Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Dalai Lama plans trip to Chicago. Evangelicals holding workshops on how to try and convert Buddhists to Christianity when they arrive. What could possibly go wrong?   (suntimes.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

12967 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2007 at 11:57 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



512 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-04-04 02:46:56 PM  
AcadianSidhe: Any ideology can result in violence. Hell, love and compassion can result in violence.

Usually, that's videotaped and put online.
 
2007-04-04 02:46:59 PM  
AcadianSidhe: Not always. That's like saying Democracy results in violence. Or Communism results in violence.

Any ideology can result in violence. Hell, love and compassion can result in violence. Most psychological conditions can result in violence.


Actually, if you want to get a little metaphysical, a personally held belief does always result in violence, the "what should be" vs. the "what is". The violence you see is just the more tangible effect of this very subtle conflict.

So yes, love is violence, as it seeks to see the world not as things are, but as the love struck person wants them to be.

Honestly this might be a bit too complex for this discussion though. Pragmatically speaking, you are correct, though it is a bit of a defeatist attitude as we are then forced to keep the things that will inevitably cause violence. This being the case, any sort morality must be thrown out the window because all the violence is the result of ideals which can easily be argued as right or wrong from either side.
 
2007-04-04 02:47:43 PM  
I'm pretty sure the 'witnessing' premise of the Christians is to go out and spread the Gospel to people who haven't already heard it. From what I know, a lot of followers of other religions tend to be pretty learned as to other faiths and already know about who Jesus was and just don't believe that he was the son of God. This is something completely foreign to many Christians. Mainstream Christians are so hellbent on making everyone else Christians because they just KNOW all of the other religions are completely wrong, that they never actually get around to learning about those faiths.

If there is a God, I'm pretty sure all of the religious roads lead to the same one. They're all paths to same end.
 
2007-04-04 02:48:09 PM  
legion_of_doo: If you DO the science, then I think it's more of a process. If you simply parrot what scientists say, then I think you're more in the faith category.

Oh, certainly--if you don't go and question the base assumptions and at least do a little research--that is to say, learn the science properly--then it will be, as it no doubt is for the majority of people out there, a question of whether they 'believe' it or not.

But science itself is a process--whether you 'believe' it or not makes no difference.

Not that I'm against having some faith in science (err, faith in man's ability to observe the universe), mind you...

I am--I don't think that it's a good idea to have (unquestioned) faith in anything. If you can't step through your reasoning from your base assumption to your final conclusion without a 'leap of faith' then you're not using logic--and hence, not using the scientific method.

/The base propositions being that the universe can be observed, and that it can be modelled with rules.
 
2007-04-04 02:48:10 PM  
pluerick
all my beloved followers shall travel fourth to the home of another true believer

Who will the first three be?
 
2007-04-04 02:48:29 PM  
AcadiansSidhe Wow, just wow.... Your statement "Hon, it's still hard to "know" when we DO have proof. Facts are only theories that have yet to be disproven. It's ALWAYS possible something only has yet to be disproven.
" is so far removed from anything intelligent. Farkers who read that are now dumber. Congrats!

Facts ARE THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN!
Theories are ideas that have been tested, and vehemently so to disprove them, and when that still fails, and stands the test of time, then it becomes a law or fact.
Also, you have no "proof" that a higher being exists, you simply believe because you have no other explination. Admitting you don't know is not the same as a wrong answer, it simply means you know that you do not understand and that possibilites do exist. Simple assumptions of such a grand scale are ignorant at best, you believe in proof in the abscence of logical evidence, which, is also ignorant and blindingly stupid. So, before you make shiat up about how the universe works, think about what you say, because it is wrong to make people dumber for spouting fecal matter everywhere.
 
2007-04-04 02:50:35 PM  
mp3sum

Honestly this might be a bit too complex for this discussion though. Pragmatically speaking, you are correct, though it is a bit of a defeatist attitude as we are then forced to keep the things that will inevitably cause violence. This being the case, any sort morality must be thrown out the window because all the violence is the result of ideals which can easily be argued as right or wrong from either side.


If there's no god/gods and nothing can be put down to human nature, then what are morals, except for personal beliefs? And if they are personal beliefs, doesn't that mean we can't trust them? If so, how are we to know how to conduct ourselves? Is it still wrong to kill and hurt?
 
2007-04-04 02:50:59 PM  
GiantRobot: You cannot use science to work out if the universe has been magiced out of nothing by a god or if it's just a dream or some computer program etc.

Sort of by definition, really. Those propositions would be supernatural--there is no meaningful way to test for them within the framework.

/Dawkins, who apparently thinks that one can test for the existence of G-d, is entirely wrong in that regard: a hypothetical omnipotent being would be entirely capable of negating any test for his or her existence, and the record of that being's inclinations specifically states that he or she would do so--"Thou shalt not test the Lord thy G-d"--and as such, the question is rendered moot.
 
2007-04-04 02:51:08 PM  
mp3sum

Correct, and science is merely a different form of faith, albeit one based on tested hypothesis rather than personal fears and desires. And as I said, you're close minded if you drop our psychological shortcomings into the bucket of "being human", thus labeling them a normal and indelible part of who we are. It is this very attitude that disallows real change in our universal psyche, thus spurring on the endless cycle of violence and war.


