Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elton John: ban organised religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Provost Harrison


    Give up, they insist it is. You see, no theist seems to be capable of comprehending the concept of atheism...
    Actually no theist seems capable of comprehending a rational argument, hence the fact that they insist that atheism is a faith...

    Not to mention that although they believe in God(s), they can't seem to agree which one(s) is/are real, or who is/isn't going to Heaven/Nirvana/Mingapulco etc...
    Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

    Comment


    • You, sirrah, are a disgrace to dragon-flags.
      1011 1100
      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

      Comment


      • Has Santa Claus been disproven yet?
        In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elok
          But all you're showing is that religious beliefs are not scientifically valid--so what?
          How did he show that at all?

          JM
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment


          • Assuming he doesn't transcend traditional physics, yes. I'm too lazy to look up the smart-aleck web page detailing the reasons. Now, could you point me to a group of adults who seriously worship Santa (preferably in an organized fashion), thus making your question relevant to the thread topic?
            1011 1100
            Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elok
              Assuming he doesn't transcend traditional physics, yes. I'm too lazy to look up the smart-aleck web page detailing the reasons. Now, could you point me to a group of adults who seriously worship Santa (preferably in an organized fashion), thus making your question relevant to the thread topic?


              That's exactly JM's point... that you can't disprove the existence of anything that is defined as transcending the known boundaries of physics. Why should it matter to his argument that people believe in it or not?
              In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

              Comment


              • Wait, OB, which side are you arguing for?
                1011 1100
                Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                Comment


                • The side of science? (so it appears from the post you ar replying to)

                  JM
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment


                  • I'm against the believers... what do you find misleading in my post?
                    In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                    Comment


                    • Well, it could be read...ngh, n/m.

                      Okay, so you mean that to be against believers. How much of what Perfection says are you endorsing, then? I don't know that I agree with JM at all, though I can't tell since I'm not 100% sure what he's talking about. Some sort of theoretical theo-physics of the future or some such? Anyway, from a "scientific" perspective (the term here referring to my understanding and I believe also Perfection's, not whatever it means when JM uses it), that Santa is unprovable is indeed all that matters, for the sake of Science alone.

                      However, where God differs from Santa is that God is relevant to non-naturalistic things; Santa accomplishes ludicrously unfeasible things, but all as a physical being within the physical world for the sake of physical ends (ie, delivering crap to all the good boys and girls). Nobody that I know of has had a transcendental experience of Santa. Santa only uses the transcendent as a way out of objections to his existence, rather than being transcendent in and of himself. Crap, I'm not explaining this well at all. What I mean is, calling belief in Santa a religion is a gross oversimplification of what religion means. Religion isn't physics, it's metaphysics.

                      God is not within the scope of science, but that means nothing unless science is the only discipline of thought worth considering (as I believe Perfection is implying). Perfection says (correct me if I'm wrong) that all other disciplines are unnecessary complications, or something like that. Except he just admitted that morality is arbitrary, and his statements about intellectual honesty appear to be normative. He implies that it is "wrong" to be intellectually dishonest. So religion is wrong...but only in an arbitrary way. I guess. Barring a scientific, prescriptive, non-arbitrary theory of morality he can come up with, he's contradicting himself, no?

                      EDIT: Just to clarify, all this is assuming that morality is regarded as a necessary thing, and thus worthy of exploration and explanation. In which case science damn well better be able to explain it, or Perfection's argument is toast.
                      1011 1100
                      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                      Comment


                      • I have made no discussion of theology at all. My concern that I raised, was that Perfection claims that his lack of beleif in God was founded upon science. I pointed out that there was no experiment which could be done to shed light on the matter, so science was not applicable.

                        He than said that something could be scientific only via application of Occam's Razor.. which is obviously rediculous (via a short overview of the history of mondern physics).

                        Oncle Boris at least agrees with me that you can't disprove the existence of something that you can't experiment on (And I think Perfection might have ended up seeing my point as well?). He, and Perfection, than use other, nonscientific, standards (I think Occam's Razor) to justify their unbeleif in god(s).

                        Personally I beleive in God because I want to.. as well as having experience of Him working in my life.

                        JM
                        Jon Miller-
                        I AM.CANADIAN
                        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elok
                          Not really. I've heard all this junk before, and it still doesn't impress me. All it shows me is that you've got a hard-on for science and you think your inability to view the world by any other means indicates that other means do not exist. I'm rather fond of science myself, though I don't know much about it; being an asthmatic, I'd be dead if I'd been born a century earlier. But all you're showing is that religious beliefs are not scientifically valid--so what? They're not intended to be.
                          How else can we can determine validity but through scientific methodologies? What gives properties of rigor, verifiability, and utility to religion? It seems more like blind emotionalism then anything useful in determining truth.
                          APOSTOLNIK BEANIE BERET BICORNE BIRETTA BOATER BONNET BOWLER CAP CAPOTAIN CHADOR COIF CORONET CROWN DO-RAG FEDORA FEZ GALERO HAIRNET HAT HEADSCARF HELMET HENNIN HIJAB HOOD KABUTO KERCHIEF KOLPIK KUFI MITRE MORTARBOARD PERUKE PICKELHAUBE SKULLCAP SOMBRERO SHTREIMEL STAHLHELM STETSON TIARA TOQUE TOUPEE TRICORN TRILBY TURBAN VISOR WIG YARMULKE ZUCCHETTO

