Philosophy versus Religion

Definition of religion from Dictionary.com

[quote][b]re

Stop looking at stuff in black and white.

Atheism requires faith. Faith is the anti-thesis to logic in religious terms. Atheism is by no means logical, in some regard it takes on similar ignorant notions that religious bodies accept as creed. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here, but if you're trying to align them with said definitions, you've got them wrong. Philosophy and religion are not a duality, they are not exclusive from one another. Religions have philosophy backing them. Religion, for all intents and purposes, is a solidified state of spirituality in which a mass of people hold similar values; one that requires certain aspects to be respected and specific norms upheld. Atheism lacks that, and it lacks a cohesive conjecture on creation (I.E. Mythology.), so it really cannot be considered a religion. It is merely a denial of other religions based on faith, in the same way religions deny their peers.

It is a faith and a philosophy, but not a religion because it makes no claims aside from denial.

Neither is superior. Religion, philosophy and science are all inter-dependent. Pretty much as simple as that.

[Quote]Actually the difference between Chistianity and Athiest is actually one would believe in the spiritual (Christianity) versus the other believes in the rational (Athiest). That seems to be the main difference in the two definitions of religion versus philosophy.


You can't believe in the rational. You can accept it as being a logical answer to a problem, but, while spirituality is something that people can relate to, the definition of good versus evil, and right versus wrong, rationality is the logical answer to good, evil, right, wrong. Rationality is a term to define things.


But, while these days Philosophy is about science, it was (and still is with me) a religious perspective on sience. Philosophy was the scientifical explaination of ***'s work.

Athiests do indeed have a religion, system of beliefs. Everyone does. But the true difference with Athiesm is whether there is something bigger controlling what is happening in those beliefs, or whether it happens on its own accord.

Quick question: how many people here have ever taken a class in philosophy?

I'm about to finish up my first (and probably only) philosophy class, and while I can hardly say I'm an expert, I can say that it's wildly different than what most people think it is.

[QUOTE=S

[QUOTE=S

Athiesm is refusing to believe anything we don't have proof of. I don't see how that's illogical, Solrok.

Atheists are starting to open up their own "churches" with, what amounts to, their own "prophets." They might as well be another religion at this point. That's illogical.

I suppose it requires "faith" to doubt the Celestial Teapot, too?

What I believe is closely tied to what Sol said, that Philosophy and Religion have a uniqe relationship with each other, making it impossible to really say which one is better since they are essentially the same thing.

As for Faith I think of this flow chart (not perfect, just a start);

Desperation => Faith => Hope => Confidence.

I would definitely switch hope and faith.

With confidence and faith, you're sure of something.

Now, if you really are sure of it, you don't need to be desperate, and you don't need to hope for it. See what I mean?

"I have confidence that it is so."
"I have faith that it is so."
"I hope that it is so."
"If it isn't so I'll ****ing kill myself right ****ing here."

Alright, new flow chart;

Desperation => Hope => Faith => Confidence

xuclo approves :D

They believe in proof.

Who does? BE MORE SPECIFIC

ATHEISTS

No. I'd say the difference is Atheists KNOW there is no higher power. There's no question. Whereas religion is the belief that there's a ***. Knowing whether a *** was there or not would defeat the entire purpose of Christianity and the like. Hence "Sola Fide." That would be the main difference if you ask me. If you want, you could say the lack of proof is proof enough for Atheists.

No one knows, that's the point. The lack of knowledge is the proof in their case. It's not that believers have the burden of proof, it's that the believers don't have proof.

Point is, most Atheists know jack**** about anything anyways.

That's basically what I was saying by "burden of proof."

Theists: "I believe there is."

Atheists: "There's no proof that there is, so there isn't."

Agnostics: "There's no proof of either, so I don't really know if there is or isn't."

Voltaire was the only cool atheist.
that's all I have the interest to say

Hmm.

[quote]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

There's no proof of a divine power, but there's no proof against a divine power, either. I think that's a fact overlooked by some people.

As stated before, you can't "know" something without proof. You can only believe. So really, atheists only believe there is no such thing as g-o-d. You can't know that. You can pretend you do, but some people just don't like to think. :)

How do you figure? It's hard for either side to claim that they're right without anything to back it up, so until we die (or through some kind of insane miracle, some proof does come up) nobody's going to know for sure. We're just going to have to stick to confidence, faith, hope and desperation. :)

[quote]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

sorta like the belief of a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster



Well that was just an argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design.

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;779796]Voltaire was the only cool atheist.
He really wasn't one.

For some reason I thought that was the point of BJ's post.

Well, his statement was wrong, then.

Science's main assumption: All things are consistant and can be tested at any given time.

However, BJ, Science is constantly evolving based on the fact that it's created by humans who are working off of massive assumptions (Like the above.). Science, if it is capable, will basically resemble the correct creed, should it ever be provable.

It's truthiness.

I'm sorry, are people seriously equating the empirical validity of the scientific method with the empirical validity of religious faith?

No.

Why'd they censor g0d? That's weird...

are you talking about the power of the geforce 8800 gtx and physx?

People don't need to have proof to have faith. Faith is exactly that: belief in the absence of evidence.

Not to say I think its logical... cuz I don't. But if you get enough people thinking that it is reasonable to have faith in a certain deity, it becomes religion, and would therefore become fact to those people.

It's a stupid process, really.

