Piggymoo - A forum lost in time and space

Did you know we have 4112 anime wallpapers?
Fitna, An anti-koran/islam movie by Geert Wilders
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Piggymoo.com Forum Index -> Documentaries
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author
Message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 12008 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Who decides what is a delusion and what is the truth? You? Anybody who advocates teaching people "How to think" needs to think long an hard about how you can have "free speach" without "free thought"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 12008 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Sendal wrote:
Who decides what is a delusion and what is the truth? You? Anybody who advocates teaching people "How to think" needs to think long an hard about how you can have "free speach" without "free thought"


who decides what is truth? Reality isnt subjective to human will. A delusion is something that isnt in accordance with reality, for humans the way to test reality from unreal, is with the scientific method, emperical evidence.

Thus decideing something as fact, without any evidence is delusional.

Free thought? that seems a msnomer as you a using at....Free thought, would be teaching people HOW to think, not WHAT to think.....free speech is all well and good, if it is combined with free thought and the ability to think needs to be taught.

allowing parents to abuse their children with their delusions is another crime.

Unfortunalty religiosity doesnt encourage free though, nor does it encourage free speech, in fact it goes one step further it attempts to subjegate the state to religion

Of course I could be wrong, Their could be fairys at the bottom of my garden....and a monster under my bed.......o well, i will just have to hope that Zeus, or Thor or Amlak, or Gunab, or Shiva or satnam or Ahura Mazda or allah or Jehovah or christ or the greenman, or the godess, or Juptier, or maybe I should get an horse shoe to protect myself.......let me finish going through the hundreds of thousands of different gods, with entirely different attributes that contradict each other, or even the same gods described within the same reliion has contradictory definitions....

the idea that all ideas are equaly deserving of respect, is a fallacy. And solipsism is no argument for delusional beliefs either....

edit : I forgot the reptillian humanoids too, they must be true after all http://truthism.com/ says they do....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 12008 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


You can respect peoples right to put their faith in any system of beliefs without believing in it yourself.

You and I believe in the scientific method above all else, and who's to say we are wrong? Ultimatly to believe that science is the be all and end all is a matter of faith as much as the existance of a god or that god's wishes for our behaviour. I don't say that to demean science in any way, and I don't consider it a problem to admit that I have a degree of faith in science.

The biggest disagreement you seem to have with religion is that it makes people believe "Delusions" which I take to mean what you consider "false facts". What I mean to say is that you donot know 100% that you are right and they are wrong. Why are you better than them?

Are you sujesting that a reasonable mind cannot come to believe in a religion? because there are plenty of scientists who follow a faith

It seems that you are saying that if someones comes to the conclusion that there is a god, they are wrong. Regardless of how they got there. That seems a little arrogant don't you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Sendal wrote:
You can respect peoples right to put their faith in any system of beliefs without believing in it yourself.

You and I believe in the scientific method above all else, and who's to say we are wrong? Ultimatly to believe that science is the be all and end all is a matter of faith as much as the existance of a god or that god's wishes for our behaviour. I don't say that to demean science in any way, and I don't consider it a problem to admit that I have a degree of faith in science.

The biggest disagreement you seem to have with religion is that it makes people believe "Delusions" which I take to mean what you consider "false facts". What I mean to say is that you donot know 100% that you are right and they are wrong. Why are you better than them?

Are you sujesting that a reasonable mind cannot come to believe in a religion? because there are plenty of scientists who follow a faith

It seems that you are saying that if someones comes to the conclusion that there is a god, they are wrong. Regardless of how they got there. That seems a little arrogant don't you think?


As i said Solipsism isnt a valid reason for religions to propegate delusiional philosophys....

An entirely internel belief or lack of belief in a supreme being is entirely subjective. and can not be prooved or disproved as of yet....however religions can, due to the claims they make, thats what makes them delusional the set of beliefs that make up how they interact and view the world,
I dont expect the rights of everyone to think and do what they want, i prefer intervention, *pulls out the hitler card* would you be happy with people believing they should be allow to kill jews?

