is barely known, quite contrary it, or rather a modification of it, is a well accepted theory of how scientific progress works.

InBlack wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 08:38:
@yustnav:
[...]
2. You can argue semantics with me all day long but I dont believe that god or gods (divine beings whatever) exist. How does my lack of belief indicate another belief? I also dont believe that unicorns exist. Does that mean i BELIEVE that unicorns dont exist? Quit your circular and flawed logic and trust me even if you cant understand this very simple logic. Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF system. It is a lack of one.

Of course that means that you belief that unicorns don't exist. How is that flawed or circular? And please stop being so damn condescending as if you know it all.
When I say that I don't believe that magic exists that means I believe that magic does not exist. When I don't believe that a fifth fundamental force does not exist I believe that a fifth fundamental force does not exist.
I just rewrote it in a different way but the main statement is still the same.

[edit]
I agree that this is arguing semantics. Maybe it is different for different atheists. Some believe that there is no god and other know there is no god.
But then I come back to my previous point where I state that there are few things you can truly *know*. Oh well.

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2013, 09:24.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 09:13 Beamer
 
Jivaro wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 01:28:
"I don't believe there isn't a God or gods, I don't believe they exist either. I simply don't know."

That's agnosticism, not atheism.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 09:12 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 23:25:
I don't give a shit what Dawkins says or believes. Atheists didn't up and vote Dawkins the Jesus H. Christ of atheism. We don't have prophets dictating our thought processes and lifestyles. That's for all the religious dolts out there.

Jesus Christ, dude.

I am talking SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DAWKINS!

Stop RollinThundring it up here. I never said that atheism was YOUR religion. In fact, I've been very upfront saying this is not even true for many atheists.

I'm a goddamn atheist. Or agnostic. Whatever.

I am saying Dawkins is so fundamental in his belief, and it is a belief, that it is a religion. To him.

So if you do not care what it is to him stop fucking arguing with me. Because you're arguing with something I never said and being an ass about it.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 08:38 InBlack
 
@yustnav:

1. Science is nothing like religion, please look up the definition of the scientific method because nothing you (or Kuhn) have stated actually holds water. The only reason science 'appears' in some ways to resemble religion is because humans are irrational beings who live in their imagination. Remember that an 'appearance' of similarity does not indicate similarity itself.

2. You can argue semantics with me all day long but I dont believe that god or gods (divine beings whatever) exist. How does my lack of belief indicate another belief? I also dont believe that unicorns exist. Does that mean i BELIEVE that unicorns dont exist? Quit your circular and flawed logic and trust me even if you cant understand this very simple logic. Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF system. It is a lack of one.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 07:32 yuastnav
 
SimplyMonk wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 20:03:
NewMaxx wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 14:57:
You'll be disappointed. What most people don't realize is that science is just another religion.

Science isn't a religion. It might appear to be at times, but only because we, as humans, are so bad at living up to its ideals. The same could be said for religion itself in that most of them have inherently beneficial aspects to them, but they are abused and distorted from their ideals.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that humanity sucks and is the reason we can't have nice things.

The way that science works and has worked for the last hundreds of years is in some ways similar to religion.
Popper basically said that scientists are rational beings who, when confronted with a new, superior theory, will abandon the old one. To that Kuhn answered that it is not true and that older scientists will still cling to older theories while younger scientists will be more interested in newer theories and the newer theories will then prevail because the older theories will die out with the older scientists.
A good example for that is quantum mechanics.
Many of the physicists who played a more or less great part in quantum mechanics like Planck, Schrödinger and Einstein were opposed to the idea of quantum mechanics because it made them uneasy.
There were rational reasons for and against quantum mechanics but in the end it all boiled down to faith, to a believe. Some wanted to believe in quantum mechanics and therefore continued working on it, others didn't. A paradigm shift occurs and the older theories are (at least partly) replaced by the newer ones.

And it's not bad that it works that way, because Popper claimed that the older theories are completely removed and not used anymore, which is not true. They were true for a period of time until people encountered problems that were not solvable and incompatible with these theories, so they made new theories while some people still tried to salvage the older theory by trying to make it compatible with these incompatible problems, which can work to an extent but more often than not doesn't.