I don't really believe in God. Even if he was real, he seems to be uncaring and unfriendly at times, not to mention prone to hardcore mood swings, so I'm not really sure I'd want to spend an eternity with him.

As an agnostic myself, I've adopted the position that if there is a ***, then He probably never interferes with the world at all, not because he's uncaring or whatever, but because that would make life as a test of whether or not you deserve to get into heaven utterly useless. Makes most sense to me to see if you can stay a good person despite all the things in the world that can corrupt you (poverty and misfortune convincing you that there is no *** looking out for you and forcing you to turn to crime, wealth making you greedy and selfish, et cetera). If he reached in and helped some people just because they pray for it, well, what sense is that? Magic wishes a good person does not make.

Not that I'm all that convinced that there's a ***. Plus this is vastly different from what most of Christianity teaches, which is that all you have to do to make it into heaven is accept Jesus as your savior. But whatever.

I agree with you. While I am a theist, I do believe that *** doesn't intervene with the matters of the universe at all. He created it, then let it be.

There are still people on both sides that claim, without any actual evidence, that their beliefs on the matter are fact. There is no evidence supporting either side and I doubt there ever will be, in a physical/measurable/"scientifically acceptable" form.

There's no evidence supporting a g[COLOR="White"]o[/COLOR]d, so there's no evidence needed to disprove a g[COLOR="White"]o[/COLOR]d.

in short: one of the stupidest arguments on this topic. and old and boring

We're not actually disagreeing on that point. Why are we still going off on it? lol

You're saying atheists need proof that *** doesn't exist, I'm saying Atheists don't need proof if there is no proof of *** existing to begin with. Thus I'm disagreeing.

[quote=dictionary.com]
scientific method
n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


My astronomy professor said once in lecture that experiments are only able to prove a hypothesis wrong, never do they prove them right. For example; Dropping an apple 4ft and seeing it accelerate disproves a theory saying apples fall at a constant speed. However, It doesn't prove my hypothesis that invisible microbes known as gravitolies are jumping on the apple as it falls, making it fall faster because of the extra weight (I know this is inaccurate ).

If a person strongly believes in science, they're more likely to be agnostic since, as already been said by a lot of you, there's no way to prove *** does or doesn't exist. Science hasn't yet made an experiment disproving creationism or evolution, so under the "believing science" philosophy it says we must accept them both as being plausable.

tl:dr

Whatever Vamp or Solrok said.

Or, you know, I don't have to disprove anything that isn't proven. idk

anywho, this argument is still stupid

Nobody has proven that Zeus doesn't exist, yet you're all Zeus-atheists. Nobody has proven Shiva and Kali don't exist, yet you're all atheists to Hindu mythology. Same with Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Xenu and Thor.

You're all atheists.

Some of us just go one g-d further.

And some of us don't deny their existence period. Ra is just as likely as Yahweh. They're both scientifically improbable... but there's no such thing as 100% in Science.

I wouldn't say scientifically improbable, but improvable. If that's even a word.

[quote]Nobody has proven that Zeus doesn't exist, yet you're all Zeus-atheists. Nobody has proven Shiva and Kali don't exist, yet you're all atheists to Hindu mythology. Same with Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Xenu and Thor.

You're all atheists.

Some of us just go one g-d further.

Lol I'm definitely not an atheist. Other than that, that post was weird.

*** = Yahweh = Ra = Zeus = Odin = etc etc etc

Believing in one is essentially believing in all the rests, just not in the same context.

Yeah, and their proof would be the lack of proof of a *** existing. I mean, how could you possibly disprove it otherwise? Beyond the fact it's essentially physically impossible to prove a higher being exists, it's then equally impossible to say one doesn't exist without resorting to the fact that there's no evidence to support a *** exists. You have to prove one exists to get anywhere in this argument.

Thus, the didactic beauty of theism. That's how it works, however, thems the breaks.

Yeah, you can't disprove something that doesn't have any solid evidence supporting it. I know.

lol

Honestly, just because modern religion has managed to retreat far enough into metaphysics and sophomoric word games to render their ideas immune to emperical analysis or debate doesn't mean I have to respect their ideas any more than any random nutcase's insistance on any number of other random baseless claims about fairies or celestial teapots.

Of course theists have the home ground advantage. Even ignoring the weight of traditional indoctrination and stuff, they also don't need to rely on actual evidence or logic or anything like that. Schizophrenics have exactly the same advantage in supporting their own delusions.

If you raise a child in a vacuum and never expose them to ideas of g-ds, is it then a matter of "faith" for them to lack any sort of belief in them? No, it's just normal because no-one ever planted the idea in their head. Actually, forget a vacuum, what about raising someone in China?

And that brings us to the origin of mythology, eh?

Who said anything about respecting religion, Arwon? If you respect the scientific ideology, then you must respect the fact that everything has a possibility. You're welcome to hate the religion, but that's not what defines an Atheist. An Atheist is someone who denies the existence of said possibility or possibilities (In respect to partial atheists vs. full atheists.).

I've never heard of a partial atheist. Is that like an agnostic?

It's a self-coined term. Some atheists don't deny the existence of other gods, only Yahweh. It's like a splicing of agnosticism and atheism.

pretty ****ing stupid

What "scientific ideology"? That's nonsense and you're playing silly word games. "If you respect the scientific ideology, then you must respect the fact that everything has a possibility." What rot that is. Lots of things aren't possible. I can't fly. My brain is not made of cheese. Babies don't like being kicked. The universe was not created in 6 days. Etcetera. The existance of *** is exactly as likely as the existance of invisible fairies or orbitting teapots or any of the other infinite number of things people can say exists that can't be disproven. The fact that a lot of people thought this one similar thing and ganged up to control society for several thousand years doesn't make the idea any more legitimate.