Science isnt the be all and end all, It is however the providence of man, things that can be shown to be hold true are reliable and help our species survive, and its more the scientific method, observe evidence, make a hypothesis, test hypothesis make theory, wait for more evidence...back to start....not knowing something 100% doesnt mean that all things are possible..

And as to how to come to the conclusion of god, what manner is reliable? Ancient texts that have been doctored over the ages? anceint texts written by people with less sophistication in logic, ancient texts that are contradictory and indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable...I want to combat all religious philosophys that undermine the chances of the survival of the species and the lives of the individuals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Quote:
An entirely internel belief or lack of belief in a supreme being is entirely subjective. and can not be prooved or disproved as of yet....however religions can, due to the claims they make


Claims made by religions are fallable. So are claims made by science. The fact that religions can be wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything.

Quote:
I dont expect the rights of everyone to think and do what they want


Thinking and doing are very different things. I think there should be limits on what people can do, but you should never try to tell someone what to think.

Quote:
not knowing something 100% doesnt mean that all things are possible..


no, but it does somewhat precude you from saying "I'm right, your wrong, and your religion should not be allowd to continue."

Quote:
And as to how to come to the conclusion of god, what manner is reliable?


The studying of ancient texts, however they have changed over time, need not be hopeless, so long as one keeps in mind the limmitations of such study. Virtualy all recorded history is based on the study of biased accounts by ancient people, you just need to be aware of the bias to find what was realy happening. Many religions also include a "relationship" with a "god". I am not saying that this evidence persuades me, but it is still evidence and just because someone interprets it differently to you or I does not neccisarily mean they are interpreting it wrongly.

I don't see why you see religion as a threat to the species. There may be isolated people who would like to release some killer virus to wipe out man kind "because they are sinners" or whatever, but that isn't the religion doing that, its one person who would probably do it anyway for another reason if there was no religion. How is the philosophy of religion itself a threat?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Sendal wrote:


Claims made by religions are fallable. So are claims made by science. The fact that religions can be wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything.


There is a difference between, religious claims of fact being discoverd to be false, and the ever changing nature of scienfitic theorys would expects falsehoods to be found, and new infomation to be added.
One claims absolute truth and refusers to listen to anything that disagrees with it, and the other accepts its true with the available evidence, but new evidence can be added.

Sendal wrote:
Thinking and doing are very different things. I think there should be limits on what people can do, but you should never try to tell someone what to think.


What people think has massive impacts on what they do, and then you dont think that the law is currently correct about education? at least in my country children are required to learn secular education and meet national standards (that my fail sometimes) we tell people what to think all the time, we tell our children what to think, Im just for telling them HOW to think so they can come to logical conclusions, I dont know so fairys exist, isnt a logical conclusion, the lack of evidence is a lack of evidence...

Sendal wrote:

no, but it does somewhat precude you from saying "I'm right, your wrong, and your religion should not be allowd to continue."


After extensive research on religous teachings, you can say something is wrong, and falsehood shouldnt be taught as truth....

got to go will answer later Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Quote:
One claims absolute truth and refusers to listen to anything that disagrees with it, and the other accepts its true with the available evidence


I think you are misrepresenting "religion" here. It is a big entity with widly ranging beliefs. I know most about christianity, so I'm going to take that as an example. Christianity does not make many claims that have been proven false that I am aware of. At one time the creation story was interpreted litteraly, though in recent times most christians would not deny evolution. (there will always be a few though...) That would be an example of religion listening to someone else and reinterpreting it's own teachings to incorporate the new information.

Quote:
you dont think that the law is currently correct about education?


I don't agree with everthing that is taught in our schools. I believe education should limmit itself to from discussing religous matters entirely. I know my RE lessons were all but useless, and the government should not try to influence peoples choice in what they want to believe is true on issues that are not clear cut.

Science should make it's limmitations clear from much earlier on. I was at second year university before I had any idea what philosophy of science was about.

I also don't think children are a good example. They have yet to accumulate enough knowledge to make informed decisions themselves, so it is only right that they should take their cues from an older person. (genrely their parents). They can then make their own decisions later in life.