There is no perfect ideal of how science should be. Science works the way we do it.


InBlack wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 04:53:
I love it how Beamer actually tried to convince some of us that our lack of a belief system is somehow a belief system itself.

Nice try dude, but the ounis of proof is on you. You want to have a God? Fine you can have one, or ten for all I care. As far as Im concerned they DONT exist, since there is no evidence of their existence if you could provide me with some I would be glad to change my mind.

I think there are only very few things that one can *know*, i.e. it is possible to doubt almost everything, so I don't think that one can say that one *knows* that there does not exist a metaphysical being that exists in a state indescribable by something out of this universe (which is the reason why the word "state" would also be misplaced here) which has, by definition, the ability to create energy from nothing.
In that sense atheism, too, would be a belief system. And being able to prove one thing or the other would be, from a human standpoint, meaningless because if you aren't dealing with symbolic logic or mathematics no proof is infallible.
On the other hand atheism is the opposite of theism and by using that word alone atheism is just the absence of any belief system.

Personally I would say that agnosticism is the actual absence of a belief system because atheism would be, by argumentum e contrario, the belief that no deities exist.


This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2013, 07:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 04:53 InBlack
 
I love it how Beamer actually tried to convince some of us that our lack of a belief system is somehow a belief system itself.

Nice try dude, but the ounis of proof is on you. You want to have a God? Fine you can have one, or ten for all I care. As far as Im concerned they DONT exist, since there is no evidence of their existence if you could provide me with some I would be glad to change my mind.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 04:33 InBlack
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 13:50:
And Islam organized religion should never provoke laughter. It's not funny and needs to be eliminated by any means necessary.

There. fixed that for you. You can thank me later.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 02:46 Toad
 
Jivaro, I think you'd do well to revisit and read this (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t ):

Synonym Study
Agnostic, atheist ... refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 02:02 Crustacean Soup
 
Not trolling. Anyways, the actual quip I entered the comment thread to make:

How Netflix is turning viewers into puppets.

"Puppet" apparently means "Netflix' algorithms determine exactly what I want to watch". That's, uh, fine by me.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 01:43 Jivaro
 
Dammit..you got me. I should have caught on to being trolled sooner.

If you are serious, then yeah, we are done. I was very clear and you would either be deliberately skewing the discussion or purposely pretending to not understand. In either event, I would not be interested in continuing to discuss it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 01:31 Crustacean Soup
 
Jivaro wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 01:28:
"I don't believe there isn't a God or gods, I don't believe they exist either. I simply don't know."

Without the entire sentence you don't have context. I suppose a person who speaks English as a second language would be confused by the intent of those 2 sentences, but other then that it strikes me that you are arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What I wrote works with that entire sentence, and my paraphrasing lost none of the meaning. Should I edit the full sentence into my post? Will that matter in some way? Edit: Are you saying that you are an atheist and you have faith as well (whereupon this devolves into a discussion of dictionaries and the word "faith")? Did I miss something? Are we done? Edit2: Yeah, I think so. Good night!

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2013, 01:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 14, 2013, 01:28 Jivaro
 
Crustacean Soup wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 01:18:
Jivaro wrote on Mar 14, 2013, 01:08:
It says exactly what I said it did. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in god, gods...otherwise known as "deities". I fail to see how that varies from what I said it would.
...
atheists do believe in something they can't actually prove, and I think that qualifies as faith.
I don't think to disbelieve and to believe are equivalent. Again, M-W

DISBELIEVE

transitive verb: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

You said you do not believe in a god (nor believe in one). That, uh, fits M-W's definition of atheism.

lol..now you are just being silly. You don't get to snip the little parts that seem to prove your point and ignore the rest that gives it context.

"I don't believe there isn't a God or gods, I don't believe they exist either. I simply don't know."

Without the entire sentence you don't have context. I suppose a person who speaks English as a second language would be confused by the intent of those 2 sentences, but other then that it strikes me that you are arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.

If it really bothers you that I use the word faith, I am not sure what to tell you. Sorry?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo