The God idea. Argue with this.

[sikraiken]

I honestly can't think of anything exclusive to monotheism that is good about it. Please tell me what exactly.

The prospect of exclusivity in poly/mono/a is ridiculous. There is none.

[RGC]

I might post another reply, but frankly I think my efforts are wasted here. If you didn't grasp the simple fact that my Bin Laden and Mother Teresa were metaphorical figures representing the extremes of 'iniquity from belief' and 'altruism from belief', then there really is little point.

I also stated very clearly that:

Monotheism doesn't hold the monopoly on any kind of human social behaviour

And yet you still demand from me what good exclusively derives from monotheism. My very position from the start was that no 'good' or 'bad' social behaviour (if such vague terms even possess decipherable meaning in this context) derives exclusively from religious belief. You began that crusade by saying that more bad is exclusive to religion than good. And ask someone else to spell out what I mean by crusade if you still don't get that either, because I cannot be bothered.

[sikraiken]

Thanks for the expansion on that, RGC.

[Ex-Cyber]

some stuff about Pascal's Wager

To me, the main problem with Pascal's Wager is that it begs the question. The reasoning only works if you assume the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian monotheism: there is only one God, He punishes nonbelievers and/or rewards believers, and the way to please Him is written in the Bible. In that situation, the only choice is whether or not to follow God. In reality, there are many religious traditions with conflicting ideas about the existence and nature of god(s), so the dichotomy offered by Pascal doesn't exist in the first place.

[Michaelm]

The prospect of exclusivity in poly/mono/a is ridiculous. There is none.

No ?!?
Poly and mono and atheist are all exclusive in it's meaning.
So they do have exclusive things !
Not any of the so called 'good' or 'bad' things in itself.
But they do have different outcomes in those things.

My very position from the start was that no 'good' or 'bad' social behaviour (if such vague terms even possess decipherable meaning in this context) derives exclusively from religious belief.

And I explicitly state all the time that it's monotheism that I'm talking about and not religion in general. And yeah, those negative things I mentioned are exclusive to monotheism so bad things happening because of that are on account of monotheism.
Cracking somebodies skull cause he doesn't believe in god is far different from cracking somebodies skull cause he raped your daughter.

You began that crusade by saying that more bad is exclusive to religion than good. And ask someone else to spell out what I mean by crusade if you still don't get that either, because I cannot be bothered.

You feel quite elite though you still don't understand the difference between religion as a whole and monotheism in particular.
Please come back when you do

And concerning Pascal's Wager, Ex-Cyber splendidly explained it.

[SpooN]

The funny thing is a lot of Atheists believe in their own God: the principle behind which controls and explains everything, even worse this principle is often connected to logic in their minds (somewhat funny since logic itself is - like religion - just a principle made up by humans).

Impossible to talk to those believers rationally...

[Super Laydock]

The funny thing is a lot of Atheists believe in their own God: the principle behind which controls and explains everything, even worse this principle is often connected to logic in their minds (somewhat funny since logic itself is - like religion - just a principle made up by humans).

Impossible to talk to those believers rationally...

There is NO GOD!
Only one who judges you in the end is the people that know/have known/ come to know you.

Seriously tell me that 1 + 1 doesn´t equal 2...
(I am pretty sure there is some vision disagreeing with this idea, if this vision wants to convince me into believing just that... pm me and put in some effort). --- you´d have to got a very good and reasonable argument though.

Ration survives by and = reasoning.

[sikraiken]

The prospect of exclusivity in poly/mono/a is ridiculous. There is none.

No ?!?
Poly and mono and atheist are all exclusive in it's meaning.
So they do have exclusive things !
Not any of the so called 'good' or 'bad' things in itself.
But they do have different outcomes in those things.

After I posted, I realized you'd turn it around that way. I meant in the sense of good/bad coming from them, it's not exclusive to them.

Don't make an argument for the sake one. Make it because you actually have something reasonable to say.

Atheism is absolutely ridiculous, by the way. Incredibly more ridiculous than any belief system.

I mean in the idea, not what comes from it. Belief systems only suck because people abuse them and don't know what they're doing (or they're looking at the wrong ones ;D).

Cracking somebodies skull cause he doesn't believe in god is far different from cracking somebodies skull cause he raped your daughter.

This goes back to what I said about having something reasonable to say. You seriously need to learn how to make a statement. Compare apples to apples. Cracking somebodies skull because they don't believe in God is comparable to someone cracking somebodies skull because they need the wallet in the person's back pocket.

[SpooN]

Uhm Super Laydock, it seems I wasn't able to explain my point very well (or perhaps I just don't get your point), so I'll try to explain it a bit more in detail:
All logics (there are different kinds og logic) are systems of axioms where an axiom is an statement we assume as true. This is all human made, there is no "logic" in nature. If we apply logic on our environment for example in an argument we leave our system of axioms because (i.e.) language isn't defined as sharp as needed to be put in correct logic terms.
The same is true for all math. To conclude that because some things can be predicted (inaccurate) with laws based on math, our whole universe can be understood with math, too is just as wrong as to conclude that since we don't understand everything there must be a god. And with just as wrong I mean wrong in this conclusion is logical incorrect.

From my (limited) experience most people tend to think that there is a hidden principle behind it all (a law of everything) that we might be able to understand (and to express) one day. But that's just an unfounded believe.

I'm sure we had this already in this thread but: The existence and nonexistence of god is unprovable so you might say "there is NO GOD" but I might as well say "there IS GOD", which would be even reasonable because if I believe something unprovable exists I might as well know that it exists (I can't trust my senses so I'll never know if the chair I'm sitting on exists but I believe it and it's practical to assume it so I will say I know it exists...).

I somehow doubt my post was clearer this time but I can still hope for a wonder

p.s. just take binary arithmetic and 1+1=2 is wrong, you see it's all just definition


[EDIT]: If you want to be rational and want people to act rational you shouldn't attack religion because it's a way to complex principle. I don't think religion does harm in itself but other more basic (but still irrational) principles do, like pride, honour sense of justice etc. Wouldn't it be rational to begin your crusade at the root of the problem?!

[Ed Oscuro]

some stuff about Pascal's Wager

To me, the main problem with Pascal's Wager is that it begs the question.

Sorry, left my handbook of logic terms in my spare brain today. I actually covered that point though!

Ration survives by

mmm, hard tack and K-Rations

(Yes, I know I'm taking this ridiculously out of context for a cheap joke...sorry Laydock, I loves ya )

[Ed Oscuro]

The funny thing is a lot of Atheists believe in their own God: the principle behind which controls and explains everything, even worse this principle is often connected to logic in their minds (somewhat funny since logic itself is - like religion - just a principle made up by humans).

The scientific method doesn't "control and explain" everything; it merely describes the world immediately visible around us. We don't dabble in invisible fairies except to say they don't seem to impact our lives (and, certainly in my case, we will say they're highly unlikely to exist and thus not worth much consideration).

The principles are often connected to logic? How about - always?

Scientific methodology is designed to reduce and hopefully eliminate biases. Of course people still have to design experiments and decide what to pursue, so we have a lot more people researching zero energy stuff than (apparently) certain other more fruitful avenues of research (for example, we've had mice in laboratories and didn't discover until recently that they sing love songs; probably because we don't care to think of them in ways that don't directly contribute to our medical knowledge).

Religions aren't even bound by approaches set by the biases of current researchers, but by those of old farts from thousands of years ago. Just between you and me, I am a bit more satisfied by the thought that science is an always-evolving work and process (although the core principles haven't changed in at least a few hundred years) and that we can debate things when necessary. Have fun trying to go back in time and find that crazy fun-hating ultra-Jewish war refugee that wrote Revelations to have a pleasant chat!

[SpooN]

Ed Oscuro, I'm not against science or the scientific principle, but a lot of people believe in science explaining everything in the end, which could be true but is just a belive and not on a higher ground than any idea of a god.

Science is stumbling now about problems, where the correct answer would be "yes AND no", or "impossible to know". In this regions A implicates B doesn't really work anymore, to think that the deepest hidden nature law whith which everything is explained (if it exists) would depend on human made logic is just a believe as well.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed Oscuro, I'm not against science or the scientific principle, but a lot of people believe in science explaining everything in the end, which could be true but is just a belive and not on a higher ground than any idea of a god.

The difference is that any belief that science can describe everything and explain any phenomena is an educated guess, not blind faith. That's the difference.

Besides, if "science" were unable to answer everything...we'd look for another way to explain what needed explaining. That really is the core of the scientific idea: keep looking until you find the answer. If science and rational thought can't discover the truth, then religion can't really explain it sufficiently either.

[SpooN]

The difference is that any belief that science can describe everything and explain any phenomena is an educated guess, not blind faith. That's the difference.

