My Imaginary GF posted:The line between 'miracle' and 'concept I don't understand' is extremely narrow, if it exists at all. Not really, "miracle", especially when you're talking to a Christian, assumes intervention by a spiritual force.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:18 |
|
CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. Why anything else? Also, there's nothing in the bible about God not giving a gently caress about other planets or what not, you're making a really stupid point (or lack thereof)
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still waiting on that proof any of that actually happened. The flood that never happened, the miracles that have no cooperating evidence, the idea that god would justify slavery and misogyny in his holy book and yet still expect people to buy it wholesale. I'm not a Christian, just explaining how your argument there was bad. This one is pretty lovely too, I'll let someone else answer.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You and him don't understand or care to understand the other side of this argument at all because you are stupid. It's easier to just copy paste a youtube comment and call it a logical fallacy
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Prove. It. Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. Again, I'm not a Christain, and there are plenty of good arguments as to why god cannot be proven. But that's not a terribly good critique of religion in the first place and like many have mentioned, misses the point, which is that whether or not you can prove anything is irrelevant.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Belief in god originating from a basis is faith is one of the lowest forms of belief in god; in order to flourish as a species, a higher standard is required from humanity. Taking the existence of god as an axiom does not prevent the species from flourishing. Case and point: history.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:03
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think his point was more faith is a poor device for demanding obedience and belief. Except that it's not. Case and point: history and/or reality.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:04
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Here's the root of the problem in this debate: I disagree. The root of the problem is that many of the posters on this board have such a negative view of religion it distorts their ability to make a worthwhile critique. It's easy to post lovely things at people who believe in god. It's really easy to prove that god cannot be proven. But even putting those ideas forth puts back any real debate because people aren't religious because they think god has been proven. He's right for calling people stupid that throw up critiques straight from junior high school. I'm an atheist, but I have no problem admitting that not only has religion done a ton of good in this world (I'd say its track record is pretty comparable to any societal institution) but it provides something that I have yet to see the secular community recreate, which is a regular day where members of the community meet and share their beliefs. I think that the draw of the community is much more what keeps people religious than any kind of logical thought process.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:09
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its almost like there's not reason for them to have a negative view of most religions There really isn't. The kneejerk atheist response to any religious discussion is annoying to anyone who's actually thought about faith and religion for more than two months. Like I said, I think religion gets a much worse rap from most western liberals than it deserves. Is there a societal institution you think has done better? emfive posted:To be fair, in my experience lots of religious people have negative views of the irreligious that distort their perceptions as well. Fair, but it doesn't make either of them any less stupid.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:15
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I asked you why you are calling us stupid http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3681766&userid=102030
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:16
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"God is Real. Deal with it DnD" is still his opening salvo. I took the time to explain to you a few times why what you're doing is stupid. It was a joke post, obviously tongue in cheek, probably for the sole purpose of dragging idiots like you out of the wordwork. My Imaginary GF posted:Faith is a poor device for obedience. Far better to maintain an organized practice of religion on the basis of iterative evidence adjudicated within mature legalistic frameworks than it is to maintain organized practice the basis of faith; faith necessitates enforcement by central state authority in order to survive. Well isn't that a nice way of saying "I was wrong, but let me redefine the word to make myself right"
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:19