Quote:
What people think has massive impacts on what they do


That is very true, but to take your earlier example, telling a Nazi that he can't think that way, or even passing a law to that effect isn't going to change his mind. The only way to do that is what we are doing now, a reasoned debate. He tells you why all jews must die, you tell him why he is wrong. If he changes his mind, good. If he doesn't, so be it so long as he doesn't act on that belief. Its no skin off my nose. (nor any Jew's nose, so long as he doesn't DO anything). That is what laws are for.

Quote:
I dont know so fairys exist, isnt a logical conclusion


True, that does not neccisarily follow, but then neither does "I don't know, so fairies DO NOT exist"

What you can say is "I don't know, but if at any point I must act based on their existance or non existance, I choose to believe they do exist" That is a perfectly logical thought process. In the absence of any evidence, either conclusion is acceptable, so long as you accept you may be wrong.

Quote:
falsehood shouldnt be taught as truth


I agree with you, in fact I would go farther: if there is a reasonable ammount of doubt it shouldn't be taught as truth. I don't think quantum theory should be taught as truth, it should be taught as our best current theory.

I have yet to hear you prove Religion false yet, but either way I don't think religion should be taught as truth, and I don't think athieism should be taught as truth either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


I'm not misrepresenting anything, Christianity has something like 20 thousand denominations, and every single one of them make outlandish claims, where you say most christians wouldnt deny evolution infact 6 out 10 christianias think evolution is a lie and that creationism is true. thats the majority and that is in the UK, I'd like to see the same poll done in america..Religion doesnt listen when its forced it moves the goal posts.

Agreed, the education system should teach reality, but isnt the secular system of education you describe the government influencing peoples choice?

I agree again that debate is essential, although I still stand by that all children should be force to go to secular schools, and learn how to think thats the law that needs passing.

What if as we seeis the case, he teaches his children to hate the jews, they dont do anything though, but the idea of jews having all the money starts to propergate through many layers of society, and then eventualy in the future someone users the jews as a scape goat, after all everyone knows they have all the money........? allowing fallacy and illogical hate to exist...well lets just say that the greatest evil a good man can do is nothing...

without evidence, the default position is, I do not know, I have no evidence, therefore until i do the thing probably doesnt exist.

Unfortuatly what we tend to see is, I do not know therefore God.

I tend to agree with you about QM. I get far too many people telling me that the big bang is 100% FACT.....That requires a little too much faith for me to be able to say that. ITs a pretty good theory based on the available evidence.

name a religion, Define its God and compare its teachings it will prove itself false...well we was talking about Islam, where shall we start? that historicaly and archeologicaly it holds no truth? That the Qur'an claims the Qur'an is clear and understood, and it cant even be fully understood in Arabic, How about all the false claims of evidence within the Qur'an for proof of allah? did you know the speed of light is in the Qur'an?....It is'nt of course...Shall we actualy look at the Qualities of allah

Compassionate and the Beneficent Eternal, Absolute Self-Subsisting He is All Powerful, Ruler and Master of all ,Omnipotent Omniscient, Absoletely Just, Most Honorable, Most Excellent, Most Benevolent He has control over the Universe He wills all learning and thinking; perfect and devine in all ways.
shall we play spot the logical fallacies?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Suzuku
Cooler than pig2cat
Cooler than pig2cat


Joined: Mon Feb 18, 12008 10:58 am
Posts: 3352
Location: California

Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5Reputation: 220.5
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


lol parents really should send their kids to school that isnt affilated with religion
my parents tried to argue with me using religion or old traditional beliefs and im using logic
its so impossible to win lol
_________________
Quote:
Mark this day, for the darkness of your world has been lifted so the light of PiggyMoo may shine upon it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit users myspace page
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 12008 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


http://lonestartimes.com/2005/11/07/vatican-official-defends-evolution-theory/

This is a short example of a vatican official defending evolution. we could quote statistics all day, 9/10 say this, 4/5 say that, but unless you say where you get them from they are meaningless.

