Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: mushrooomprince on 26 July 2003, 02:29
-
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/020225a.asp (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/020225a.asp)
And your saying the US is messed up ?
-
Jeez what is it with the French? First trying to control how people use the language then restricting religious freedom? What a buncha dumbasses!! Goooo freedom fries!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/020225a.asp (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/020225a.asp)
And your saying the US is messed up ?
quote:
churches like one CBN News visited in the town of Mulhouse, are under suspicion. Such scenes of absolute devotion to God are-----fanatical, irrational
religion is just too objective. Americans don't allow fanatical Jihads
to take place (9/11), why should France allow Fanatical Christians to practice, who knows what they'll do! Besides France and the rest of Europe has seen the effects of Christian Fanatics (Nazi's/WW2)
Believe in What ever you want to, but religion is a crock anyway, if you believe in god, or gods, or satan for that matter, you've been brain washed. Or your so emotionally pathetic that you need that crutch in your life.
If there was a god we would not have to be taught religion, we would be born knowing it. I was born Not knowing of any God, so now I know there is no god.
And do Americans not see that there country is as fanatically Christan as Iran is Muslim?
Become a Buddhist, all you have to believe in is that its better to live life without malice
-
This looks more like an anti-sect campaign. I can understand them wanting to protect their language, but I couldn't imagine why they would want to control religion. I could be wrong, of course.
I am an agnostic (not an atheist), though, and it is my personal opinion that religions should't even exist. I find that religions are just as unfounded as sects, though not as extremist and dogmatic. The only real purpose of religions is to give people a common code of ethics (not to say control them), in a convoluted and indefinite manner, along with hundreds of useless rituals.
quote:
If there was a god we would not have to be taught religion, we would be born knowing it. I was born Not knowing of any God, so now I know there is no god.
You took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak.
[ July 25, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
One thing that you have more in the States is freedom of religion, I mean you do have so many crazy, whacko sects over there. The Catholic church in Europe has, or thinks it has way to much power. They always try and beat down other groups that might take their trade away, Greece is even worse for this type of thing. Spain used to be really bad like this. Personally I think they should all be banned. A little extreme perhaps, I know
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]
-
quote:
religion is just too objective.
SUBjective is the word your looking for.
quote:
Believe in What ever you want to, but religion is a crock anyway, if you believe in god, or gods, or satan for that matter, you've been brain washed. Or your so emotionally pathetic that you need that crutch in your life.
Einstein was brain washed? HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Or was it the emotional crutches? Some VERY intelligent people believe in God numb nuts - yes, many are conformist morons, but so are many anti god idiots. I have seen high school students try to take on people who have phds in mathematics over the God issue - and the atheist high school students think they know that God doesn't exist because they're "smarter." (Really a lot of people that dont believe in God are just following the crowd and havent really thought through the issue. Admit it. Atheism is cool.) Im not saying you should have to believe in an all powerful being - really some of the arguments put forward for Gods existence are a bit lame (the design argument) or plain circular (anything by Descartes.) But you cant disprove the existence of a God either - try and keep fascist ideas about control to yourself please?
Unless you _want_ me to start refering to you as the thought police.
-
quote:
I am an agnostic (not an atheist), though, and it is my personal opinion that religions should't even exist. I find that religions are just as unfounded as sects, though not as extremist and dogmatic.
Well thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. And should you ever try and forcefully ban all religions some day I hope the world ignores you. You have no more right to define someone elses beliefs than say a Cleric or Priest has a right to define your beliefs.
-
quote:
Passing a controversial anti-cult law two years ago, France embarked on what some feared was a trend to restrict and oversee religious movements
You cant say the US FBI doesnt do the same Mushroom prince - when a religious group becomes a danger to the rest of the community or starts trying to brainwash people into following their beliefs the community needs protection.
That said I've read further : The church of scientology? Jehovas Witnesses? WTF? Not what I'd be calling a "cult" here. They may have some... "different" (eh he he, funny IMO) beliefs, but their not exactly dangerous.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
quote:
Or your so emotionally pathetic that you need that crutch in your life.
Some people would say the same about blind belief in Science. Really Dead _and_ Alive cats? Nice one... and I'm not just talking about non atheists here - too much scientific thought these days does not rest upon proof or evidence. Infinite levels of dimensions? Superstrings as a replacement for quarks/besons? Thats all nice, but face the fact that nothing can ever explain the world - you must always base your beliefs upon fundamental axioms which can never be proven. If you believe otherwise go read some Kant / Descartes. Anyone know what phlogiston is? EVERYONE believed in that stuff, but hey years later it turns out phlogiston is bullshit. Things burn by oxidation, releasing energy from shifting electron states and transferring that energy into vibrating carbon atoms within a CO2 molecule, there really is no phlogiston in flammable materials that makes them burn. But EVERYONE believed in non existent phlogistion because Scientists said it was there. By the way the above is how stuff really burns. (Well thats the thory of the day anyway ;) ) Quite a bit more complicated than the standard "simplification" (face it, lies) that most people were taught about how things burn in school.
Interesting note: The speed of light was constant according to science. Less than a year ago Sydney University showed information showing that it... er probably isnt constant folks. :)
Blind belief in science is just the same as blind belief in religion - a crutch to help people get through their lives.
Edit: cmon peeps, some of you atheists must be pissed about this... i wanna see some blind "i dont know what Im talking about and I use science to make the world seem nice simple and understandable to me" flaming. ;)
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
Little girl: You believe in evolution dont you sir?
Jack Cohen(phd in biology): No I dont believe in evolution, like people believe in God - science is advanced by people who dont know but are doing there best to find out"
How many of you _believe_ in evolution?
