Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

ALL other religons say you have to "work" your way into heaven and yes, In times past this docterine has crept into the Christian community but it is not supported by the bible.(Ephesians 2:8-9)

Except for those that don't believe in an afterlife, such as Shinto. Stop overstating things, you zealot.

Quote:

The Christian message says merely "believe that Jesus saves you" (Acts 4:8-12 & Romans 10:9)

Ah, no sir, that is hardly the catholic message. Not even the protestant message. Which branch of Christianity would you be speaking for, then? Belief in Jesus is not enough. Belief and atonement for sins, are. Which takes ritual. Which is working your way into heaven. Stop overstating things, you zealot.

Quote:

The atheist wager also does not hold water because it has no basis for assuming authority in spiritual matters. Not believing doesn't affect the two basic spiritual principals that have been understood by humanity since the dawn of civilization.

Since the dawn of civilization? Which civilization would that be? Care to back this up with some historical proof? Most early peoples didn't have a system of religion or belief, because they didn't have the sort of thought process necessary for it. Or are you going to tell me all about how cave drawings signify animism so I can bitch slap that out of your mouth, too? Stop overstating things, you zealot.

Also, do you know what else we believed at the height of civilization? That it was a good idea to stone women who were raped. We also understood that murdering your neighbour was a good idea if it got you his cattle and his women. Should we hold to those archaic precepts, too? Two basic spiritual principles. Please. Stop talking about things you clearly have no knowledge of, you uneducated prat.

Quote:

The atheist must come to the realization that no matter what they think there is a universe with laws we must conform to.

They do this. It's called science. Stop overstating things, you zealot.

Quote:

Because the bible tells me so. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Jeremiah 7:23, Hosea 6:6, John 14:15) God loves me enough to give me the choice to love him. Without free will Heaven & Hell wouldnt need to exist.

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. Leviticus 20;9.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. Leviticus 20:13

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. Deuteronomy 22:20-21

These are all in the bible, too. Are these canon? Do these shape your beliefs? Or are these just sort of... religious fanfiction?

And before you give me the "Jesus changed that" concept:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. -Numbers 23:19


You're the worst sort of christian, Lordsword. You cheapen your religion with your zealotry, you hurt intelligent, logical christians with your bullshit, and you insult intelligent people by attempting to argue your points in such a haphazard, hackneyed fashion. You've heard the lady doth protest too much? You seem to scream your faith in every post you make. Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?

Give it up, already.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Because the bible tells me so. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Jeremiah 7:23, Hosea 6:6, John 14:15)

Until you can give some evidence that the bible is a valid source of truth please refrain from using it as some sort of infallible guide in any serious argument.

It's a valid source of truth in and of his own worldview. But the problem exists because he thinks it should apply to EVERYONE'S worldview, which, quite obviously, it does not.

Quote:

I mean things like the chemicals reactions that occur in our brains.

I read a little bit of that site, which was quite interesting, I just dont see how it makes sense that every action that I make was predetermined by the chemicals and nuerotransmitters in my brain.

And I think you guys should give LordsSword a break, no one I have ever met could defend themselves against the onslaught of, like, ten intelligent, also "zealous" athiests.

Even if what he says starts to sound a really rediculous, and even though I dont agree with a thing he says, he's really smart.

Originally Posted by Token

Even if what he says starts to sound a really rediculous, and even though I dont agree with a thing he says, he's really smart.

If what he says starts to sound really ridiculous, then he's NOT especially intelligent, now is he? Because if what he said sounded credible and defensible, then we wouldn't have to lynch him in every thread he contributes to.

What he is, however, is focused. He has a singular world view that is incredibly entrenched, and unmovable. That's not intelligent, that's stubborn. My dog can be stubborn, and he may even be smart for a dog, but he still can't figure out that the dog on TV isn't real, but man o man, can he ever bark that fucker down every time he sees him.

Originally Posted by Token

I read a little bit of that site, which was quite interesting, I just dont see how it makes sense that every action that I make was predetermined by the chemicals and nuerotransmitters in my brain.

If not chemicals then where do are thoughts come from?

Originally Posted by Token

And I think you guys should give LordsSword a break, no one I have ever met could defend themselves against the onslaught of, like, ten intelligent, also "zealous" athiests.

I think I could handle myself fairly well agaisnt 10 intelligent, 'zealous' christians and have done so many times in the past. If you can not defend your position then you should either refrain from discussing it or abandon it.

Originally Posted by Token

Even if what he says starts to sound a really rediculous, and even though I dont agree with a thing he says, he's really smart.

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

Quote:

If what he says starts to sound really ridiculous, then he's NOT especially intelligent, now is he? Because if what he said sounded credible and defensible, then we wouldn't have to lynch him in every thread he contributes to.