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Obviously, that's why he keeps repeating it. Honestly, it's not untrue. "Real" has a lot of different meanings and I'd suspect you're calling some things "real" on little more than faith as well. And yeah, DnD as a whole does need to deal with the fact that God/religion is a real thing in the world. CommieGIR posted:Truly, I guess we all showed up under the assumption that someone actually wanted to debate and discuss... It makes it hard when you ignore what I'm saying and just go for the lowest hanging fruit. Debate and discussion is there to be had... just... post better.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Uh....huh.... Maybe try a basic philosophy class.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:24
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Philosophy actually does not make reality a premise of faith. Its nice to think about, but the physical and natural worlds still exist regardless of which philosophical school you chose. Alright, let's start from square one. What is real? Bonus points: What is an axiom?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:27
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You still don't get it, do you? You can't just say "What you're doing is stupid," and declare yourself a winner. The first time someone says "Nu-uh," you'll end up beheading them to prevent anyone else from disagreeing. I didn't just say "what you're doing is stupid" I explained why and he never responded to that part. quote:Alas, you're the real puppetmaster and all the world your stage. I take it on the basis of faith that belief in your ability to manipulate the currents of social affairs far exceeds the rest of D&D, and that you are a true and unique snowflake whose existance has meaning and greater purpose. ... you are an idiot. Like... not CommieGIR style where he's just a bit too worked up, but you just consistently espouse bad and/or stupid ideas like it's your job.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:30
|
|
Just a reminder, he unironically posted thisMy Imaginary GF posted:Belief in god originating from a basis is faith is one of the lowest forms of belief in god; in order to flourish as a species, a higher standard is required from humanity.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:33
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh no you don't. Trying to run us through the various schools of thought by getting someone to define the 'real' and then countering that the real is no more real than the things we have faith does not suddenly validate Drilldo Squirt's argument that faith makes god real. When people use words like "Real", they use them for a reason. Sorry that you really hate philosophy or something but if you take some time to dig in, I think you'll find that the belief structures of the religious and yours have a lot in common. Reality is not just the physical world and as much as you'd love to live in a world like that, we don't. What is "real" is most certainly up for debate and I think it's telling that you avoid thinking deeply about both religion and metaphysics. Does the fact that there are things we don't understand make you nervous?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:38
|
|
Rodatose posted:you said something about how someone should take a philosophy class, so I guess explain to us the whole materialism v dualism thing What do you want explained? why materialism is an inadequate philosophy on its own?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:43
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No. No it doesn't. Because we didn't replace the unknowns with god in the gaps arguments. Who's the we? We don't replace anything, it's an individuals choice as to how to view the unknown. Science really isn't about making arguments like "it can't be proven, ergo it's not true"
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Bullshit, where? You never explained why god cannot be bothered to make himself known to the world in an obvious and unquestionable manner. He already did, Jesus! quote:Is it really that much trouble for an omnipotent being to get booked for 10 minutes on Meet the Press or something? Nobody watches Meet the Press so I'm not sure it would help much.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:55
|
|
Rodatose posted:Yes, that would help if you explained to us your personal idea of what materialism is and contrasted it with a dualistic view. Honestly my issues with materialism have nothing to do with there being a seperate realm of being so I don't see the contrast as necessary, but to put it simply, my issue with materialism is that "material action" breaks down as a concept when you try to define what exactly a "material" is.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:00
|
|
Rodatose posted:things with a testable physical basis. with material action you are changing a thing from one physical state to another. even if it's saying a mean or nice thing that triggers some chemical reaction in the brain which releases adrenaline or testosterone or dopamine or some other chemical that causes certain feelings in you Yeah I agree with the idea that our brains are little more than an electrical signal and some chemistry. That's really not my issue with materialism. Maybe make a thread if you want a debate? I'd be happy to post in it. CommieGIR posted:Ding ding! Faith in reality does not have a noticeable effect on reality itself. Define "noticeable" down with slavery fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:13
|
|