This is from Terry Pratchetts "Science of Discworld" btw. The chapter I pulled that quote from also has some interesting exploration of "lies to children," how kids in schools are taught _dramatically_ simplified explanations so that later on they can be told "ah, thats wrong because..." and then be taught the more complex version. I also expect my perception on how things burn (above) to be another simplification, and Im sure some peeps with phds in chemistry / particle physics will see it as such. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
If there was a god we would not have to be taught religion, we would be born knowing it. I was born Not knowing of any God, so now I know there is no god.
Fucking great argument, typical atheist "because it's trendy" logic.
Lemme try one of my own - I was born not knowing who my father was so he doesnt exist. Same applies to my aunts and uncles of course. :D
Eh he he, your funny dude.
What makes you think that a God would want you to believe in it? Do you have any evidence that a God would try and make you believe in it? Or is this claim just baseless blind belief? (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
That said I've read further : The church of scientology? Jehovas Witnesses? WTF? Not what I'd be calling a "cult" here. They may have some... "different" (eh he he, funny IMO) beliefs, but their not exactly dangerous.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
I had to endure 18 years of it my parents are JW's but there certainly not a cult. The church of scientology? well there just weird and take all your money. Nope religion's not for me why???
I personally believe that beliefs are usually a dangerous thing, beliefs or doctrines usually can't be changed, there immovable. That's why people go to war in the name of religion, besides the fact that every religion teaches that any kind of killing is wrong they still do it because of belief. Ideas are better because they can usually change, ther not dogmatic, stubborn.
I certainly don't "believe" in religion, that isn't to say there might not be a God. If there is one, religion is not speaking for him and if it is then I don't want to know that sort of god anyway.
-
Scientology's hilarious. It was basically created to prove how gullable people are and even after the creator said it was all fake people kept believing it! If you talk to a scientologist about this they'll sort of act surprised then pretend like they don't care. People are such gullable, ignorant, dumbasses!
-
Yes they are very crazy, they basically believe....hmmm, well have you seen the film "Battle Field Earth" (think that's the one), well that's their beliefs. Travolta was a Scientologist, don't know if he still is. The whole org is also modelled on the navy....Eh?!?!?!?
-
That movie sucked ass.
-
quote:
Einstein was brain washed? HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
Just because he was Einstein doesn't mean he was right. He did not necessarily give as much thought to religion as he did to his scientific principles. Besides, some very intelligent people have been brainwashed by sects. Actually, scientists and intellgent people are EASIER to brainwash and more targeted by sects than fools.
As for me, well, I AM a college student, and only 18 years old, but have given a lot of thought to my beliefs. And you know, some young people made great discoveries, you know. Einstein, for example, and he did not even have a phD.
quote:
And should you ever try and forcefully ban all religions some day I hope the world ignores you.
Oh, believe me, I don't think I will even need to do that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Some people would say the same about blind belief in Science. Really Dead _and_ Alive cats? Nice one... and I'm not just talking about non atheists here - too much scientific thought these days does not rest upon proof or evidence. Infinite levels of dimensions? Superstrings as a replacement for quarks/besons? Thats all nice, but face the fact that nothing can ever explain the world - you must always base your beliefs upon fundamental axioms which can never be proven. If you believe otherwise go read some Kant / Descartes. Anyone know what phlogiston is? EVERYONE believed in that stuff, but hey years later it turns out phlogiston is bullshit. Things burn by oxidation, releasing energy from shifting electron states and transferring that energy into vibrating carbon atoms within a CO2 molecule, there really is no phlogiston in flammable materials that makes them burn. But EVERYONE believed in non existent phlogistion because Scientists said it was there. By the way the above is how stuff really burns. (Well thats the thory of the day anyway ;) ) Quite a bit more complicated than the standard "simplification" (face it, lies) that most people were taught about how things burn in school.
Interesting note: The speed of light was constant according to science. Less than a year ago Sydney University showed information showing that it... er probably isnt constant folks. :)
Blind belief in science is just the same as blind belief in religion - a crutch to help people get through their lives.
Edit: cmon peeps, some of you atheists must be pissed about this... i wanna see some blind "i dont know what Im talking about and I use science to make the world seem nice simple and understandable to me" flaming. ;)
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
You are missing quite a few important ideas of science here. First, all those beliefs were NOT theories; they were hypotheses. A hypothesis is only called a theory once it is agreed upon and proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is also normal, and even expected that some theories may be proven wrong someday.
People do believe in anything scientists tell them, but NOT because they present hypotheses as facts. People believe them because they do not verify their sources or do any homework. The layman does not pay attention to importants keywords such as 'it is believed that' or 'many scientists speculate' or 'they claim that' when they read or watch documentaries.
quote:
How many of you _believe_ in evolution?
I do. And this is a proven theory, not speculation. The debate between evolution and creationism was the subject of a whole English session.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
quote:
What makes you think that a God would want you to believe in it? Do you have any evidence that a God would try and make you believe in it? Or is this claim just baseless blind belief?
Depends in what religion you believe in. If you believe you actually have to obey rules given by God, and that God is perfect, then one would assume that if he really was perfect, then everyone would already know the rules, or better yet, would not even be able to disobey them. We wouldn't have to 'spread the word', thus eliminating a big source of confusion and disagreement, and perhaps even violence and war. We wouldn't even be discussing this topic in the first place.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Umm, what is scientology, exactly? I always wondered about that religion.
By the way, 500th post! YAY!
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Believe in What ever you want to, but religion is a crock anyway, if you believe in god, or gods, or satan for that matter, you've been brain washed. Or your so emotionally pathetic that you need that crutch in your life.