If you're going to argue that "the existance of ***" is a scientific hypothesis, then fine. It's a terrible one with lots of counterveiling evidence invalidating it. It's a hypothesis that should be thrown out. It's up there with "dancing makes it rain" or "the lion is an Aryan animal while the rabbit is not". Seeking to legitimise faith by making it a rational and "scientific" proposition is the surest way to get it debunked and disproven (some quick examples: anthropology and history, cosmology, the existence of mutually exclusive faith in other ***s, the inaccuracy of holy books, the problem of evil, the amount of suffering in nature, [url=http://asylumeclectica.com/asylum/malady/archives/harlequin.htm]Harlequin fetus[/url], the poor "design" of the universe, personalities of ***s as described in various Books). The faithful are better off staying retreated into harmless extra-universal metaphysics where they can tell themselves whatever stories they want as long as they don't, you know, translate those delusions into impingements on mine or others' freedom.

When I was 6, I didn't believe in any ***. I remember an argument I had with a kid about it at school (who I've since found out grew up atheist, incidentally). I never chose to decide not to believe in all this twaddle, the idea never really sprang up and by the time it did (scripture classes at age 10 or so), it sounded pretty much like the Easter Bunny for grown-ups.

Atheism does not require faith. It's only percieved as such when you look at it from a theo-normative perspective (the assumption that faith is normal and lack of faith is deviant or even not possible). I don't really hate religion, it's more bemused pity, and I'd really rather just freaking ignore it. As such, people telling me that because I tend to accept stuff that can be observed and inferred about the real world and not bother with things people made up, I'm as deluded and blindly faithful as people who believe in magical wish-granting Jewish zombies... it kinda gets my goat, ya know?

[QUOTE=S

Who's playing word games?

[QUOTE=S

Can I just throw something out there?

I like playing it as a numbers game, with one basic assumption, with that assumption being that the universe is infinite. (Or at least so incomprehensibly big that if one even tries to imagine how small one really is in relation to it, his or her head would be boggled to the point of dysfunction, a la The Total Perspective Vortex from The Hitchhiker's Guide). The universe in this case is defined as every single known and unknown that was, is, or will be in existence. Personally, I think this is a perfectly reasonable assumption, but basing the following logic on a single assumption might throw some people off.

Now, with that assumption in place, we can now begin a stage of if-then statements. If the universe is as big as was mentioned before, then there is a finite chance of any occurance (including the chance that somewhere out there, there exists a G0D, however finite that chance might be). So, basically, in an infinite universe anything and everything happens somewhere.

Now, if anything and everything happens somewhere, then somewhere at some point in the 4-dimensinal universe a G0D exists. Agree with me so far?

Now. Since we are going off the assumption of an infinite universe, and by that assumption G0D somewhere at some point exists, we now bring the infinity of the universe back. The probability that this G0D's domain, in an infinite universe, includes our dear Earth is virtually zero, because any domain other than an infinite one, when compared to infinity, is as next to nothing as makes no odds.

To disprove G0D's idea of an infinite domain takes a little more faith. If G0D behaves as those who claim him as their savior accept him, his rule over an infinite domain would be nonsensical. Is Earth the only planet with intelligent species in the universe? Impossible, given an infinite universe. Given the size of the universe, compared to the size of our small planet, why would anyone in control of the whole universe pay attention to a small blue planet orbiting a dwarf of a star in some random galaxy? If G0D is so caring to our part of the universe, then he or she would be so irresponsible forsaking the rest of the galaxy in such a manner. If G0D is so all-controlling, then our planet makes no difference on the scale of things, and so, on the whole, he or she would pay no attention to us.

But all of that only applies if you think there is something as big or bigger than the universe in which we reside. That would be the only possible way such a deity could exist. There is a one in infinity chance that something is as big as infinity.

So basically, if G0D is bigger than infinity or as big as infinity, which as stated above, this would either deny our beginning assumption or have a one in infinity chance of being so.

So... One vs. the rest of all known existence. Do I hear any bets on one?

If clarification is needed, it will be granted. If you point something out of which I was not previously aware, I will adjust accordingly. Please note that while writing this, I had a terrific case of insomnia, so there might be (probably are somewhere) wording issues or gramatical issues or minor logical fallacies, etc.

Thanks for considering.

That's fine. I was just tossing it out there.

That's a lot of words to just be tossing.

[quote=S

There's no proof of it, but there's no proof against it. I'd think of some stupid analogy but you get what I'm saying already, right? lol

Yes, I think everyone does as it has been repeated for the past two pages. It's a stupid point.

You don't need proof against a theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up to say it's a bogus theory.

Your point is dumb, shut up.

Vamp's opinion about there not being a *** is developed by his understanding for social structures, something well established in academics. Your argument is all about plausability, yet you forget that the people who believen *** don't see it as plausable but as actual fact. He can call you dumb.

There has to be a God, it would make no sense to not have a life after death unless you believe in reincarnation, if we were to destroy this Earth we would eventually come back as small cells starting over again, but what about when the sun explodes? Can you imagine not existing?

Only reason I see for believe in a *** is with regards to the uncaused causer problem. But I imagine science will have a solution in due course.