I don't see why a school that is specificaly non-religous (or some might say anti-religous) is any better than one that is openly christian. (or Islamic, or jewish...) whatever the official position is will be imprinted on the students, and I don't think that is right.

Quote:
allowing fallacy and illogical hate to exist...well lets just say that the greatest evil a good man can do is nothing...


I didn't say you should do nothing, but I did say that you can't just tell someone that they can't think that way. That doesn't achieve anything.

Quote:
without evidence, the default position is, I do not know, I have no evidence, therefore until i do the thing probably doesnt exist.

Unfortuatly what we tend to see is, I do not know therefore God.


First of all, I don't see why you should assume the negative. You should assume the simplest explenation that explains the facts best. In the case of fairies, fair enough it is probably simpler to asume there are none, but it is not so easy to dismiss the idea of god. You must admit that some questions are beond the realms of science, and for some the simlplest solution is that there is an inteligent being in control.

In the absence of evidence, the default position should be "I don't know" and no farther. Unfortunatly when dealing with religion, deciding I don't know has the same effect as deciding there is no god. By not making a decision, you have decided. It is a question for which everyone must pick one way or the other, and there is precious little evidence to base it on.

Quote:
name a religion, Define its God and compare its teachings it will prove itself false...well we was talking about Islam, where shall we start? that historicaly and archeologicaly it holds no truth? That the Qur'an claims the Qur'an is clear and understood, and it cant even be fully understood in Arabic, How about all the false claims of evidence within the Qur'an for proof of allah? did you know the speed of light is in the Qur'an?....It is'nt of course...Shall we actualy look at the Qualities of allah

Compassionate and the Beneficent Eternal, Absolute Self-Subsisting He is All Powerful, Ruler and Master of all ,Omnipotent Omniscient, Absoletely Just, Most Honorable, Most Excellent, Most Benevolent He has control over the Universe He wills all learning and thinking; perfect and devine in all ways.
shall we play spot the logical fallacies?


I know very little about the teachings of the Quaran, so I would find it hard to deffend or attack specific claims it makes. I know much more about the Bible, but there is one thing that is constant for all philosophical debate about documents.

In the short time I spent studying philosophy one of the things that irritated me most was the nit-picking nature of the wording of the statements. Most arguments I observed were won or lost on the presice meaning and interpretation of one word. To an extent that is all well and good when you are arguing with another person who can rephrase their statement to better state their meaning, but in relation to an ancient text, it cannot do that. You can almost certainly prove a locical contradiction between words in one of these texts, but you must remember that it was not written by a trained philosopher. Every word in the Bible (or Quaran) was not agonised over for monthes to think of other possible ways it could be interpreted, or whether there is a more precise way of phrasing that thaught.

The bible is not a science text book, so it doesn't teach evolution or the big bang. Neither is is a philosophy text book, so it doesn't teach how to construct a perfectly consistant argument. It was written by people without the training you and I benefit from, so It is simply not fair to pull it apart based on the words used. You must take the overall meaning from a passage.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


the vatican defending evolution is a fine example of them moving the goal posts, and it also goes to show how unfactual the bible is...MAN created before women, isnt in evolution...the only way A christian can defend evolution, is by dismissing the bible, because its contradictory..It doesnt fit..unless you either a/change the bible (infalible word of god? or b/ change the theory of evolution.

The statisitc was from Professor Richard Dawkins, Does that now make it meaningful that 6/10 UK christians dont believe in evolution?

You dont see why a school that is openly religious and teaches religion as the truth is any worse then a public school teaching secular knowledge? have you not looked at the history of the human race?

Im not telling someone they cant thinik that way, Im giving them all the infomation so they dont think in illlogical delusiuonal ways.

So without any evidence at all you think we shouldnt (assume)(infer) negatives? sorry what else should we do with a total lack of evidence?
The question of Gods isnt beyond the realms of science, Define a god please, And i will show how Science has already explained what is ascribed to the god....There is currently things we dont know, but that doesnt mean God is the answer to the questions, we have already had the religious types moving the goal post and that is another prime example of someone buying into it..."O god might be the heisenberg uncertainty principle" Yes ok...