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

Quote:

If not chemicals then where do are thoughts come from?

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

Originally Posted by Token

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

I don't know.

Like Deni said, the kid is pretty uneducated, closed-minded, and by your own claim, says "ridiculous" shit.

Tell me what's so intelligent about lacking critical thinking skills?

I expect LS is getting away with being called "smart" for no other reason than that he doesn't lose his temper. You can say some incredibly banal shit, and it'll still sound a little profound if you act like you're handing down wisdom from the mount.

Originally Posted by Token

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

It's his lack of conherant arguments that lead to the conclusion he lacks intelligence.

Originally Posted by Token

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

What causes your actions? Your thoughts. And what causes your thoughts? Chemical reactions in your brain.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

I expect LS is getting away with being called "smart" for no other reason than that he doesn't lose his temper. You can say some incredibly banal shit, and it'll still sound a little profound if you act like you're handing down wisdom from the mount.

I just hope he doesn't fall off his horse anytime soon. Its a long way down.

Quote:

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

You do not have any control over your actions, or anything else for that matter. As was said, your actions are ultimately the results of chemical and electrical functioning of your brain. The brain is composed of neurons, which in turn are made up of molecules, which themselves are made up of atoms, which are made of quarks. Now, we know that the universe is ruled by universal and immutable laws. Laws like gravity, and electromagnetism. All of the particles in the universe, including the particles in your brain, are subject to these laws, which cannot be broken. When particles, or atoms, or molecules interact, the result is determined by the laws governing the interaction.

Theoretically, if you had complete knowledge of all of the universe's particles, and a complete knowledge of all of the laws governing their behavior and interactions, you could predict the entire future of the universe with 100% accuracy, because you would know exactly what outcomes will result from any interaction. The cause and effect chains of these interactions would be laid bare before you, able to be traced all the way to the end of the universe. Likewise, these chains of cause and effect could also be traced, unbroken, all the way back until the very moment the universe came into existence, when all of the universal laws were created and matter came into existence. In that exact moment, the entire history of everything that would ever happen, ever, was set into stone.

Of course, some people believe that there is a certain element of randomness in the universe resulting from quantum effects. This may be true, but it still doesn't allow for free will. Instead of a determined will, you would instead have a random will. But at least your fate wouldn't be sealed. (Personally, I am a determinist.)

The above is what happens when science tries to explain human consciousness.

Are you saying that human consciousness can't be explained through science, or that it somehow functions outside of natural laws?

Sorry for the late reply, been fairly busy the past few days and I wanted to actually think when I was replying.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Again, how is this different from last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, as none of these proposals can be falsified in practical terms.

How is it any different than believing in the existence of particles we haven't observed yet or haven't determined a way to observe?

Quote:

Here's some more copy-and-pasting from the same article.

'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity)'

'Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Again, even with all of that, what is "as simple as possible but no simpler" can still be up to individual interpretation. Is it simpler to believe in the whole whatnot of the laws of the nature and that jazz, or is it easier to believe in something that put everything where it is. Frankly, I find nature to be a more beautifully simple explanation that I prefer it, but I understand how someone can feel it's just too absurd to happen on its own.

[quote]Skepticism is all well and good, but when it comes to things that can not be falsified then I find it best to disregard it rather than to stew over something that has no answer, other than 5 tons of flax of course.

I guess that's where we differ a little. I enjoy talking about all the different possibilities of what could be that we may not know. After all, what fun is science if you don't question everything?

Quote:

Snap, I don't believe in 'free will' either, although life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable if we allow ourselves the illusion that we have some sort of control over our actions.

Good to find a fellow determinist out there. Makes my solipsism rather frustrating since there seems to be nothing I can do to fight it.

I don't even know if I qualify as a solipsist since I'm not even sure if my own mind exists. ;_;

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

How is it any different than believing in the existence of particles we haven't observed yet or haven't determined a way to observe?

Could you give an example of a particle that we can neither directly observe, or observe the effects of.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Again, even with all of that, what is "as simple as possible but no simpler" can still be up to individual interpretation. Is it simpler to believe in the whole whatnot of the laws of the nature and that jazz, or is it easier to believe in something that put everything where it is. Frankly, I find nature to be a more beautifully simple explanation that I prefer it, but I understand how someone can feel it's just too absurd to happen on its own.

Again, the use of the word simple comes from paraphrasing and only used to give a quick insight into it. Personal interpretation has nothing to do with it, either an entity is neccesary for a theory to work, or it isn't.

'Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Quote:

I guess that's where we differ a little. I enjoy talking about all the different possibilities of what could be that we may not know. After all, what fun is science if you don't question everything?

I enjoy talking about it, but I try not to let the fact that I may be a butterflies dream intrude into my life.