This is exactly where you are wrong: no science allows you to guess that there is any final truth to be discovered.
It is the faith that in the end everything will make sense, but there might never be an end (meaning the theory of everything) and if there is one it might not make sense.

[JoshF]

But that doesn't make sense.

[RGC]

My very position from the start was that no 'good' or 'bad' social behaviour (if such vague terms even possess decipherable meaning in this context) derives exclusively from religious belief.

And I explicitly state all the time that it's monotheism that I'm talking about and not religion in general. You feel quite elite though you still don't understand the difference between religion as a whole and monotheism in particular. Please come back when you do

As sikraiken already mentioned, if you're going to split hairs then at least do so in such a way that is not completely devoid of purpose. I'd have thought it quite obvious that when I say 'religious belief' I'm referring to those pertaining to monotheism - since that is what we are debating here! Of course you could be denying that beliefs intimately connected with monotheism are religious beliefs at all. If so then yes, your posts are starting to make me feel quite elite. And who wouldn't?!

Go on, type "WTF Why would I want to split a hairs?!"

Actually, sikraiken, I'm a little concerned about your sweeping statement that atheism is ridiculous. Are you implying that it doesn't make sense not to believe in God?

Edit: schoolboy typo.

[Michaelm]

Don't make an argument for the sake one. Make it because you actually have something reasonable to say.

The why did you post such a ridiculous argument ?!?

Atheism is absolutely ridiculous, by the way. Incredibly more ridiculous than any belief system.

Atheism just means that they don't believe in a god.
You calling this ridiculous shows you're ridiculous yourself

I mean in the idea, not what comes from it. Belief systems only suck because people abuse them and don't know what they're doing (or they're looking at the wrong ones ;D).

And again you show your own ridiculousness by stating the idea if not believing in deities is ridiculous !!

This goes back to what I said about having something reasonable to say. You seriously need to learn how to make a statement. Compare apples to apples. Cracking somebodies skull because they don't believe in God is comparable to someone cracking somebodies skull because they need the wallet in the person's back pocket.

No it does NOT !!
Cracking somebodies skull cause you want the cash does actually make sense ! It brings them the cash.
Cracking it cause they don't believe in a god does NOT make sense ! It brings them NOTHING.

As sikraiken already mentioned, if you're going to split hairs then at least do so in such a way that is not completely devoid of purpose.

Wrong !

I'd have thought it quite obvious that when I say 'religious belief' I'm referring to those pertaining to monotheism - since that is what we are debating here!

If you say fish how should I know you mean dog ?!?
Use proper words and don't go crying that your misunderstood when its you in the first place that led to the misunderstanding !

Of course you could be denying that beliefs intimately connected with monotheism are religious beliefs at all. If so then yes, you're posts are starting to make me feel quite elite. And who wouldn't?!

Please read this sentence yourself again and then tell me you made no mistake somewhere as I can't make anything out of it.
If you want me to say that the so called religious beliefs of monotheism are NOT religious anyway then yes. That is exactly so !!

Go on, type "WTF Why would I want to split a hairs?!"

I just shave regularly

[RGC]

Of course you could be denying that beliefs intimately connected with monotheism are religious beliefs at all. If so then yes, your posts are starting to make me feel quite elite. And who wouldn't?!

Please read this sentence yourself again and then tell me you made no mistake somewhere as I can't make anything out of it.

You know, I'm really not surprised.

Would anyone who can string a coherent sentence together like to comment on the possibility that specific types of human social conduct are exclusive to monotheism? If so, what could these be?

[Michaelm]

You know, I'm really not surprised.

Would anyone who can string a coherent sentence together like to comment on the possibility that specific types of human social conduct are exclusive to monotheism? If so, what could these be?

Well listen you elitist prick.
Let's continue this conversation in Dutch and see how well you do.

[RGC]

Well listen you elitist prick.
Let's continue this conversation in Dutch and see how well you do.

Hey, you forgot to add

Let's just drop it shall we.

[Michaelm]

Well listen you elitist prick.
Let's continue this conversation in Dutch and see how well you do.

Hey, you forgot to add

Let's just drop it shall we.

What, are you out of arguments cause you can't pretend being elite anymore ?

[RGC]

Well listen you elitist prick.
Let's continue this conversation in Dutch and see how well you do.

Hey, you forgot to add

Let's just drop it shall we.

What, are you out of arguments cause you can't pretend being elite anymore ?

Quite.