Just thought I'd pipe in with that.

What caused the Big Bang, etc.

Oh, that was just worded oddly I guess

Seems improbable that a big *** explosion would happen out of nowhere unless something made it.

Just shut up, moron.

Like if I had an apple and then all of a sudden I have two what made the second one, we don't ****en know!

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;786543]because a massive, all-powerful being isn't?
Works, too.

Love is so powerful that someone, such as a scientist who would not waste time with Christian religion, would make an invention to make us young and disease-free forever. If our Father exists, He won't allow any gifted scientist to conquer death. Death is suppose to be a normal natural phase from old age, disease, or accident like a vehicle accident. We would know who our Father is if there is life after death. I hear that stem cell research could one day unlock the mystery of death from old age. If stem cell research becomes successful in reversing old age then the holy bible of our almighty Father would a become a historical fantasy religion.

There is no dying from 'old age.'
Dying from old age merely means it's natural because your organs starts failing, etc.

Stem cell research won't unlock any mystery.
But will simply rejuvenate/create (new)cells, and thus avoiding death(as in, organs aging, etc).


And not just 'dying from old age'-death.
But pretty much all death, that isn't caused by an accident or something of the like.


Mystery of dying from old age... lol

And my reasoning is:

Why is it so hard to believe that there was a big bang out of nowhere, but a divine being that has been there all the time, isn't?

They kind of equalize eachother out.

[quote=Linko_16;794362][COLOR=indigo]Because people aren't just saying, "Gee, maybe the universe started with a huge explosion, I really don't know."[/COLOR]
People aren't just saying that, Linko.

[quote]There is no evidence, on the other hand, that there is a divine being that has been there for all time, and simply believing He is responsible for everything we have no explanation for is an extremely primitive standpoint.

There is no evidence, on the other hand, that a divine being has not been here for all time. Simply believing that He is not responsible for something we have no explanation for is an extremely primitive standpoint.

Goes both ways.

[color=black]No it doesn't, because the burden of proof is on those who claim it to be true.

I could easily say that there's a floating teapot that perpetually rotates at a 23.5

Those who claim that *** exists at least have some reasoning, no matter how weak you believe it may be, to believe that He does.

Your teapot is not such a case.

Suppose so.

In all practicality, the burden of proof really lies with whoever is making a claim that opposes what is currently held. From a scientific/philosophic stand-point, yes, it's absurd to claim knowledge of something without evidence. If someone who believes in Go[b]d walks into a museum of evolution or something, their claims of Creation won't be taken seriously because they do not have proof that Creation is true. But all the same, if an atheist walk into a church, where people have believed in God their whole lives, they're not going to walk away from their beliefs unless he or she shows proof that *** does not exist.

It's arguably a fault on believers that they do not abandon a claim that has no proof, but religion is all about faith, not evidence.

I don't see logical reasons for believing in ***s, most of the time people only do so because others tell them they are real, which I think is stupid. But it is also stupid to deny any possible chance that a *** exists, for there is no proof that disproves a higher deity.

IMO (the one that matters, since I'm right on just about everything *** told me) *** is just one big imaginary scapegoat for all of life's questions.

Why am I rich? *** wanted me rich.

Why do people kill each other? *** wants them to die.

Who made the Earth? I'm too fukken dumb to read a science book, So *** must have made the Earth.

****, don't revive this thread...

Why did somebody revive the thread only to say exactly what everybody else has already said?

Because they didn't say it.

I didn't get it the first 87 times, but that 88th message really made me think.

thanks bebop that was a totally necessary and worthwhile comment and it made me think

[quote]You're supposed to just believe and not have reasoning that led you to such a belief.

Well that's just stupid.

No wonder they crucified that guy.

The way I see it, religion was the logic formed by premitive thinkers from the past. Time to move on.

I find it funny how often it's said that the creation of *** was just made by simpler people in history because that's just how they thought back then. Not to say it isn't entirely true, but I've noticed that the same arrogance is found in many people denying the existence of such a being.
I kind of feel that believing us to be the pinnacle of life is much to arrogant, but just on the other side of the spectrum in terms of science vs religion.

I don't consider myself to believe in a religion, but I do think there are(is a) greater being(s) than us that transcend our understanding of time, whether it's because we're wrong or haven't discovered something or just something we can't do. There would always be a "What happened before?" issue, and through our understanding of time, if we were completely correct, the answer will always be "Uhhhhhhhhh" and I don't think it's much better than getting uppity and referencing clearly false claims when someone mentions a ***.
Maybe I'm just bat**** insane. :cool2:

Really, I don't see how the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe is any less rediculous than many think that of religion is.

Uh, because it has evidence and logical thought behind it?

Religion has been said to be a means to understand the world around us and to govern our lives. It is now needed for neither. It is an outdated means to achieve things which mankind is capable of doing without the crippling intellectual crutch of invisible friends in the sky.

Say that you hear people in the walls, and you're crazy. Say that the voice is ***, and you're a prophet. Seems odd to me.

Sure, that gives an explanation of our history, but it still doesn't explain where said history comes from. I'm not backing the religious explanation of history, but the idea of a big bang doesn't entirely disprove creationism. I think people are too willing to throw it out entirely because of what religion has done, and they cling to their scientific explanation that doesn't really cover everything. That kind of lacks logical reasoning behind it.

Anyway, that "It can't be proven it so it's untrue and I'm going to go out and make fun of people who believe it" mentality is just as odd and lacking as the "They can't disprove it so it's true and you're a heathen" garbage. I think that's what he meant.