CommieGIR posted:However, reality would remain perceptible regardless if man is the one making the perception. The animals lived without perception of reality, our ability to question reality is the only major difference between us and animals. A. animals probably do have a perception of reality B. our perception is not "reality", it is just our perception quote:Yes, that. Faith has implications for us PERSONALLY, and may affect our perception of real things, but the real still remains as it is regardless of our perception. You cannot escape perception and its relation to reality. Perception is reality, not the other way around. CommieGIR posted:Fall down, and question gravity as you fall. Reality might be shaped by our perception to us personally, but outside of that nothing noticeable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:20
|
|
CommieGIR posted:However, please explain at what point faith enters into that perception. Literally all the time. Where we place the faith seems to be your bone of contention. But I assure you, faith is alive and well in our scientific communities. Have you ever espoused the views from a scientific paper without reading it thoroughly? CommieGIR posted:So, if man were to disappear tomorrow, existence would disappear? Yes
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:24
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think we're done here. Regardless if people place faith in science, at the end of the day, science and scientific papers are still falsifiable and can be questioned and proven disproven. Plenty of things aren't falsifiable and people have faith in them. Your parents love you comes to mind. Falsifiability is a poor basis for what is real.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:26
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Love is an emotion, and to some degree is still testable. I disagree that emotions like love are testable or not real. emfive posted:I think there's a pretty obvious difference between the Faith of the devoutly religious and my faith that a scientific paper isn't made up. They're similar, but if you show me another paper that refutes the first one, then I'll probably believe you. I won't burn you at the stake. Neither will all of the devoutly religious as well. quote:We're all human, and of course people do end up with deep-rooted Faith in things that aren't really religious or supernatural. However the ideal of scientific thought is that that's the wrong way of doing things. Honestly, when you look at how people treat science in this day and age, especially western liberals, it's hard not to view it as a religion.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:30
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is pretty falsifiable, talk to people who come from abusive homes sometime maybe? It's an example. Emotions, especially complex ones like love, are basically untestable(yes, I know we share some common emotions and that we can test some of these things) because they don't even have a real physical definition. That doesn't make them "not real" though. CommieGIR posted:Man, what was your childhood like? Pretty good, and as much as I tested my parent's love, couldn't really prove the existence of it one way or the other  CommieGIR posted:Please. This is really poor thinking, even if we accept that many people in the West accept the findings of science on faith alone, the science itself is still testable and falsifiable in the end. This is the entire reason for peer review, so that others can demonstrate the validity or invalidity of a hypothesis. Its also why many scientists and scientific groups push for open access, so that the public CAN verify the science for themselves without the need for their own lab. I'm not saying that the science is the problem. I'm saying that peoples faith in science is a problem, much like you're saying faith in god is a problem. Two sides of the same coin imo. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:42
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You can test aspects of emotions. They are easily testable, even DETECTABLE via brainwaves and the hormones in your body. In fact, given the right chemicals, you can induce these emotions in people. I never said it was... my claim is that faith is integral to human existence and denigrating someone for it is kinda dumb, even if they place their faith in things you feel aren't real.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a claim you have not proven, and your definition of faith is...interesting to say that least, considering that you are comparing a faith that requires blind belief to one that provides evidence and testable conclusions. Faith is blind belief, it doesn't require it. Religion provides evidence and testable conclusions too, just... not about the existence of god. CommieGIR posted:Religion is not going to give you anything tangible other than the idea that your emotional feelings are somehow signs that their faith is true over all other faiths. Skepticism in religion is frowned upon. Objectively false, religion has done many material/tangible things in this world(not all of them good). quote:Science gives you the tools to question all the claims it makes, gives you a chain of evidence, and even gives you people willing to explain the how and the why. Skepticism in science is encouraged. Can you define Science for me? down with slavery fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:53
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.openbible.info/topics/how_do_we_know_god_exists Religion is not only about whether or not god exists, hth (I thought I made it clear in the post...)
