Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shadowy Man · 03-02-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kvalhion
Another argument from ignorance. I am sure at some point in the past, people felt gravity as the hand of god holding them to the earth. Did this mean they were wrong?

Not necessarily. It just means that the "hand of god" has a one over r squared dependence.

Jamie_L · 03-03-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Science is a way to describe reality. Religion is a way to describe reality.

Religion is not the same as science. Religion is half of science.

Science works like this:
Observation: X.
Hypothesis: Y causes X.
Test: Validate that Y causes X. If it turns out that Y doesn't cause X, come up with a new hypothesis.

Religion works like this:
Observation: X.
Hypothesis: Y causes X.

Religion does not test. It does not seek validation. It just assumes correctness. It bases this assumption on internal feelings and revelations. And this isn't a knock on Christianity, but all religions. It's the fundamental difference between religion and science. Science is not something to be believed it. Science is not a philosophy or a worldview, it is merely a process. Religion is not a process, it is a statement, an unfounded assertion.

Jamie

AmericanHeretic · 03-04-2003, 03:18 AM

Religion makes assertions about reality, and cultivates authority and purported heightened moral status in hopes that it becomes above questioning. Religion does NOT describe reality, it overlays it and adds mythology to it. Reality exists exactly as it is, and religion adds it's mythic content over it in a blatant attempt to claim it as it's created property.
Not once, in any case, in all of history, in efforts by any religion, has one single myth been proven true. Religion operates in an Absolute Factual Void.

All religion is factually unsupported.

Science describes reality and uses data to build theories. Sciences uses so much data that the sheer bulk is hard to grasp without some study on a given matter at hand. Sciences always uses all available facts and none are discarded. Science uses objective methods that effectively weed out personal bias and invalid data and provides us with literally pure, clean, and true information.

All science is factually supported.

Genesis says God created the Earth in 6 days. But science says the Big Bang created the universe as we know it today, through complex and interwoven means derived from many sciences providing data from many angles and all of the data, without exception, supports the theory. What evidence is there for Genesis? None. Not a shred.
We KNOW that Genesis didn't occur. Are you not aware of this? The Big Bang describes reality, yet, Genesis asserts a supernatural version of events that flies in the face of a tremendously large body of fact and a completely cohesive theory that fully explains the nature of the universe.

In no way is religion the equal of science. To claim so, is mere myth, again, devoid of any factual support whatsoever.

That is the problem with religion, it uses myth to support itself, and adherents make up new myths to help maintain the original myths.

I think that is not honest. Science is honest.

Darth Dane · 03-04-2003, 03:44 AM

Yoga amongst others, claim to have the "science" to discover the truths of their statements.
The scriptures of Yoga, even contain "recipes" on how to know the ultimate truth, on how to levitate, on how to see auras, on how to sweat in the mountains without clothes on and so on.

The "science" is there, you just need to try their methods and see if they give the expected result.

But if you discount their science based on a previous belief, then you wont even test reality and see if the Yogi's was right about what they said.

The yogi's say that they can't say to you what is good and bad, but they can say that if you touch redhot iron, you will get burnt. Whether that is good or bad is solely based on you.

Meditation is a way to "enlightenment", but did you try to see if they were correct?

Did you TEST reality? Did you test that reality that these beings offer you as a solution?

I did, and I found that the things I tried to verify was verified.
I didn't actively try to levitate, so I haven't tested reality on that issue, but to dismiss it, is IMHO silly, what if it was possible if I tried?
I know it is possible to levitate, but I don't need to have my belief verified, it isn't nessacary.

DD - Love Spliff

PerhapsItsTruth · 03-06-2003, 02:49 PM

In the Conclusion, the first sentence says this, "The burden of proof is not on the person who denies a claim. The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim." What's so funny to me is that while the believer makes the claim that is god is real, at the same time the atheist claims that the god is not real. Another funny thing is that an atheist attempts to get out of his claim by saying it isn't a claim but a statement in lack of belief of the claim made by the believer. Which, obviously, is absurd. Anytime an atheist says, "There is no god," then he makes his own claim. Which by logic, reason, and that conclusion, he has to prove.

-Perhaps

Shadowy Man · 03-06-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
Anytime an atheist says, "There is no god," then he makes his own claim. Which by logic, reason, and that conclusion, he has to prove.

You are correct, which is why very few people here will actually make that claim.

Philosoft · 03-06-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
In the Conclusion, the first sentence says this, "The burden of proof is not on the person who denies a claim. The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim." What's so funny to me is that while the believer makes the claim that is god is real, at the same time the atheist claims that the god is not real. Another funny thing is that an atheist attempts to get out of his claim by saying it isn't a claim but a statement in lack of belief of the claim made by the believer. Which, obviously, is absurd. Anytime an atheist says, "There is no god," then he makes his own claim. Which by logic, reason, and that conclusion, he has to prove.

That's silly. You would have some completely unreasonable burden of proof in every case of mere utterance of a concept. By your logic, if I told you I had a pink stapler on my desk that did my proofreading, you would inherit a burden of proof the moment you said, "No, you don't." Pink, proofreading staplers are analogous to God in that they both violate established criteria of physical possibility. Have you ever heard the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

Darth Dane · 03-06-2003, 03:36 PM

If you say that there is a pink stapler on your desk, and teh desk and stapler are not in visible contact with us. I can say; No there is not. When we want to ascertain the truth, we need to go to the desk. Then we have both seen the same truth. That either there is a pink stapler or not. When we have seen the same thing it becomes the truth for us.

First guy: God exists

Second guy: God doesn't exist

FG: I have seen God

SG: Show me!

FG: I can't

SG: Why not?

FG: You have to go alone and see God alone.

SG: I don't know where to go, what shall I do?