What it ultimately comes down to, in my view, is that those who choose to have faith in a G*d ought to do so understanding that there is no proof or reasoning behind their faith. They ought to believe it because it's true, not because they can prove it's true. And I have no problem with anyone who is a Christian based on faith. That's totally okay. If you choose to have faith, that's your choice. But it's ridiculous to seek proof that your G*d exists or even to argue that s/he does. That totally does away with the need for faith. If you could prove it, and you do successfully prove it, you've just completely stepped on the idea of faith that Jesus himself stressed quite strongly.

For example, we know that 8+8=16, right? It's common knowledge. No faith needed. You know it's true because it's been proven, over and over again and it makes sense. So everyone agrees that it is true.

If you were to provide the same concrete proof for the existence of any G*d, you'd be removing the need for faith because it would become common accepted knowledge, much like basic arithmetic.

If you want to have faith in a G*d, go for it. Enjoy yourself. Take comfort in it. But remember that your faith applies only to you and that you won't be converting anyone to have that same faith by using facts or logical arguments. Your best bet is to try and stress the positive things that having such a faith has brought to your life.

Your complete failure angered me so much that I actually started typing "LEARN TO READ" into the username bar to log in.

How the **** can you actually tell me, after the many times that I said things against religion, that I am a religion sympathizer? Do you even know where you are?
Creationism doesn't have to mean religion. One can believe in a supreme being WITHOUT believing in one of the religions out there.
I'd love for you to show me where I implied anything about priests touching little boys. In fact, I dare you to.

EDIT: ****it, ninja'd. I was talking to the person above Fei-on

Epic ninja failure.

You were the first to imply creationism to the disscussion of religion. You were the first to bring up recent events inwhich i mentioned one.

Reguardless, Religion argues creationism. No escaping that.

I don't need to learn to read, so much as you need to learn what you're even talking about.

[quote]They ought to believe it because it's true, not because they can prove that it's true.

i'm going to reply to this with a capital 'WHAT'

edit: willis she is going to ****ing murder you

Logically?

nah, probably with a kodachi, just for the lulz.

I don't know if I can handle another ninjad...

best watch yo' ass then, boi.

Oh shi... Today is Easter, we shouldn't be so negative!

Today we celebrate the day that the magic sky fairy becomes a zombie.

A ****ING ZOMBIE!!!! DOESN'T GET MUCH BETTER THEN THAT!!!

[quote=mis0;829966]Really, I don't see how the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe is any less rediculous than many think that of religion is.

There's a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe?

No, actually, science is quite happy not knowing something until it does know. Whether you decide to make things up to fill in the gaps falls outside the realm of science.

[quote=teh fei]It does not say that Christians ought to dedicate their studies to finding proof that the Earth was created 6000 years ago

It's good thing they don't, because we already have proof that it wasn't created 6000 years ago. :cookie:

[quote]You have to believe in G*d because you believe in G*d. Not because it makes sense logically

Why not? I believe in a *** because it makes logical sense to me.

[quote]I'm only bothered when people try to tell me that I, too, must believe as they do, and then typically follow-up with some argument that proves that they are right and I should join the consensus and believe it as well.

Welcome to organized religion!

I'd use the cookie smiley again there, but that would just be redundant.

I just lost the game.

[QUOTE=Shade;830424]Why not? I believe in a *** because it makes logical sense to me.

I'm not saying a higher power in general. I'm saying those who believe in Christian Dogma ought not to believe in G*d because it makes sense.

They ought to believe because they believe. If it was a belief that was logically structured, it would be much to solid to necessitate faith.

And you personally finding logic in the existence of G*d is based off of your perception of the world, what is known in Germany as your [i]weltanscha

I was referring to that aswell. The means of the mass expansion, not for the existance of mass. In other words, the how and not the why. *** works for all whys.

imo, *** is the universe. Crazy, I know.

Actually I was referring to the fact that there's no scientific explanation for the universe's creation, neither the reason for it or the method. We only have an explanation for what happened after it was created: the big bang.

I've always described Religion as an Umbrella. It starts at the very top, its point, and blankets downward to the bottom, not necessarily covering the whole of the mass but it is still there. It explains things from the top, and lets it trickle down based on specific assumptions, When those assumptions crack, the Umbrella is still left rigid in its place. These are typically the places that people "interpret" and place their faith rather than on a basis of fact. Many of the assumptions by the bible are examples of this, as they are still there and unamended.

Science, however, is constructed the exact opposite way. It is crafted from the base, similar to the fortification of a house. It builds up, and where it is erroneous, it crumbles and we begin anew. It isn't until faith gets involved in Science that Science can be truly misguided.

It is unknown is Science can really reach the pinnacle like faith can, but if it did reach at least the first major question's pinnacle (What created the created and who created the creators type.), at least we know it'd be nearly concrete.

Science also has fundamentals that encourage trying to break theories, oppose to accepting them without question. A good scientist is one whose experiments disprove theories, not discover truths. A great scientist is one who can then come up with a theory that can't be disproven, challenging other scientists to disprove it.

It's not good science to go out of your way to try and disprove theories. It's a waste of resources because you will probably find nothing. To experiment first requires a hypothesis, and if your hypothesis disagrees with something that's already backed by a lot of evidence (which is what's required for it to be a theory in the first place)people will think you're nuts.