And thats not the simplest solution (although the razor is a form of logical fallacy), have you no idea about thermodynamics? about how it goes from simplicity to complexity? The simplest idea, isnt that an eternaly wise and peaceful and good being, made everything because it contradicts itself when you start addig the further definitions...the simplest definition is Cosmological/chemical/biological evolution/thermodynamics.

Is there a God? I dont know, But God has been removed from vast sections of the Cosmos through knowledge, God is no longer in the sky, he isnt the force holding things together, he isnt the being how made us perfect and finished.etc..etc.
Why i keep saying RELIGION is lies, and any time they describe there god, it can be disproved because they apply things to it that can not exist.

You say its not written byt trained philosophys? GOD isnt a trained philosopher? your very statement clearly shows that God didnt write or inspire to be wrote the religious texts. How you are now saying, that because the bible is written by ancient sheepherders without any training, i need to give them a break? .......you seem to forget that you might admit that, but to billions of people GOD WROTE IT......remember the PERFECT GOD, the GOD WHO CAUSES ALL THOUGHT etc..remember that supreme being....
The overall meanings also dont make sense, which religion shall we look at? An all loving God, creates evil and mankind, then If manking are evil, even though evil ONLY happens through and by the will of god, mankind is punished for eternity.? HOW JUST!



Just want to make it clear, That im not talking a person entirely internal personal feeling that "something" exist, this is entirely subjective And internal And both theist (with a belief in a supreme) and A-theist (without a belief in a supreme) are equaly valid......

But once you start to add other things, once it becomes a set of beliefs it does become a philosophy and these philososphys are what can be disproven..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Professor Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion. Hardly the most impartial source for statistics. I found the following statistics on a website called

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Quote:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.


This is clearly also Biased, in the opposite direction. I am not saying that my poll is better than your poll, but you just cannot put much faith in these things unless they are carried out by an impartial body without an agenda, and that is hard to come by.

As for your objection for moving the goal posts, was it not the same when Relativity replaced Newtonian physics? I don't see why you insist that religion must get everything perfect, first time, but you don't put the same constraint on your own philosophy. You don't need to change the bible, just understand it differently.

Quote:
You dont see why a school that is openly religious and teaches religion as the truth is any worse then a public school teaching secular knowledge?


I don't see why a school that is openly religious and teaches religion is truth is any worse than a public school teaching A-Theism as truth. Subtle difference.

Quote:
Im not telling someone they cant thinik that way, Im giving them all the infomation so they dont think in illlogical delusiuonal ways.


Unfortunatly, thats not the way it usualy works. Given the same group of incomplete facts and information two people can come to different conclusions, without one being wrong.

Quote:
So without any evidence at all you think we shouldnt (assume)(infer) negatives


I think that you must accept that that is an inference, and not a proof. You therefor cannot brow beat someone for inferring the other possibility.

Quote:
Define a god please


Yeah, Right, because people a lot smarter than me haven't been trying to do that for hundreds of years. Here is my brief atempt, but bear in mind this is an unsolved philosophical problem, and I reserve the right to re-phrase this as many times as it takes me to get the idea across exactly as I intend it. (grrrr Nit picking philosophers grrr)

My deffinition of my Idea of the christian god, atempt 1.

God is a being Beyond the universe and outside of time. He can influance the actions of human beings (through what some would call the concience) and has on occasion given knowledge of future events to individuals.

Quote:
have you no idea about thermodynamics


I am a chemist, so I know a great deal about Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is oftem mis-quoted, especially in relation to Biology. Did you know that virtualy all life is thermodynamicaly unstable? It is only the kinetic stability that keeps us from decomposing into our constituent elements. By that I mean, a cloud of CO2, H2O and small ammounts of other gasses has much less internal energy than a human being, but the activation energy for the reaction is high enough that it doesn't happen at normal temperatures.

The universe always tryes to increase its entropy, which is a measure of RANDOMNESS. many people confuse this for complexity. If a room has two gasses in it, they will not stay in two lumps, but intermingle because this arrangement has a highter entropy. It is more random, but it is no more complex. Complex entities like living systems tend to have low entropy, because introducing randomness to a complex arrangement tends to cause it to fall apart.