[Ed Oscuro]

The difference is that any belief that science can describe everything and explain any phenomena is an educated guess, not blind faith. That's the difference.

This is exactly where you are wrong: no science allows you to guess that there is any final truth to be discovered.

Guesses about what? The origin of the universe? We already have ideas what to look for there, and only the rest of the time in the universe to figure out the answer. What other questions do you imagine can't be tackled?

It is the faith that in the end everything will make sense, but there might never be an end (meaning the theory of everything) and if there is one it might not make sense.

Sounds to me like a premature attempt to limit science's reach. We're not there yet; but we have lots of time.

Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to be (depending on your brand of faith) a known quantity with no surprises, especially a religion like Christianity (if you believe Revelations and some of the wacky books out there, anyway).

But assuming you are right that science can't find out "the answer," what would happen? I suppose it would come down to individual preference whether somebody would take up a faith whole-heartedly - with little (i.e. philosophical arguments) in the real world to discern whether one is better than another or even true.

Personally, I'm not too worried about it. If I need to pay attention to religion, surely it will be revealed.

[jpj]

The origin of the universe?

this is what i am most curious by. if energy is never created or destroyed, and the total amount of energy in the universe is a constant, and matter (and time) first came when two infinitely charged sub-atomic particles collided, where did those particles come from? and if energy is interchangeable into mass and the universe is expanding, why and how is it that the speed at which the universe is expanding is accelerating? i'd appreciate if someone could explain these to me

(it's tough being Mohammed's People )

[Ed Oscuro]

and matter (and time) first came when two infinitely charged sub-atomic particles collided

Hruuuh?[/timallen]

[jpj]

the answer to question 2 is apparently "dark energy"

anyways, that's it for me and this thread. i shoulda just quit on page 1. and hopefully there will be many many more churches and mosques built in the netherlands in the coming years

[SpooN]

Ed Oscuro, I don't think science can't find the answer to everything at all, instead I know that it's impossible to prove science can find the answer, as impossible as to prove that there is (or is not) a god.
And this is not alone about the origin of our universe, as often said I'm talking about the theory of everything.
I'm not trying to limit the reach of science but I know that it is possible that science has limits.

Most people that call themselves atheist display a belief in science that reminds me of religion. It's now a lot like when everyone thought the world was determistic, which was then disproved as much as something can be disproved by science itself.
Now everyone thinks there is a finite answer and we can find it, I wouldn't be too surprised if in the next 50 years this concept will be disproven as well.

You will find that I not once took the position of religion, so please don't read and answer my posts as if i had.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed Oscuro, I don't think science can't find the answer to everything at all

If I have to choose between "pessimism" and "anticipating a future of scientific inquiry in line with its previous performance" (note: not "blind faith"), I'm going to go with science every time.

And as I already noted, if a specific line of scientific inquiry doesn't work, it can always be changed. Goodbye phlogiston and the aether drag hypothesis! If you can't find out the truth via reasoning, I don't believe religion will lead you there either because the religions people follow are a fixed set of teachings...they don't account in any meaningful way for the origins of the universe and they don't allow for critical thinking, which is all that science needs to derive an answer if one is possible.

I understand your question about "what if we aren't able to create tools powerful or precise enough to come to set conclusions about THE ORIGIN OF EVERYTHING," but it just doesn't worry me much.

You will find that I not once took the position of religion, so please don't read and answer my posts as if i had.

So what's the alternative to science and religion? I think we've covered the bases of "things that can be tested" and "things that can't." It seems that we are at an impasse!

There are two choices:
1.) We can abandon all hope in science because at some unknown point in the far future it may hit a theoretical wall
2.) We can not stress over it a whole lot because of the predictability and help that science offers our daily lives

[SpooN]

Ah damn, I just don't get my points across very well, noticed that too in the tibet thread

I'm all in for science and research, just because of my own curiosity I will always side with progress despite possible dangers (stem cell research and gene manipulated food etc.).
But I don't have any illusions what science can accomplish and therefore I get annoyed by people who call themselves rational and against religion but believe in science without question.

It would be sure nice to know how it all started or "that I may know what holds the world together most inwardly" but I'm just as content with the idea that there are no answers to these questions. Neither science nor religion is needed for me in the realm of the unprovable.

[Ed Oscuro]

But I don't have any illusions what science can accomplish and therefore I get annoyed by people who call themselves rational and against religion but believe in science without question.

That makes two of us, then, right? ;)