It's more efficient to experiment with existing theories to find new information. If you find nothing then you close that line of experimentation. If you find something that explains a previously incomplete part of an existing theory you can amend it. Failing those two, and this is the least likely result of any given experiment, your evidence would completely contracidt an existing theory. Only then would you be disproving it.

I admire the great philosophers of history. They ponder such mysteries as the creation of the universe while I'm still trying to figure out how to keep an erection for more than 20 minutes.

Eh, don't think it's really fair to bring "logic" into a discussion about religion. The whole science v. religion thing is bull**** anyways.

Same could be said with Atheists, and on the internet, the number becomes 1 level headed : Five loud idiots. Hell, I'm a loud(And many times idiotic) Atheist, but only because I love arguing the subject.

Same could be said of everyone.

[quote]Eh, don't think it's really fair to bring "logic" into a discussion about religion. The whole science v. religion thing is bull**** anyways.

It is unfair in the sense that me trying to fistfight bruce lee would have been unfair: one is obviously superior to the other in every inherent regard.

[quote=WillisGreeny;831208]whoa, hold up der. Trying to disprove scientific theories is GREAT science. The whole point of replicating experiments is to see if the theory holds up. That's all science is capable of doing, making sure a theory always works. When a scientist asks questions and then researches existing theories, they then set out to discover ways the theory doesn't apply or work inorder to disprove the theory, (disproving and expanding are almost identical. if a conclusion doesn't incoperate all evidence that supports it it is then thrown out).

If I made a car that could levitate with poop and shown you how it works, I would have disproven all the science that said antigravity vehicles were impossible to make with poop (I wonder if people have actually done experiments with this?).

A man just the other day figured out how to make salt water ignite using radio waves, giving an increase in energy output. Ask a scientist a few weeks later before that and he would say such a process would be impossible. Why? because the current theories suggested it was impossible. Now, the books have to rewritten, and the man who stumbled apon the discovery did great science without even setting out to do so...Actually he was trying to cure cancer...google it...it's kinda funny.

Science never said igniting saltwater is impossible. The crazy f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cker just thinks it can be used as a source of fuel, he doesn't realise he spends more energy igniting it than what's released.

I disagree that science is all disproving theories that are already well established, if that's all we spent our time doing we'd never get anywhere. You'd be paying to redo work that's already been done, it's a waste of resources. It's better to assume it's right, extrapolate it and only assume it's wrong if you have evidence to back it up. Assuming everything we know is wrong and working to prove it from the offset is flat-out stupid, and science doesn't DO stupid.

EDIT: The amount of people that think scientists are just as close-minded as evangelicals is worrying. A good scientist will believe ANYTHING if there's evidence for it. Any scientist worth his salt doesn't just think he argues with logic, it's the basis of his entire profession. The fact that many scientists regard their explanation for the universe as superior to anything the bible has isn't arrogance or close-mindedness, their explanation simply IS superior because thousands of people around the world work their asses off keeping it as updated and as accurate as possible. The opposing side hasn't any work for thousands of years and they don't listen to reason, why the fuck should both explanations be held as equals?

Religious people have an excuse for their idiocy, while scientists don't. That only reflects badly on them because there's no frame of reference for how many true morons are out there. For every scientist attempting to disprove God, there is a religious person utilizing facts to try and prove their favor. Let the fools argue and quite judging the concepts themselves based on it.

I should stop posting crap in this thread to make room for LoS.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason
Reason:
"1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument."

I wont tear you in half, because I'm pretty sure you're joking:cookie:

And it should be apparent that in discussions such as these, the main focus of "science" as a group of people is rel scientists, the bulk of which will adhere to proper principles. Sure, there are always going to be deviations, but to claim any sort of generality based on those deviations would be like me claiming that all catholic priests are liar, law dodging pedophiles.

[QUOTE=S

My mistake, I pretty much said the same earlier when talking about Atheists.

[QUOTE=S

"I was joking, but I think you verified my jest? Reason is closely related to logic, therefore insinuating that by having "reason", religious people are using a form of logic. Divide by zero."

They have reason as defined by one and two, i.e. there are causes that lead them to think what they think. however, in regards to 3-6, there is often a woeful lack. Multiplied by infinity.

[quote=WillisGreeny;831819]I don't think you looked into this quite enough. Generating a spark and producing a radio wave requires very little energy (creating a radio wave takes less energy than producing a microwave, mind you) compared to buying, creating, and maintaining gasoline production. Those involved with the studies say there's plenty of surplus energy in the process to make it useful, not just the crazy man who stumpled apon it. And as for science aspect, the theory was radio waves couldn't make something combustable, NOT that salt water couldn't be set on fire. Evidently, by using radio waves you can make the molecules act in the right shape to be set on fire instead of just heating the molecule to break down. The only problem is you need more and more salt to continue the reaction... Hello Ocean!

Link me to the theory that said it couldn't be done and the discovery that you're talking about. I've seen several "discoveries" like this and they've all been a pile of fail.

EDIT: Nevermind, looked it up myself. It's bogus. The water only burns while being shot at with radio waves, there's no self-sustaining chain reaction there. All the radio waves are doing is seperating the hydrogen and oxygen and burning it, it's just electrolisis. It takes more energy to seperate them than you get from burning them. It's not the water that's burning but the two elements of water, it's pretty well established in science that hydrogen burns. The guy thinks water is an element for f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck's sake.