:D I could not agree more.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Londonboi2k3 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Umm, what is scientology, exactly? I always wondered about that religion.
By the way, 500th post! YAY!
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
It's good for a couple of hours weird research. They have really, really, really strange beliefs. The founder Hubbard has been under criminal investigation here in the UK:
Xenu (http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm)
The scientologist are based around a "secular" organization called Sea Org, very, very weird.
Sea ORG (http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/)
Apparently there the most expensive religion in the world.
doesn't get any stranger than this. :D
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]
-
Well, since we are all on the topic of religion :D
I might as well drop in my two cents:
http://www.xenu.net/ (http://www.xenu.net/) <- all about those kookie scientologists!
www.religioustolerance.com (http://www.religioustolerance.com) <- great sight documenting and discussing the belifes of various world religions.
http://www.evcforum.net/ (http://www.evcforum.net/) <- Great forums were fundies and Scientists but heads over creationism and evolution.
Now my two cents.
The quote from Kant about fundamental axioms is correct, indeed science is no method for learning truth but rather a tool for interpretation. As humans we only have the ability to understand HOW things work not WHY things work.
Why is an unansurable question, Aristotle refered to it as "for the sake of which". This is something humans are unable to answer. Thus, saying there is no God, is fundamentaly the same as saying there is a God, both require a leap of faith far outside our perceptual realm.
You canot prove a negative, and likewise you cannot prove an absolute. Thus, theisim and atheisum stand on the same logical podium.
I take an agnostic stance with a firm belife in some sort of creative entety, weather sentient or not.
It just seems to me that the existence of... well... existence (http://smile.gif) Is rather suppernatural. Why, does it exist?
Whatever you answer the Why question with, it's up to you.
But this answer, by it's very nature, falls far outside of science, and it's something each individual must seek out for themselves.
Thus, I agree that organized religion is bullshit, but it dosn't mean there isn't wisdom to be gaind by it's teachings. There is nothing wrong with seeking spiritual fullfillment, we all do it.
EDIT: may I just add that phlogisten was not a hypothesis. Indeed all heat messurement was calculated acording to the theory.
The interesting thing is that weather you use phlogisten theory, or caloric theory to messure something. The results are still accurate!
Same with Ptolomeic Astronomy, and modern Astronomy. Whichever calculations you use for our solar system, produce accurate results.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
Probably the best relegion ever: Integrational Polytheism (http://www.polytheism.org.uk/).
Probably the weirdest regigion ever: Cult of Bob (http://www.cultofbob.co.uk/).
-
I agree with Psyjax. By the way, this is agnosticism.
I just followed Zardoz's links about Scientology. My god, what utter twaddle, indeed!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I agree with Psyjax. By the way, this is agnosticism.
I agree with him as well.
-
Yay replies. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
I personally believe that beliefs are usually a dangerous thing,
Yes.
quote:
Ideas are better because they can usually change, ther not dogmatic, stubborn.
Yep. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
Scientology's hilarious. It was basically created to prove how gullable people are and even after the creator said it was all fake people kept believing it!
People are funny like that - ridicule anyones fullest beliefs and even go as far as proving that they're false and they will argue harder to mantain consistency. Back in 2000 one of those doomsday cults claimed that on New Years a spaceship would come and save them from the Earths destruction... So they waited at the "site" for the "saviors" (media there of course) and at midnight, no spaceship, no doomsday. About half the members quit right then - but the other half, the strong believers became fanatical in their belief *because* that belief was just shown as really fucking stupid. The fear that you may be wrong is extremely strong - so people will go to massively illogical lengths to try and mantain consistency in their beliefs. You can use this to con people btw, the Koreans used it on American POWs - get a captured soldier to admit a *trivial* thing that is wrong with the US on paper, even something tiny like "The US is not perfect" - which is fucking obvious as no country is perfect. Of course you get a small food reward for this - hey its not like selling out your country right? Your starving and its true, the soldies still believed (rightly IMO) that America was in the right. Then of course a Korean general reads the signed statement "america is not perfect" out in front of all the other American POWs. Suddenly you look like a traitor and this gave Koreans a huge psych edge in any and all brainwashing.
quote:
That movie sucked ass.
"So bad it's good." Kinda like "Kung Pow," or "The master of disguise."
-
quote:
religion is not speaking for him and if it is then I don't want to know that sort of god anyway.
[aol]me too![/aol] Personally if it turns out there is a God who *wants* to kill the unbelievers and smite the heathens, I think we should start looking at building some metaphysical nuclear weapon of some kind.
quote:
Just because he was Einstein doesn't mean he was right. He did not necessarily give as much thought to religion as he did to his scientific principles
that wasn't my point - indeed on matters of physics listen to Einstein, on everything else tell him to shut the fuck up. :D I was showing that not all believers in religion are necessarily dumb country hicks as was claimed earlier - and also you cannot claim you know more than "churchies" because "you're smarter."
quote:
You are missing quite a few important ideas of science here. First, all those beliefs were NOT theories; they were hypotheses. A hypothesis is only called a theory once it is agreed upon and proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is also normal, and even expected that some theories may be proven wrong someday.