FG: Some have said that the son of God walked on earth, and he said that the kingdom of Heaven is in your heart, in Love. In heaven you will see God. I can point you to it, but there is a special entrance just for you, where I can't enter from. I have to enter from the entrance made for me. The vision of God is unique for you as well as for me, and through Love can we join our visions.

Love is teh key, the way and the goal. The holy trinity in One

DD - Love Spliff

Philosoft · 03-06-2003, 04:23 PM

Darth, you miss the point entirely. Use any ill-defined concept that purports to violate established physical paradigms. The Invisible Pink Unicorn will do. Claiming a burden of proof exists for a disbelief will totally undermine rational thought.

Darth Dane · 03-07-2003, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Darth, you miss the point entirely. Use any ill-defined concept that purports to violate established physical paradigms. The Invisible Pink Unicorn will do. Claiming a burden of proof exists for a disbelief will totally undermine rational thought.

Thats my first "knowledge", I realize I can't KNOW anything, only when I see can I say I know. But a man said once; "I dreamt I was a butterfly, now I wonder if I am me dreaming he was a butterfly, or if I am a butterfly dreaming he is me!

What is real? Impulses in your brain (matrix....)!

Anyones world is solely based on belief. belief that I exist as me, that you exist, that the planet exist. Now I meet you, and you speak, you have the word, and you can tell me your reality.

You hold teh image of God and teh word, both from the bible.

Sokrates said the same thing; "I know I know nothing" The paradigm that you are looking for is right there.

DD - Love Spliff

03-04-2003, 03:18 AM	#33
AmericanHeretic Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 'Merica dammit Posts: 40	science, data, and theory, versus mere myth Religion makes assertions about reality, and cultivates authority and purported heightened moral status in hopes that it becomes above questioning. Religion does NOT describe reality, it overlays it and adds mythology to it. Reality exists exactly as it is, and religion adds it's mythic content over it in a blatant attempt to claim it as it's created property. Not once, in any case, in all of history, in efforts by any religion, has one single myth been proven true. Religion operates in an Absolute Factual Void. All religion is factually unsupported. Science describes reality and uses data to build theories. Sciences uses so much data that the sheer bulk is hard to grasp without some study on a given matter at hand. Sciences always uses all available facts and none are discarded. Science uses objective methods that effectively weed out personal bias and invalid data and provides us with literally pure, clean, and true information. All science is factually supported. Genesis says God created the Earth in 6 days. But science says the Big Bang created the universe as we know it today, through complex and interwoven means derived from many sciences providing data from many angles and all of the data, without exception, supports the theory. What evidence is there for Genesis? None. Not a shred. We KNOW that Genesis didn't occur. Are you not aware of this? The Big Bang describes reality, yet, Genesis asserts a supernatural version of events that flies in the face of a tremendously large body of fact and a completely cohesive theory that fully explains the nature of the universe. In no way is religion the equal of science. To claim so, is mere myth, again, devoid of any factual support whatsoever. That is the problem with religion, it uses myth to support itself, and adherents make up new myths to help maintain the original myths. I think that is not honest. Science is honest.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2003, 03:44 AM	#34
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Yoga amongst others, claim to have the "science" to discover the truths of their statements. The scriptures of Yoga, even contain "recipes" on how to know the ultimate truth, on how to levitate, on how to see auras, on how to sweat in the mountains without clothes on and so on. The "science" is there, you just need to try their methods and see if they give the expected result. But if you discount their science based on a previous belief, then you wont even test reality and see if the Yogi's was right about what they said. The yogi's say that they can't say to you what is good and bad, but they can say that if you touch redhot iron, you will get burnt. Whether that is good or bad is solely based on you. Meditation is a way to "enlightenment", but did you try to see if they were correct? Did you TEST reality? Did you test that reality that these beings offer you as a solution? I did, and I found that the things I tried to verify was verified. I didn't actively try to levitate, so I haven't tested reality on that issue, but to dismiss it, is IMHO silly, what if it was possible if I tried? I know it is possible to levitate, but I don't need to have my belief verified, it isn't nessacary. DD - Love Spliff

03-06-2003, 02:49 PM	#35
PerhapsItsTruth Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 20	In the Conclusion, the first sentence says this, "The burden of proof is not on the person who denies a claim. The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim." What's so funny to me is that while the believer makes the claim that is god is real, at the same time the atheist claims that the god is not real. Another funny thing is that an atheist attempts to get out of his claim by saying it isn't a claim but a statement in lack of belief of the claim made by the believer. Which, obviously, is absurd. Anytime an atheist says, "There is no god," then he makes his own claim. Which by logic, reason, and that conclusion, he has to prove. -Perhaps

03-06-2003, 03:36 PM	#38
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	If you say that there is a pink stapler on your desk, and teh desk and stapler are not in visible contact with us. I can say; No there is not. When we want to ascertain the truth, we need to go to the desk. Then we have both seen the same truth. That either there is a pink stapler or not. When we have seen the same thing it becomes the truth for us. First guy: God exists Second guy: God doesn't exist FG: I have seen God SG: Show me! FG: I can't SG: Why not? FG: You have to go alone and see God alone. SG: I don't know where to go, what shall I do? FG: Some have said that the son of God walked on earth, and he said that the kingdom of Heaven is in your heart, in Love. In heaven you will see God. I can point you to it, but there is a special entrance just for you, where I can't enter from. I have to enter from the entrance made for me. The vision of God is unique for you as well as for me, and through Love can we join our visions. Love is teh key, the way and the goal. The holy trinity in One DD - Love Spliff

03-06-2003, 04:23 PM	#39
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Darth, you miss the point entirely. Use any ill-defined concept that purports to violate established physical paradigms. The Invisible Pink Unicorn will do. Claiming a burden of proof exists for a disbelief will totally undermine rational thought.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.