Quote:
You say its not written byt trained philosophys? GOD isnt a trained philosopher? your very statement clearly shows that God didnt write or inspire to be wrote the religious texts


Most would say inspired by god rather than dictated by god I think. And you must also consider who the book was written for. If you were telling a bunch of 10 year olds about physics, you wouldn't quote the schrodinger equation, or use a lot of complex jargon. You might include a few simplifications to get the message across in a way they would understand.

If the bible could only be read by philosophers, it would not be very useful as the primary text of a religion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Heh, tbh i forgot who wrote god delusion, ive not read it...hakins was quoting a poll of the Evangelical Alliance who have about 1 million members. Smile

Its not the same type of goal post moving at all, I dont recall the burnings of newtonian scientists by relativitists....the other problem is, that once you disprove that creationism is a myth,eveb the ones who accept that, still claim that everything else the bible says is true, untill prove wrong..its been a llong hard struggle for mankind, a struggle we are still going through...to remove the shackles of faith (belief without evidence)

Schools dont teach atheism, they teach secular science and knowledge, If that leads people to be an atheist that doesnt mean the school is teaching atheism....there is a vast difference between that and faith schools

the room with the two gasses Would that be a room that is a closed system Razz and yes, i argue with people all the time, who try to tell me that evolution breaks the 2nd law.....

So this god, cant get his own message across? he cant make humans understand? what part of supreme is god lacking...the book was written by our ancestors, created to explain the unexplainable, holding onto the misconceived ideas of the past doesnt help us today...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Science doesn't always travel between paradigms smoothly either. Admitedly in these more enlightened times changes are less violent than at the birth of science, but True changes genraly occour when the old generation of scientists pass on, and the younger generation who were brought up with the new theories prevail.

Nobody can condone some of what has been done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is wholey evil.

Some schools do teach Atheism. As I said at the start, I don't think schools should discuss Religion at all, for or against. I think on that point at least we agree.

Evolution doesn't break the second law, it just postpones its eventual Triumph. We will all be that cloud of gas one day. The point is that Thermodynamics does not drive evolution, as some would have you believe.

The bible is not the only source of god's enlightenment. There are also priests and ministers to help interpret it and put it into context, and virtualy all christians claim a personal connection with god. I can't say I have experienced such a thing, but I don't consider myself superiour enough to tell them they are deluding themselves. That seems far too condecending and arogant to me.

The bible is a common first step however, and it is probably a good thing that much of what it says can be gleaned from solitary study, though much more can be learned through research from other sources, and confusions it raises can be explained.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


its not the personal belief in the supreme that I mind so much, ultiamtly such a question of metaphysics is subjective...Its using that belief as Ultimate authority over worldy matters.

I dont find naturalistic pantheism offensive, or the non theistic budhist philosophys. sure there are a few others, that dont make non believers second class citizens, because thats what abrhamic religions do.


just to clarify, something i said earlier about origins of life and thermodynamics, I was refering too

Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling

"We examine the thermodynamic evolution of various evolving systems, from primitive physical systems to complex living systems, and conclude that they involve similar processes which are phenomenological manifestations of the second law of thermodynamics. We take the reformulated second law of thermodynamics of Hatsopoulos and Keenan and Kestin and extend it to nonequilibrium regions, where nonequilibrium is described in terms of gradients maintaining systems at some distance away from equilibrium. The reformulated second law suggests that as systems are moved away from equilibrium they will take advantage of all available means to resist externally applied gradients. When highly ordered complex systems emerge, they develop and grow at the expense of increasing the disorder at higher levels in the system's hierarchy. We note that this behaviour appears universally in physical and chemical systems. We present a paradigm which provides for a thermodynamically consistent explanation of why there is life, including the origin of life, biological growth, the development of ecosystems, and patterns of biological evolution observed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


So what you disagree with is not so much that people follow and live their lives by these religions, but the political agendas that some of them persue, such as the caste system of Hinduism, or forcing women to be covered from head to toe?