Theres very little difference. All scientific beliefs are merely succesive iterations in a general direction towards a higher level of "accuracy." Up until recently Newtons theories of gravitation were believed to be absolute - but have now been replace by einsteins "more correct" theories of relativity. However Newtons theories are _close enough_ and more importantly a necessary stepping stone on the road to teaching High School students science.
quote:
A hypothesis is only called a theory once it is agreed upon and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Then there *are* no hypothes' (stupid plurals...) by this definition then, for it is impossible to prove something absolutely. Unless you mean "reasonable doubt" as being "only abnormal people dont believe in this" in which case phlogiston held - it was a commonly believed scientific law. And there WERE experiments carried out - people burned stuff and hey it got lighter! (these were experiments performed and _believed_ by accepted scientists.) so OBVIOUSLY something had to be leaving the substance, and that something had to be phlogiston - you could even see it in the form of flames. Nowadays we know that actually masses dont decrease when you burn stuff (well not by much - some is converted into minute amounts of energy by the laws of quantum physics of course.) - its just that a lot of the mass gets turned into other states (like gases) and you cant weigh gas accurately with 18th century equipment. I fully expect that in a few centuries time we will have more accurate equipment that debunks a lot of todays scientific facts - theres even a famous quote about quantum physics - "if you think you understand QP you dont."
quote:
People do believe in anything scientists tell them, but NOT because they present hypotheses as facts. People believe them because they do not verify their sources or do any homework. The layman does not pay attention to importants keywords such as 'it is believed that' or 'many scientists speculate' or 'they claim that' when they read or watch documentaries.
A good scientist will *never* believe in an absolute truth, because there are too many examples of what eventually happens to a "proof" later on down the line. They said that firmars equation was impossible - in the last 4 years it was solved. (the proof took 10,000 pages)
quote:
I do. And this is a proven theory, not speculation. The debate between evolution and creationism was the subject of a whole English session.
There are major flaws in evolutioniary theory, and very few expert opinions coincide with each other. Still it has a heck of a lot less holes than say Creationism so I choose to place my faith in evolution at this point in time.
quote:
Depends in what religion you believe in. If you believe you actually have to obey rules given by God, and that God is perfect, then one would assume that if he really was perfect, then everyone would already know the rules, or better yet, would not even be able to disobey them. We wouldn't have to 'spread the word', thus eliminating a big source of confusion and disagreement, and perhaps even violence and war. We wouldn't even be discussing this topic in the first place.
Yes - there are severe logic errors in any claim that God is a)perfect and b)wants you to believe. But it is only if you try and claim the last two that you fuck up, not by claiming the existence of God.
quote:
The debate between evolution and creationism was the subject of a whole English session.
One WHOLE english lesson? Holy shit! Like a whole 40 minutes? Wow... (http://tongue.gif)
[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Einstein was brain washed? HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Or was it the emotional crutches? Some VERY intelligent people believe in God numb nuts - yes, many are conformist morons, but so are many anti god idiots. I have seen high school students try to take on people who have phds in mathematics over the God issue - and the atheist high school students think they know that God doesn't exist because they're "smarter." (Really a lot of people that dont believe in God are just following the crowd and havent really thought through the issue. Admit it. Atheism is cool.) Im not saying you should have to believe in an all powerful being - really some of the arguments put forward for Gods existence are a bit lame (the design argument) or plain circular (anything by Descartes.) But you cant disprove the existence of a God either - try and keep fascist ideas about control to yourself please?
Unless you _want_ me to start refering to you as the thought police.
Einstien did have an emotional crutch, he believed in God and it hindered him, He was not willing to believe that the universe was finite, because that would mean GOD was finite so he MADE UP the Lambda
(greek letter looks like an "L" kinda) force, and you know what it screwed up his theory of relativity so he took it out and that was when he stopped studying relativity, because he was at a loss---How can the universe be finite when God created it?----because he dosen't exist.
BTW Einstien married his own cousin.
Faust you believe very strongly in something (judging by your posts) and frankly I envy you. I wish I had the capacity to believe in God.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
How many of you _believe_ in evolution?
I thought every one did :confused: .........honestly
-
quote:
quote:
Believe in What ever you want to, but religion is a crock anyway, if you believe in god, or gods, or satan for that matter, you've been brain washed. Or your so emotionally pathetic that you need that crutch in your life.
I could not agree more.
If you cant agree more then post some arguments - blind assertions seem kinda... irattional you brainwashed little man. (http://tongue.gif)
Psyjax : nice, could not agree more.
BTW in case anyone was wondering I'm heterodox Christian. I am willing to place money on the past existence of a Jesus, and the same for a "force/god thingy" (ooh star warsy...) i dont believe in all the funky shit in the bible though - there is no gurantee that all of that was written by people who knew Jesus or spoke to God, and indeed a lot of the new Testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died. Anyway half the fucking thing contradicts the other half... Also the church can suck my ^*%* anbd like it. (http://tongue.gif) Any religious group that refuses to release documents written by their own prophets in the name of "mantaining the churches teachings" is fucking bullshit IMO. Why the fuck would God need a frigging hierarchy anyway? ITS GOD YOU MORONS! IT CAN TALK TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT MULTIPLE TIMES IF IT WANTS TO!
Also the idea of a sentient / in human form / or human comprehensible God is kinda... stupid. And God IMO couldnt have a sex either. Why would a God need a dick? its not like its gunna be "getting with" other Gods or all the worshippers. And I cant see a God taking a slash no matter how hard I try...
One thing though : priests play with too many little boys.
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
Einstien did have an emotional crutch, he believed in God and it hindered him, He was not willing to believe that the universe was finite, because that would mean GOD was finite so he MADE UP the Lambda
(greek letter looks like an "L" kinda) force, and you know what it screwed up his theory of relativity so he took it out and that was when he stopped studying relativity, because he was at a loss---How can the universe be finite when God created it?----because he dosen't exist.
god works in mysterious ways.........
web page (http://backissues.worldlink.co.uk/articles/30031999125222/06.htm)
[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: suselinux ]
-
Even an agnostic believes in something.
I
-
quote:
BTW Einstien married his own cousin.