Today I discovered my own source of fuel, though. I put a CD in the microwave and there were sparks everywhere! High school science never told me about it so I must have discovered something that physicists have overlooked!

Electrolisis would be the answer...if a current of electricity was involved for separation of the elements oppose to a EMW. Radio waves != Electricity. What matters is how much of a surplus can be gained from the reaction, factoring out the machine that is producing the radio waves, it's not good. So far, more work has to be done, but it's hardly a crack pot theory. As much as I would love to debate this with you, I clearly see you think you're the authority on chemistry...even though I've taken plenty of chemistry classes myself.

Science has tentative answers which make sense within the framework of current theory, with a few niggling exceptions. Religion just goes "lol *** did it".

One is helpful to humanity, one isnt. See if you can guess which is which!'

and whoever deleted me *****smacking willis down is an infantile prick :cookie:

[quote=WillisGreeny]Electrolisis would be the answer...if a current of electricity was involved for separation of the elements oppose to a EMW. Radio waves != Electricity. What matters is how much of a surplus can be gained from the reaction, factoring out the machine that is producing the radio waves, it's not good. So far, more work has to be done, but it's hardly a crack pot theory. As much as I would love to debate this with you, I clearly see you think you're the authority on chemistry...even though I've taken plenty of chemistry classes myself.

I didn't mean it was LITERALLY electrolisis, just that it didn't do much more.

I haven't said or implied that I'm any kind of scientific authority, but you definately aren't. The fact is that you're supporting this "amazing discovery" without tackling any of the questions I've asked just proves it. Again, show me the theory in physics that says this is impossible and tell me how this could be remotely useful if it uses more energy than it produces. Fuck, show me a recent article on it to prove that it hasn't been swept under the carpet as crackpot nonsense and it's actually a new field of scientific research.

The very fact you you think that this disproves any theory just because no one's done it before is astounding. It's like saying inventing a new form of the combustion engine automatically breaks those laws of thermodynamics just because no one's done it yet.

You can't decide who's a scientific authority unless you actually are one, so that's a fallacy of credability. And as I said before, two professors of physics are currently researching the phenomina, and probably won't release their results until it's conclusive. As for science, Science can't reveal truth. It uses theories that are well tested, and if a test proves a theory wrong it then gets tossed. The point I've been making is a scientist who sets out to prove a theory wrong usually will find the theory to be correct. That's how theories GET well tested, by scientists trying to see how they don't work. That's a great scientist. My example with the salt water was just something I read happened recently. The laws of physics this phenomina is breaking I was presuming to be the Law of Combustion and that light waves are actually stimulating the salt water molecules to change their energy exchange limits into a combustable state, Which I thought the only way to do this was to change the compression of the system with either heat or electrolisis. I'm not an expert, no, but I did see how this could be possible. You're getting bent out of shape to insult my inteligence for what? An e-penis enlargment? Well ok. I think it's a neat possability, and until I read the articles of the scientists still researching it I won't be entierly convinced either. However, I don't see what's wrong with defending the theory until it's actually proven to be bogus from the higher up intelectuals.

Science increases the tl;dr factor tenfold

[quote]You can't decide who's a scientific authority unless you actually are one

Then who decides if you're a scientific authority? Other ones? Who decides if they are? DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOUR STATEMENT IS YET OR DO I HAVE TO KEEP GOING FOREVER

[quote]Science can't reveal truth

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING

[quote=WillisGreeny;833416]You can't decide who's a scientific authority unless you actually are one, so that's a fallacy of credability. And as I said before, two professors of physics are currently researching the phenomina, and probably won't release their results until it's conclusive.

Again, sources, sir. As in where the hell did you hear this. There's no reason for me to believe this when you're not giving me one. I've heard this story several times over the past few years, each time it's turned out to be completely bogus.

[quote=WillisGreeny;833416]As for science, Science can't reveal truth. It uses theories that are well tested, and if a test proves a theory wrong it then gets tossed. The point I've been making is a scientist who sets out to prove a theory wrong usually will find the theory to be correct. That's how theories GET well tested, by scientists trying to see how they don't work. That's a great scientist.

I think we're arguing from two entirely different perspectives. From a pinciple point of view sure, challenging theories is the basis of good science. But in terms of practicality it's a waste of resources to challenge every theory in sight regardless of how well established and proven they might be with no evidence whatsoever.

[quote=WillisGreeny;833416]My example with the salt water was just something I read happened recently. The laws of physics this phenomina is breaking I was presuming to be the Law of Combustion and that light waves are actually stimulating the salt water molecules to change their energy exchange limits into a combustable state, Which I thought the only way to do this was to change the compression of the system with either heat or electrolisis. I'm not an expert, no, but I did see how this could be possible.

I thought it was radio waves and not light? There's a pretty huge difference.

[quote=WillisGreeny;833416]You're getting bent out of shape to insult my inteligence for what? An e-penis enlargment? Well ok. I think it's a neat possability, and until I read the articles of the scientists still researching it I won't be entierly convinced either. However, I don't see what's wrong with defending the theory until it's actually proven to be bogus from the higher up intelectuals.

You don't see what's wrong with defending a theory that has no evidence or research to back it up? Weren't you trying to tell me what being a good scientist is?

[quote=WillisGreeny;834789]Is that your debunking statment?

No, it's merely a question.

[quote=WillisGreeny;834789]That's sorta like saying "I thought it was ice, not water". A radio wave is still a light wave, and to say otherwize would make James Clerk Maxwell cry, and those taking physics and radio astronomy bust their guts laughing.