Man...before germs and bacteria were discovered, people believed disease was caused by the devil. Some people believed, yes *believed*, differently but they had no proof. They eventually made devices that allowed them to find the proof. Even still, they were thought of as crazy for believing tiny little creatures were the real cause of disease. Same thing with many of the sciences early on. People believed before they had proof, otherwise they would have never sought out the proof. That same mentality exists in science today, only we have stricter controls on it. But regardless, it still all comes down to belief. Some people believe dark matter exists given the evidence. Others believe there is another explaination for amount of mass in the universe. Either way, it's still a belief before proof can be produced. Belief is a very important part of science...
 
2007-04-04 02:51:42 PM  
muninsfire: Not really. There are a few base assumptions for the sake of arguement, but it's no more a matter of faith than, say, when you're doing a geometrical proof, the "Given: angle A is 30 degrees" is a matter of faith.

Confusing faith and logic will cause you problems in your reasoning.


Logic is based on faith. It is simply a human defined interpretation of the world that we use to make sense of things in terms that are deemed practical. There is nothing objective or concrete about it. The same goes for science and the language of mathematics, both of which hold no objective value (think a science lab without any humans in it).


GiantRobot: muninsfire
mp3sum: and science is merely a different form of faith,

Incorrect.

Science is a process--a logical series of statements built on earlier statements.

Yep.

Science is a means of observation. What it isn't, and I think this is what those that call it a faith are trying to get at, is a means of establishing an ontological model of the observable universe.

You cannot use science to work out if the universe has been magiced out of nothing by a god or if it's just a dream or some computer program etc. It can tell you about the interaction of observable phenomena, though.


Dude, the words ontological and observable and universe are all just conceptual constructs taught to you by another person so that you can break down your perceptual data and survive in this world. At a basic level, I can dispute any of these definitions by arguing the very building blocks from which they were created. Your science is just something you believe :(
 
2007-04-04 02:53:01 PM  
Biohazard24: Facts ARE THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN!

Er....no. Facts are observed phenomenae, that's all. You can't prove a fact--you can merely point to a record that it occurs.

It is a fact that there are clouds here. I can point to a fact (a picture out the window, or a radar image) that shows this. No theory about it.

(If you're talking about scientific theory, you're incorrect in the next bit, as well.)
 
2007-04-04 02:55:14 PM  
Everybody is Buddhist, they just don't know it.
 
2007-04-04 02:55:42 PM  
There are a plethora of base assumptions when you get right down to the reasoning behind science, our language, and all the sensory interpretation we make. The base of the building is built on faith, hence so are all the upper stories.

Okay so EVERYTHING is based on faith. Faith that existence exists. So science and religion are the same? Uhm. No. Science is constantly being challenged, updated, taken in different directions. Science doesn't still hold to Ptolemy. Why does religion still hold to 3000-year old malarky?
 
2007-04-04 02:56:09 PM  
AcadianSidhe: If there's no god/gods and nothing can be put down to human nature, then what are morals, except for personal beliefs? And if they are personal beliefs, doesn't that mean we can't trust them? If so, how are we to know how to conduct ourselves? Is it still wrong to kill and hurt?

That's the virtue of abandoning the religious model for morality. If you don't get to claim something is wrong just because God said so, then people will have to actually have to have a meaningful conversation about the subject.

To pick an obvious example, gay marriage. It's opponents simply say it's a sin and that's it. That's just one example of where religion prevents a meaningful discussion about right and wrong. And no, it won't be a perfect process, but it will be a hell of a lot better.
 
2007-04-04 02:56:59 PM  
Biohazard24
Wow, just wow.... Your statement is so far removed from anything intelligent. Farkers who read that are now dumber. Congrats!

Facts ARE THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN!


That's not what they taught in all my science classes. they taught facts are theories that have been tested repeatedly and had the same results over and over again in a controlled experiment. If you continue doing the experiment, there's a chance that, it may not always work. You can always test something again.

Moreover, however stupid you think I sound, you sound like a bigger asshole. I never said what I believed. Hell, I'm not always positive what I believe, because I like to allow for possibility.

I never tried to offer proof of a higher being, nor would I prove it or ask anyone else to prove it to me.
 
2007-04-04 02:57:37 PM  
mp3sum: Logic is based on faith

No. Logic is a system of rules that have been developed for people to solve problems. There's no faith in logic, merely a set of rules that describes how it works.

A basic logical statement is that if A=B and B=C then A=C.

Do I have to have faith in this? No--what would I have 'faith' in?

As regards its applicability to the real world: yes, there is a base assumption made that it will be considered useful for that. However, you will not find any reputable scientist out there who will claim that they will continue to consider the scientific method valid if this base assumption can be demonstrably shown to be false.

If they did have 'faith' then they would continue to consider it valid even if the assumption was shown to be false.


At a basic level, I can dispute any of these definitions by arguing the very building blocks from which they were created.