I... did... not... know that. thats like *wrong* texas style (http://smile.gif)
quote:
he MADE UP the Lambda
(greek letter looks like an "L" kinda)
We've all played half life / done lots of maths / physics we know what Lambda is. (http://tongue.gif)
quote:
Einstien did have an emotional crutch, he believed in God and it hindered him, He was not willing to believe that the universe was finite, because that would mean GOD was finite so he MADE UP the Lambda
You think the universe is finite??? (http://redface.gif) holy hell how do you know? if you get to the edge do you hit a brick wall or do you just stop? Can you *see* the edge or is it invisible? Maybe once you cross the edge you like "loop back" to the other side? Thats an.... interesting.... theory you have there. (http://tongue.gif)
quote:
I thought every one did .........honestly
Theres a difference between "believe" which implies fervent faith and "think is the most likely explanation." When asked whether he believes in life on other planets Carl Sagan (physics dude I "believe") says : I don't know. There just isnt enough judgement at this time.
When asked what his "gut feeling" was he replied:"I have no gut feeling - as a scientist gut feelings are for other people, really its ok to reserve judgement until all the evidence is in." See dude even really really smart guys arent afraid to say "i dont know" even when talking about their chosen field. ;)
edit: judgement in the above "just isnt enough judgement at this time." should read "evidence." Gods putting words in my head again... Kill the unbelievers! Smite the heathen! Eh he he.
[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
Cahult, "rock on." ;)
quote:
Belief is good, organised religion is bad
You can distinguish between the two? SHOCK! HORROR! ;)
quote:
god works in mysterious ways.........
web page
Nice, good example of scientific theory iteration. (http://smile.gif) God is with me i see. (cue shaft of light from heavens...)
-
I believe that there was a man named Jesus who lived
along time ago, and so the story goes...ever seen the life of Brian? ;)
this an agnostic/athiest group, their international
if yer interested.....
Take a look here (http://humanists.net/)
Canadian link (http://canada.humanists.net/)
-
Cold dark matter (a current theory) is very similar to phlogiston btw. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it also doesn't mean it's likely to be right.
Scientists observed "too much" gravitational effect on a space probe - they knew it wasnt gas leaking or anything that was slowing the probe down so what was it? Well they looked pretty stupid with lots of "i dont knows" for a while, and then proposed cold dark matter - obviosuly something with a mass was affecting the probe. Since they couldnt see it it had to be cold and dark. So, the theory of "cold dark" matter holds that there is a lot of crap in the universe that we just cant see. Kinda like God no? Eh he he...
If anyone thinks im cynical about a sudden proposal of a new kind of matter to "explain the unexplained" (and thus save face) they're right - but to scientists credit they are trying to find other unexplained gravitational effects they can attribute to it. Heh heh, CD matter sounds like a "catch all for unexplained crap" at the moment for me. (http://smile.gif) Also for anyone who thinks science can explain all I would like you to describe particle motion at a quantum level - AAMOF, tell me where that meson near my left ear is going - and then tell me how much it weighs. :D
-
quote:
I believe that there was a man named Jesus who lived
along time ago, and so the story goes...ever seen the life of Brian?
Yep, great movie. Singing, shoes, a dude called biggus dikkus, fucking great. (http://smile.gif)
And I already have a whole shelf of my bookcase back home devoted to humanist literature, I know what it is. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
I... did... not... know that. thats like *wrong* texas style
No it isn't.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
No it isn't.
isn't wrong or isn't texas style?
texas is actually a pretty cool place. arkansas or alabama though... there's a different story. (me and my sterotypical self, never been there but i have to trust my elderlies)
-
Isn't wrong.
-
My god (pun intended), that's a lot of replies to answer to.
quote:
Up until recently Newtons theories of gravitation were believed to be absolute
Well, as you said, scientists know better today.
quote:
Then there *are* no hypothes' (stupid plurals...) by this definition then, for it is impossible to prove something absolutely.
This is why I said 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As in 'agreed upon, taking into account the knowledge at present', without necessarily being absolutely right. By defition, a theory can be falsified (I don't remember who said that, and I can't be bothered to open my school manuals to look this up). A hypothesis is a abstract of a theory, or, in other words, a lead to follow.
quote:
And there WERE experiments carried out - people burned stuff and hey it got lighter! (these were experiments performed and _believed_ by accepted scientists.) so OBVIOUSLY something had to be leaving the substance, and that something had to be phlogiston - you could even see it in the form of flames.
Obviously, and as you should know, this experiment has been misconducted, and the conclusion clearly begs the question. Again, scientific rigour has evolved since then.
quote:
A good scientist will *never* believe in an absolute truth, because there are too many examples of what eventually happens to a "proof" later on down the line.
I know that. But the layman is a different story.
quote:
Yes - there are severe logic errors in any claim that God is a)perfect and b)wants you to believe. But it is only if you try and claim the last two that you fuck up, not by claiming the existence of God.
Again, it depends on what you believe. What I said above debunks most religions, but does not imply that God does not exist in an other form -- even if 'His' only role was to make the Big Bang happen.
quote:
One WHOLE english lesson? Holy shit! Like a whole 40 minutes? Wow...
Sorry, I meant a semester.
-
quote:
Even an agnostic believes in something.
He believes in his own incertitude. And agnosticism is not the same as atheism, in that an agnostic does not totally dismiss the existence of God, as opposed to the atheist.
quote:
Belief is good, organised religion is bad.
AOL.
quote:
These are my five pillars of good:
Freedom of speech: not only what you want but how you want, minorities like bretons and basques should be entitled to this on even terms.
Freedom to work: not the way China interprets this, but to work as it fits YOU, to work with whatever you like, if you are like me, at your best at nights, you should be allowed to work with what you want to at nights.