They're both different sections of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are not the same thing. Saying they are the same because they're different parts of the same spectrum is like saying red and blue are the same colour. Hell, it's like saying lead and gold are the same because the're both made of protons, electrons and neutrons.


[quote=WillisGreeny;834789] As for my source to understanding Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, here:

[URL]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nmr.html[/URL]


Can't really remember why I'd need a source of that and I don't see how it'd be proof of your understanding, but it's certainly beyond my level of comprehension.

[quote=WillisGreeny;834789]My evidence is from the expert's reactions, not Speedfreak's highschool thermodynamic calculations.

Okay, stop. I'm not going to continue discussing this with you if you keep saying that. All I have done is disagree with you, why the defensiveness?

[quote=WillisGreeny;834789]PhD Rustum Roy is a chemist professor, specialized in water structures, and for some reason he thought he should help in this "crazzy nut" man's research. Whatever evidence there is, it's convincing enough for experts to bother traveling to Pennsylvania. Until I read the expert's evidence, I'm leaving it plausable. You don't see what's wrong with bashing any new idea that challenges past understanding of natural science?

I thought this was another example of several similar stories where someone messing around with saltwater does something that appears amazing, but actually isn't when a real scientist get's involved.

Regardless, I read the article you linked. The fact that they mention zero-point energy as a possible explanation only made me more sceptical. With respect, I'll believe this when I see it.

Regardless, this proves nothing. This discovery was not made through setting out to disprove any theory. They chanced upon it and when they found there was no theory that explained it they started research.

Anyone working working from disproving a well-established theory as the basis of research is wasting their time, because they have no reason to not believe that theory in the first place. And that is unscientific.

[quote]Light, or visible light, is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400–700 nm). In a scientific context, the word light is sometimes used to refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.[1] Light is composed of elementary particles called photons.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Light = Visible part only.

:cookie:

I love how discussing religion always leads into arguments about everything from science to the ****ing light spectrum.

Did you not even read your own quote? In a scientific context, the word light is sometimes used to refer to the entire electromegnetic spectrum.

Light = Electromegnetic spectrum &| visible light.

source:
[quote=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light]
1. Physics
a. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.
b. Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.


If I say light, and then switch to radio waves, it's kinda obvious which letter I'm refering to.

:cookie:

btw, you revived this thread earlier, so suffer the consequences.

Where's Vamp when you need a thread split?

oh wait we already have a handy dandy smod in this thread, maybe he'll do something!

[quote=WillisGreeny;839101] Sorry I'm not a sheep, but you've been indirectly criticizing my understanding of science since the get go

No, I've been directly criticising your understanding of science. The basis of our discussion is our understanding of science, how else can I disagree with you other than by criticising your understanding?

[quote=WillisGreeny;839101]If I say light, and then switch to radio waves, it's kinda obvious which letter I'm refering to.

Honestly, I've never heard of the entire elctromagnetic spectrum being referred to as light, especially since only a small fraction is visible.

Nevertheless, radio waves and light are not interchangable terms in this context. Radio waves specifically are what ignites salt water, not the visible light part of the spectrum or any wavelength on the electromagnetic (light if you prefer) spectrum.

[quote=WillisGreeny;839101]As a basis, no, but as part of the experimentation process, it's very important.

Well then, we don't disagree at all. That was fun.

[quote]
Did you not even read your own quote? In a scientific context, the word light is sometimes used to refer to the entire electromegnetic spectrum.

Lol, Self pwn on my part.

Hey, hey, hey Would Spirituality count as religion? (native american spirituality to be exact)

[quote=WillisGreeny;839369]Taking some anstronomy classes would change that. Radio waves and X rays are all considered the same when calculating distances. Sometimes, just measuring the waves with other waves (done to figure out rotation of an object) is more imporant than what part of the spectrum the waves are in.

As for me saying radio waves and light interchangably, my understanding says it's ok. radio waves could ignite water, and radio waves is a wave length of light. And I doubt radio waves is the only wave length that can do this; I'm sure the range exceeds into microwaves.

Even so, microwaves and radiowaves still don't cover the entire magnetic spectrum. It's like saying "mushrooms kill people" when only a few kinds do.

Yeah, that holds up in a scientific discussion.

Is that so?

A Photon is just a hypothetical particle model of light for explaining why it behaves like a wave and a particle. So, ofcourse light would travel the speed of light...

Netutrinos are now thought to be moving slower than the speed of light because scientists have figured out its mass.
[url=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1497]Source[/url]

Rusty pwnage LoS...rusty.

The Millennium Falcon moves at the speed of light. Would you call the Millennium Falcon light?

You cannot break my logic. It is infallible.

“I believe in Gad, only I spell it Nature.” -Frank Lloyd Wright
Oh Yeah!

Athiests are hard core anti-religion!!! They should be banashed to China, or even better, Cuba!

I learn that Christianity is the only true religion when it comes to the miracle healing of incurable diseases. Puzzled doctors who do not accept religion for treating patients might think what I think that religion could be the key secret to unlock and release positive strong emotions every single minute such as fearlessness and laughter from the brain, so that new brain cells can grow to fight cancer and viruses around the body. Supernatural magic although unproven by science remains hidden until Jesus Christ's return even if waiting might seem forever. ::cool:o

You never fail to contribute your own special brand of completely incoherent and totaly retarded gibberish. Die in a fire.