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:56
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Um, regardless of the moral and sociological implications of religion, God is the center point of religion in general. No its not? quote:This is as bad a question as your 'What is real' question where you attempted to bait me into discussing metaphysical interpretations of reality. You've attributed quite a few things to science so I think it's fair you offer a definition. It's not bait. CommieGIR posted:
quote:gives you a chain of evidence quote:even gives you people willing to explain the how and the why I'm not sure all three of these things can be chalked up to "Science". CommieGIR posted:Science does not hinge on faith. Your poor attempts to intertwine the two is not going to justify your argument. Sure it does, there's no way any progress could be made if nobody had faith in the scientists that worked before them, alongside them, and after them. Faith (belief in something without "evidence") is fundamental to human existence and refusing to admit it isn't going to make it any less true. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:05
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Of course you can't, because you are wholly sold on the idea of science being define by faith, which is pretty much the polar opposite of the scientific process. You've spent the last two pages making that very argument. Uhhh no, I do not think science is defined by faith. quote:Please explain to me the foundations of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:11
|
|
Do you understand that although faith is integral to scientific progress, it does not define it. Is that clear enough?CommieGIR posted:For fucks sake...THEY CAN TEST IT. They can verify the work of scientists before them in order to ensure it is viable. Many things proposed by prior scientists get invalidated all the time, or the theories updated to account for new evidence. You can have ZERO faith in the work of a prior scientist, and all you have to do is TEST it. The faith in those scientists has no bearings on whether their work will remain credible or valid. But they don't test it every time. Why not? Every experiment is built on assumptions from previous ones, the complex systems we see in the world today could not exist without faith.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You can have zero faith in a scientist and still verify his hypothesis. It is not integral at all. Or you can have faith in a scientist and not verify his hypothesis. The science will still stand. You simply cannot do all of the experiments that led up to this one. The chain is too long, and beyond that, it's unnecessary. Because we trust (or have faith in, whatever words you want to use) that the information we're being given is valid. CommieGIR posted:You are trying to stretch the interpretation of faith to places it does not work. Sorry. Perhaps you'd care to define faith? I know how opposed you are to actually giving definitions for the words you use, but just this once? down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...and yet they still do not require it, its testable if they DO need to verify it. If you have no faith in that scientist, you can still test his hypothesis of your own accord. Trying to do what? I've already explained in great depth as to how faith (secular people like the word trust but really it's the same thing) is integral to scientific progress. Obviously you could redo every scientific experiment in existence to confirm it's validity. Your unwillingness to understand what the word "faith" means is really another thing altogether. I suspect you'd have a much better time debating and discussing if you were actually willing to answer the hard questions as well as the easy ones. CommieGIR posted:Woops. Nope, I'm not slipping to that. You are trying to get me to define faith as in trust in the same terms as religious faith. Two different definitions of the same word. You are arguing for the RELIGIOUS interpretation of faith, not the word 'faith' as in 'trust' I think they are one and the same. I'm not arguing for any interpreation of anything, I'm saying that faith, or believing in things which we ourselves cannot prove, is integral to human belief systems. Even yours.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:20
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Good for you. They are not. Except they are! Wow this is easy! Maybe try speaking about a concept you feel comfortable defining.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Many English words have more than one meaning, its not hard to get confused Yeah, that's why I asked you for a definition while you're using the word, hence you could explain the context and definition. I'm not going to come out and tell you "no, that's not what faith is" but if you're speaking to a completely different concept than me, well, it's only your fault at this point. I've been quite clear and tried to get you to explain what you're saying multiple times, but all my questions are "traps" I guess?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:27
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except you are treating 'faith' as a catch all, to imply faith as a religious term to everything. I'm not, I'm treating faith as belief in things you cannot prove. See, how hard is that?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:29
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So....religion. That's actually not what religion means (I think we had this problem earlier, did you read the wikipedia page?) Like I said, I believe faith is integral to human existence, ie outside of the realm of "religion" or "science". It's just something humans do because we have limited capacity for holding information. I know that's bit too "big picture" for you, but until you're willing to address it I'm not sure much more can be said. There are plenty of reasonable critiques of religion. "Faith is dumb" and "god isn't real" aren't them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:18 |
|
VitalSigns posted:You can't dismiss my faith as long as you have faith that when you take penicillin it was the pills that cured you like scientists say and not the Devil doing it as a ploy to lead you astray from God. I mean, you can dismiss it, and I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is saying religion is stupid because "god isn't real" or "faith is a bad belief system" or any number of the other bad arguments that have been trotted out to counter the obvious troll thread. I'm not religious, but I have enough perspective to take a step back and actually view Religion as a societal institution as opposed to magic (what it appears most posters think Christianity is) CommieGIR posted:You jumped in an argument where a guy was literally arguing that "God is real. Live with it DnD" and then went on to call anyone who didn't accept is premise stupid, and then tried to define science as tied to faith. No, I jumped into an argument where a guy was literally making this argument: CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. After posting back and forth with him for a few times, it was confirmed to me that he was a kneejerk internet atheist who had no interest in learning anything, just spouting off retarded bullshit that looks like it came out of a youtube comment. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 23:38
|
|