Freedom of belief: If you want to believe in a tea cup as the saviour, do so.
Freedom of responsibility: You are free to take your own blame for the things you
-
quote:
Yes it is.
Why?
-
quote:
Why?
Oh, I see. So you're making a short, bold assertion absolutely devoid of any intelligent argument, and you ask me to prove my point?
-
How can I possibly argue why there is an absence of wrong-ness? I can't explain why it's not "wrong" to drink coffee, beyond asserting that there's nothing I'm aware of to suggest it is wrong.
-
I guess you could argue that nothing is 'wrong' in itself, if that's your point. You could even say that smoking isn't 'wrong'. It only damages your and other peoples' health. There's nothing 'wrong' in killing other people, either; you're just depriving other people from their life. Wrong has no meaning outside of interpretation.
But one could also say that everything is wrong until proven right, so your argument is only correct where 'innocent until proven guilty' is generally agreed upon.
Anyway.
How about the simple and well-documented fact that incest generally does very bad things to its offsprings?
-
I don't think there is such a thing as pure "good" and "evil". Nothing is "good" or "evil".
-
As I said. Good and evil don't even exist; they are just concepts.
-
Well I'm specifically saying that incest (though cousins marrying generally isn't regarded as incest) isn't 'wrong' by any reasonable standard because it doesn't harm anyone.
It's certainly not a good idea for close relations to breed, but there's nothing wrong with them merely having sexual relations with one another.
-
Incest does harm someone. That would be the inbred child who might have to cope with physical, or even mental handicaps.
As for relationships, well, I shouldn't even believe in marriage in the first place, as it is a religious concept. In fact, I know very little about love relationships, as I never had a girlfriend so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. But even I'm not desperate enough to make such engagements.
[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Incest does harm someone. That would be the inbred child who might have to cope with physical, or even mental handicaps.
Er, yeah, that's why I just agreed with you that close relations shouldn't breed. But as I said, there's nothing wrong in two consenting adults sleeping with each other.
-
See
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/ (http://forum.faithfreedom.org/)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
See
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/ (http://forum.faithfreedom.org/)
COOL!
-
Alright sorry about the anti texan racial slur. I'll blame it on... eskimos? Surely there are no eskimos on the forums likely to be offended? If there are I'll go with Tasmanians. :D It was a joke guys, I guess I should be less flippant.
And I guess Flap has a point with the inbreeding - it's only wrong if theres an intent to / not enough protection against have / ing children. But was Einstein trying to avoid having children with his cousin or was he giving it his best? Did they even *have* decent protection back then?
quote:
Well, as you said, scientists know better today.
In Newtons day when people tried using past explanations of gravitational effect (such as the belief that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones) to show people that science could be wrong they would have said the same. In 2000 years when Einsteins theories have been improved upon (likely replaced completely) they will also say "we know better now." Indeed, some of Feynamns work is starting to be seen as improvements upon Einsteins. Science is a process which a)constantly evolves and b)is never *absolutely* correct. I agree we know *better* now but we still dont know much at all either. In mathematical terms the truth generated by science N is a limit as N approachs T (absolute truth.) It's kinda an assymptopic thing. ;) Basically you _cannot_ use science to argue against the "God issue" as it is inherently fallible.
quote:
Again, scientific rigour has evolved since then.
No it hasn't. The *equipment* has evolved but scientists are still very excitable boffins in lab coats. (alright maybe not, but you get the point.) Scientists are *people.* They always will be people and they are as fallible as the rest of us. The ultimate progression towards scientific exactitude was performed by Rene Descartes in the 18th century (This is the guy you should be blaming for a lot of cartesian geometry btw.) Do you want to know the *one* thing that the most rigorous piece of scientific rigour can prove? Cogito ergo sum. Thats _it_. No knowledge that your body exists, no knowledge that the sky is blue, no knowledge that god does / does not exist, no knowledge that there is not a powerful demon attempting to fool you, no knowledge that you do not live inside a "matrix." We know _nothing_.
quote:
Sorry, I meant a semester.
Sorry we obviously have much different definitions of "session." Stupid cultural gap. :( Anyway it still doesn't make you an "expert in the field."
quote:
I know the whole Greek alphabet
I just look it up in the back of my specialist maths book, no need learn the thing. ;)
quote:
Well, it is infinite, but... in a finite way.
War is peace, slavery is freedom kinda thing? Infinity is not a member of the reals dude, and finite numbers are wholly contained within the reals. Thus infinity != any finite number, nor is it even comparable. (http://tongue.gif)
quote:
finite because is is not bigger than the size at a given moment
This quality applies to infinity too. (Stupid keyboards why they have no infinity symbol?) If n = Infinity then n^n will still equal infinity, as it is already as big as it can be. Indeed maple tells me:
> infinity*infinity;
infinity
(and of course I trust the computer without looking it up...)
BTW an interesting question, what is infinity - infinity? I believe it is infinity, and maple gives me "undefined," anyone care to have a stab at 0?
Please don't take any of this personally, I'm quite enjoying the mental stimulation, much better than debating with most people I know. Most of my friends assume that debating = arguing and raising your voice = winning the argument. :(
-
Oh the time I'll waste while waiting for a few gigs of mp3s to turn into oggs... (oh man some divine intervention from God (in the form of a free RAID array) would be nice here...)
Back to the original topic:
French intolerance of religions as tame as JW's and the scientologists is lamo and immoral.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Oh the time I'll waste while waiting for a few gigs of mp3s to turn into oggs... (oh man some divine intervention from God (in the form of a free RAID array) would be nice here...)