Do you think it is wrong if people live by these restrictions by choice because of their religion or only if they are imposed on non-believers?

As for that Abstract, I'm reading the paper now, I'll get back to you.

OK I've read it.

It is an interesting observation, that thermodynamic gradients are dissipated better by more mature ecosystems. It did make one claim I wasn't so happy about:

Quote:
"Not only are the processes of these dissipative systems consistent with the restated second law, it should be expected that they will exist wherever there are gradients"


I don't think I would go that far, they haven't given me enough evidence to come to that conclusion yet.

It is also important to remember that this article claims thermodynamics in Necisary for life, but not sufficient. There are many other factors to consider as well

The thing is, I don't think this avenue of discussion is realy relevant, because the method of the creation of life is not the issue. Even if you could prove beyond a doubt that life is entirely based upon chemical reactions and could show how it emerged from the beginning, that still does not show that there was not a supreme being that decreed that it should be that way, that there should be a second law, and for that matter that there should be a universe at all.

I want to make clear that I am not trying to persuade you that there is a god, I am trying to show why I think it is unreasonable to declare all religion is wrong, and therefore should be forsaken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Yes my problem is metaphystical claims, being touted as proof for why one philosophy is greater then another, Where as i prefer to judge them by there merits, not by Appeal to authority. and Yes I would be forced into admiting that there is a possibility some "supreme" might exist, Although certaintly not anything that has ever been described to me, there are problems with something being all knowing and all powerful, outside space time, and at all places, infinitely loving and wrathfull. perfectly hate and love....


Ah, well I would have thought, that with entropy in a closed system either stays the same or increases and if more complex forms cant take shape untill after entropy gradianets have alredy increase, it would be impossible for something to start with maximum complexity and minimum entropy.....

.....I dont see how its possible to have this infintely complex atropic being that exists in the system. or if its outside the system...and some home magicly able to transfer energy into the system, we would see evidence of that, i mean proof of god would be something...and enough people talk to him everyday, and get messages, and his help and miracles healing etc..etc..that we should be able to take some sort of measure.....

not sure if you just read, the abstract preface, or the entire .pdf

http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf

the link if you didnt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 12008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


No, I read it all. It wouldn't be fair to comment on its claims if I hadn't.

This "God" doesn't necisarily need to transfer energy into the universe to speak to people or observe happenings. That would be breaking the first law, and that is a big no-no.

I can also see where you are coming from with the inconsistancies in some of the descriptions of god. It is impossible to have a "perfect" being not least because different people have differing ideas of what "perfect" is.

I would think of god being a perfect balance of all those qualities, though clearly at least some of them must be limmited if not by his nature then by his choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jifrowe
spammy piggy
spammy piggy


Joined: Sat Feb 02, 12008 7:25 am
Posts: 760


Reputation: 34Reputation: 34
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 12008 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


well either the god would have to be part of the closed system, and in that case should be observable on some level, or it is totaly seperated and has no bearing whatso ever with the cosmos...


Evidence for God, I would accept, I love evidence...

And then this metaphysical god, entirely subjective, with no bearing what so ever on reality,
God never talked to anyone...beause he would either a/ be provable or b/ break the 1st law


either of those seems reasonable....I suppose, I am not political anti-theist, however i am a strong secularist....

philosohpicaly i am anti most theological philsophys..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sendal
Ascended piggy
Ascended piggy


Joined: Wed Jan 09, 12008 6:18 pm
Posts: 1872
Location: Edinburgh

Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9Reputation: 143.9
Add reputation for this poster

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 12008 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


The workings of the human mind are not well understood at all. I believe it was Kant that spoke about the Noumanl and phenomenal Realms, in which the mind is in an entirely different reality to the physical body. In such a philosophy it would not be hard to imagine a god in the phenomenal realm who could still influance the noumenal realm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display replies from:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Piggymoo.com Forum Index -> Documentaries All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2011 phpBB Group
Flower Power phpBB theme by Flowers Online. modified by piggymoo
DMCA, C&D, Legal, privacy