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elok Nobody that I know of has had a transcendental experience of Santa. Santa only uses the transcendent as a way out of objections to his existence, rather than being transcendent in and of himself. Crap, I'm not explaining this well at all. What I mean is, calling belief in Santa a religion is a gross oversimplification of what religion means. Religion isn't physics, it's metaphysics.
                            Trancendental experiences are physical events and thus fall under the umbrella of stuff science is allowed to explore. Religion, in my view, is an archiac knowledge system that should be supplanted by science.

                            Originally posted by Elok
                            God is not within the scope of science, but that means nothing unless science is the only discipline of thought worth considering (as I believe Perfection is implying).
                            There are other disciplines worth considering, aesthetic disciplines (art, literature, music etc.), and ethical disciplines (political philosophy, bioethics, law, etc.), I just consider that science (and the philosophy of science) is the only discipline worth considering for epistimology.

                            Originally posted by Elok
                            Perfection says (correct me if I'm wrong) that all other disciplines are unnecessary complications, or something like that. Except he just admitted that morality is arbitrary, and his statements about intellectual honesty appear to be normative. He implies that it is "wrong" to be intellectually dishonest. So religion is wrong...but only in an arbitrary way. I guess. Barring a scientific, prescriptive, non-arbitrary theory of morality he can come up with, he's contradicting himself, no?
                            Yes, intellectual honesty is a normative claim, but one I think has general acceptance and one we can build off of. If you think intellectual honesty is uneccesary my argument won't work (unless I can appeal to your values for you to reevaluate that). Of course, if you don't view that intellectual honesty is important, why are you debating the philosophy of science?

                            Originally posted by Elok
                            EDIT: Just to clarify, all this is assuming that morality is regarded as a necessary thing, and thus worthy of exploration and explanation. In which case science damn well better be able to explain it, or Perfection's argument is toast.
                            Science can only explain/explore morality from an anthropological/nuerochemical/sociological/etc.. perspective. It can't make normative claim. This does not make my argument toast, it just limits it to those who value intellectual honesty.
                            APOSTOLNIK BEANIE BERET BICORNE BIRETTA BOATER BONNET BOWLER CAP CAPOTAIN CHADOR COIF CORONET CROWN DO-RAG FEDORA FEZ GALERO HAIRNET HAT HEADSCARF HELMET HENNIN HIJAB HOOD KABUTO KERCHIEF KOLPIK KUFI MITRE MORTARBOARD PERUKE PICKELHAUBE SKULLCAP SOMBRERO SHTREIMEL STAHLHELM STETSON TIARA TOQUE TOUPEE TRICORN TRILBY TURBAN VISOR WIG YARMULKE ZUCCHETTO

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Miller
                              I have made no discussion of theology at all. My concern that I raised, was that Perfection claims that his lack of beleif in God was founded upon science. I pointed out that there was no experiment which could be done to shed light on the matter, so science was not applicable.

                              He than said that something could be scientific only via application of Occam's Razor.. which is obviously rediculous (via a short overview of the history of mondern physics).
                              It's not obvious to me, and I don't think it's obvious to anyone else either. Please elucidate this.

                              The only argument I can see that you've attempted is saying that sccientific thoery has gotten more complex but that does not invalidate my argument as the explantory power has greatly increased.

                              The rule is that explinations should be as succinct as possible while still explaining the same amount of phenomena and it does have a history of application in science. By this mechanism God fails the test.
                              APOSTOLNIK BEANIE BERET BICORNE BIRETTA BOATER BONNET BOWLER CAP CAPOTAIN CHADOR COIF CORONET CROWN DO-RAG FEDORA FEZ GALERO HAIRNET HAT HEADSCARF HELMET HENNIN HIJAB HOOD KABUTO KERCHIEF KOLPIK KUFI MITRE MORTARBOARD PERUKE PICKELHAUBE SKULLCAP SOMBRERO SHTREIMEL STAHLHELM STETSON TIARA TOQUE TOUPEE TRICORN TRILBY TURBAN VISOR WIG YARMULKE ZUCCHETTO

                              Comment


                              • Dude, you aren't worth my time to reply to anymore on this subject.

                                Just please, please stay as far away from any scientific endeavour as possible. I don't want you screwing up science.

                                JM
                                Jon Miller-
                                I AM.CANADIAN
                                GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X