Back to the original topic:
French intolerance of religions as tame as JW's and the scientologists is lamo and immoral.
heheh
:D
Yup but what do you do when you have CRAZY (French) cults like the those solar temple guys that kill each other, or top themself???
Actually there's quite a Templar revival going on in the UK. If your the romantic nut you'd love it.
Question: What will the French try and ban next?
:D
-
quote:
But was Einstein trying to avoid having children with his cousin or was he giving it his best? Did they even *have* decent protection back then?
Elsa already had children, so I don't think Einstein actually wanted to children with her.
Alright, flap, I admit it's NOT wrong to have sex with a relative if both consent. Just don't advertise too much, OK? Please? :D
quote:
Basically you _cannot_ use science to argue against the "God issue" as it is inherently fallible.
Science itself is not going to solve the God issue. Pure logics, though, is not inherently infallible like science. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be disproved outside of an Orwellian world, so logics can debunk many misconcepetions, whether it's contradictions, inconsistencies and so on.
quote:
No knowledge that your body exists, no knowledge that the sky is blue, no knowledge that god does / does not exist, no knowledge that there is not a powerful demon attempting to fool you, no knowledge that you do not live inside a "matrix." We know _nothing_.
Then, by your own reasoning, you imply that you don't know yourself whether god exists or not. In fact, it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place. It might very well be some alien kid who decided to make an experiment, and created an explosion. That 'God' might even have its own God itself. If all our creator did was make an explosion, and everything just evolved from that, then whether God exists or not doesn't even matter. Or, in mathematical words, they cancel out. ;)
-
quote:
Yup but what do you do when you have CRAZY (French) cults like the those solar temple guys that kill each other, or top themself???
Hey provided everyone joins of their own free will, doesnt hurt anyone else and is of sound mind they can do what they want. Will certainly reduce the number of people in the world, and that means more stuff for me. (http://smile.gif)
Weren't the Templars accused of Demon worshipping? (specifically satan in his half goat form I think - in that form his name started with "B" I think. Wasn't Beelz'bub though...) Man joining them guys would be so freaking cool... Get a big suit of armour, some black and white cloths and then you get to beat the crap out of people with a sword... *sigh* /faust starts staring into the distance wistfully...
quote:
Pure logics, though, is not inherently infallible like science. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be disproved outside of an Orwellian world,
Assuming infallible was meant to be fallible up there...
Actually it is. You could be insane and imagining all this. Anyway you still havent shown that 2 + 2 = 4 for all 2 and all 4. You are taking as evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 the fact that every single time you have put two objects next to two objects before you have ended up with 4 - but if I were to roll a dice and get 2 twenty times in a row I could make a claim as to that dice only being capable of rolling a 2, when it may just be a coincidence. My next roll may be a 6, I just dont know. Also be wary of using logic to prove a point - in the Real World it almost always falls to experimental evidence - eg the Greeks belief that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects was based in logic. ie:
Heavy objects fall.
Light objects often dont (feathers, leaves etc)
Ipso facto heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
It wasnt until some dude (Aristotle?) (allegedly) dropped two differently weighted masses off a very tall tower that that theory was debunked - logic fell to experiment.
quote:
so logics can debunk many misconcepetions
Logical arguments must still rest on axioms - and axioms by their nature cannot be proven to be true.
quote:
Then, by your own reasoning, you imply that you don't know yourself whether god exists or not. In fact, it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place. It might very well be some alien kid who decided to make an experiment, and created an explosion. That 'God' might even have its own God itself. If all our creator did was make an explosion, and everything just evolved from that, then whether God exists or not doesn't even matter. Or, in mathematical words, they cancel out
No I cant prove it, thats the beatiful part. But neither can you disprove it. Neither of us knows anything concrete, all we have is conjecture and assumptions. In fact I cant even know for sure that I dont know anything for sure but at this stage my head starts to hurt. :D
quote:
it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place.
1)god is supposedly perfect
2)i know nothing for sure
from 2: 3)i dont know whether god is perfect
from 1 and 3: 4)i cannot be sure as to the god issue
5) science can prove that god does/nt exist.
5 does not appear to follow from your premises, and premise 1 contains a supposedly - rendering it useless for the argument. You have shown that I do not know what i am talking about but you havent shown that science does know what its talking about.
I agree with you that its not an important question to how we live our lives - we are very illogical creatures after all. But it is still *interesting* in the same way that knowing whether a meson has component particles is useless, but kinda fun to try and find out. The world is jsut more fun when you ask lots of stupid questions. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
That 'God' might even have its own God itself.
Recursive Gods stretching into infinity. You'll make a fine programmer some day. ;)
quote:
Question: What will the French try and ban next?
Personally I have an urge to travel to france and hit on all the cute french girls (gotta love that beatiful accent) to see if they ban me. (http://smile.gif)
-
Science does know what it is talking about.
Concider, we as humans are subject to our perception of the world. Unless we can understand something in our terms, it's out of our reech.
Science is the tool which allows us to mold the abstract phisical realm around us to our perception. It is a tool, it isn't truth, it provides a practical aplicable methodology.
Weather the suppositions, axioms, etc. we start out with to prove a scientific theory are actually true or not is irelevent. we simply use those as tools fo our perception.
Alot of real, accurate, chemestry was created by the alchemists back in their day, yet the common notions (primal elements of Earth, Air, Water, Fire, Quintescence, lead to gold, etc.) were totaly false.
It dosn't matter, weather it's true or not, because it seems to me that truth is ultimately subjective.
-
quote:
You are taking as evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 the fact that every single time you have put two objects next to two objects before you have ended up with 4
No. I am talking about pure concept here, not an experimental process. While experiments are subject to unknown forces of nature, mere concepts and identities cannot be modified, with only one possible exception that I will explain later. We have invented a system of numbers in order to apply it in practice, not the opposite. So, we decided that we use a decimal system to count, and we gave names to numbers. Therefore, we decided to call one carrot next to another carrots two carrots, and so on. So, if we reduce everything to abstract, we have 1 and we have 2. It has been arbitrarily decided that 2 comes after 1. So, if there is only one unit missing before 1, then 1 + 1 must equal two.
Of course, the number after 1 could have been defined as 3. Or 4. In which case, 1 + 1 would equal 3, or 4, and the equation would be true. But only if one of the definitions has been changed. Ad if we use a binary system instead, 1 + 1 = 10, not 2, since 2 DNE.
quote:
logic fell to experiment.
Not quite. Logic failed only because part of the equation was missing. Greeks were not aware that inertia applied downwards as well as sideways and upwards. It was not logic itself that failed in that case.
However, it can come in useful to solve more abstract problems, like 'Is future predetermined or not?'. For example, 'If future is already written, and cannot be changed, and you are somehow aware of it, it means that it is written that you are aware of it. Therefore, it makes no difference whether it is written or not'. This is just an example, and my thought process is MUCH more complex than that.
If God only created the Big Bang, then what's the point of believing in Him at all? If you believe any religion, you'll go to hell somehow in another religion. Prayers and ceremonies are useless, one way or another.
quote:
Recursive Gods stretching into infinity. You'll make a fine programmer some day.
I'm getting to that. ;) I just don't know where to start, or what kind of program to write.
-
quote:
I'm getting to that. I just don't know where to start, or what kind of program to write.
I started with simple maths programs in Tbasic (graphics calculator language.) After that I went on to basic shell scripts, and then Eiffel (which I _love_, then C++ and I am going to be doing some SPARC assembly (!) next year. Just start small and work up. Courses are a good bet though - having someone read through a program explaining concepts (not actual code) to you makes it so much easier. (http://smile.gif) Also If you're going to learn from a book, choose one with interesting examples. I tried to learn C++ from "sams teach yourself C++ in 21 days" and it was _torture_ trying to stay motivated with the really boring examples they had.
And you still havent established your sanity. (http://smile.gif)
-
I tried tutorials online, but I just don't have the attention span to follow them. I guess I'd better get a good book if I want to start learning seriously.
The best I did yet was a silly character-based Python program that sings the '99 bottles of beer' song. I even made it prompt for a number of your choice, so it can repeat it 643 or 9999 times and so on.
quote:
And you still havent established your sanity.
Orange.
-
quote:
Hey provided everyone joins of their own free will, doesnt hurt anyone else and is of sound mind they can do what they want. Will certainly reduce the number of people in the world, and that means more stuff for me.
Weren't the Templars accused of Demon worshipping? (specifically satan in his half goat form I think - in that form his name started with "B" I think. Wasn't Beelz'bub though...) Man joining them guys would be so freaking cool... Get a big suit of armour, some black and white cloths and then you get to beat the crap out of people with a sword... *sigh* /faust starts staring into the distance wistfully...
I was playing devils advocate ;) , I agree.... Free will. Actually if there is one point that comes from bibilical teaching is that god supposedly created us with free will. Funny how organized religion tends to forget that.
quote:
Yes - there are severe logic errors in any claim that God is a)perfect and b)wants you to believe. But it is only if you try and claim the last two that you fuck up, not by claiming the existence of God.
The bible itself proves that God cannot be perfect. In the story of Soddom and Ghamorra, God negotiates with Ezekiel as to how many righteous people it would take for him not to destroy the cities. The number in the story goes down and down until Ezekiel can find no one. 1. if God were perfect why would he need to negotiate with Ezekiel? 2. why did he not know that there would be no one?
Always thought this was strange, there are plenty of ther examples of biblical contradiction, not contradictions from the hindsight of a mordern perspective but contradictions in their own merrit.
Templars fell out of favour some time after the crusades, they were accused of idolitary, worshiping the Baphomet. Also they were accused of:
quote:
That the receptors practiced obscene kisses on new entrants, on the mouth, navel or buttocks.
London has a Templar cathederal, which is very strange if you go there, circular. Most european churches are crucifix in plan form at this time. Although I think middle eastern churches (Byzantyne) churches were often round.
Temple Church (http://www.thecyberfarm.com/templars/templarbritain/templechurch/templechurch.htm)
But yes, I'd just join for the armour, "when do I get the armour, uh? When, when? Sword, when do I get the sword, uh, uh???"
quote:
After that I went on to basic shell scripts, and then Eiffel (which I _love_, then C++ and I am going to be doing some SPARC assembly (!) next year.
Don't know Eiffel, other than it's a OO language. What context are you using it in? I'll have look into it. Another interesting language is Ruby.... I started out on Pascal ;)
P.S. Faust for your delight and convenience some armour replacement (http://www.dethorpe.demon.co.uk/), this should suffice until you can get some real armour.
[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]
-
Dude... armour [drool.]
Actually I would prefer Japanese style as I have just started Kendo lessons, but still cool - I have a poster in my room of a very cool black and white lacquered suit of armour from Austria, very cool. :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Dude... armour [drool.]
Actually I would prefer Japanese style as I have just started Kendo lessons, but still cool - I have a poster in my room of a very cool black and white lacquered suit of armour from Austria, very cool. :D
Funny you should mention that, last night I started looking at Japanese sword sites (for no reason ;) ). Take a look at these. Great if you can spare a few $1000's
Shinken (http://www.swordstore.com/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/003039.1.988124170790146700)
Kendo sounds cool (http://tongue.gif)