The other option is solipsism, which, yes, would negate everything and make all this meaningless. You're perfectly able to be a solipsist if you want; nobody's stopping you.

/I do have a cure for solipsism, but it requires a roll of duct tape, a chair, and a tire iron.
 
2007-04-04 02:58:35 PM  
AcadianSidhe: If there's no god/gods and nothing can be put down to human nature, then what are morals, except for personal beliefs? And if they are personal beliefs, doesn't that mean we can't trust them? If so, how are we to know how to conduct ourselves? Is it still wrong to kill and hurt?

Now you're getting somewhere... morals are just that, personal beliefs born out of a dualistic way of sense interpretation, ie. pain bad, pleasure good. Now as for the issue of trust, that depends whether you want to simply survive in this world or pursue some sort of objective reality, the latter not being conducive to one's survival according to Darwin. The negative association we have with killing and hurting simply developed from our need to survive as a species, and labeling these two things as wrong went a logn way towards this insuring this goal.


Bonehead: Man...before germs and bacteria were discovered, people believed disease was caused by the devil. Some people believed, yes *believed*, differently but they had no proof. They eventually made devices that allowed them to find the proof. Even still, they were thought of as crazy for believing tiny little creatures were the real cause of disease. Same thing with many of the sciences early on. People believed before they had proof, otherwise they would have never sought out the proof. That same mentality exists in science today, only we have stricter controls on it. But regardless, it still all comes down to belief. Some people believe dark matter exists given the evidence. Others believe there is another explaination for amount of mass in the universe. Either way, it's still a belief before proof can be produced. Belief is a very important part of science...

I think you miss the stark difference between a theory and a belief. One is potentially true, the other is held to be true. Scientists can theorize about dark matter, and then perform test to prove its existence. A prior belief simply is not necessary.
 
2007-04-04 02:59:14 PM  
I think the point of trying to convert people is not necessarily to actually convert people, but rather, it is to play the martyr and perform for a god.
 
2007-04-04 03:00:18 PM  
Raw_fishFood:

If Jesus was around today, he'd probably be a Buddhist.

Hillarious.
 
2007-04-04 03:01:18 PM  
we_hates

To pick an obvious example, gay marriage. It's opponents simply say it's a sin and that's it. That's just one example of where religion prevents a meaningful discussion about right and wrong. And no, it won't be a perfect process, but it will be a hell of a lot better.


Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with religion as long as you can accept that what you think may possibly be wrong.

But that's a healthy attitude to have about anything.

/I think :)
 
2007-04-04 03:02:15 PM  
munisfire You can prove a fact, without actually looking at something. For example, All things alive will eventually die. Do I have to witness death to understand this, no, it helps but it is an eventuality; a FACT if you will. Or, how about something more concrete, like say, oh dead figures in history. We have evidence that they existed, and in some cases physical remains, they are dead, it is a fact. Do I have to go exhume a body to confirm this? No, not all the time, but as an example Johan Guttenberg, inventor of the press is dead, died a long time ago, FACT. We know he existed, and we use spinoffs of his invention, look at a keyboard. Theories are constantly bombarded by experiments to disprove them, and many do not withstand the barage. But those that do, become laws, which is a synonym for fact. As an example, the world is round, that was not always the common thought but we know now that this is indeed true. It is a FACT.
 
2007-04-04 03:02:37 PM  
swarms909:

I think the point of trying to convert people is not necessarily to actually convert people, but rather, it is to play the martyr and perform for a god.


Like a musical or something?

images.salon.com
 
2007-04-04 03:03:47 PM  
Biohazard24
munisfire You can prove a fact, without actually looking at something. For example, All things alive will eventually die. Do I have to witness death to understand this, no, it helps but it is an eventuality; a FACT if you will. Or, how about something more concrete, like say, oh dead figures in history. We have evidence that they existed, and in some cases physical remains, they are dead, it is a fact. Do I have to go exhume a body to confirm this? No, not all the time, but as an example Johan Guttenberg, inventor of the press is dead, died a long time ago, FACT. We know he existed, and we use spinoffs of his invention, look at a keyboard. Theories are constantly bombarded by experiments to disprove them, and many do not withstand the barage. But those that do, become laws, which is a synonym for fact. As an example, the world is round, that was not always the common thought but we know now that this is indeed true. It is a FACT.


Till it doesn't happen one time.
 
2007-04-04 03:04:15 PM  
AcadianSidhe Sigh.... "If you continue doing the experiment, there's a chance that, it may not always work. You can always test something again."

Do me a favor and look up the definiton of lunacy.
 
2007-04-04 03:06:20 PM  
AcadianSidhe: Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with religion as long as you can accept that what you think may possibly be wrong.

But that isn't what happens. Of course Christianity wouldn't have to do the shiat they do, and if they ever stop, I will stop criticizing them.

I doubt that will happen, though, becase indoctrinate the masses with superstition tends to not lead to clear thinking.
 
2007-04-04 03:06:32 PM  
Btw, we have no idea if Johann Gutenburg existed. We just believe it because it was written somewhere and it's assumed to be true.


Biohazard24
Do me a favor and look up the definiton of lunacy.


I wonder why superintelligent people are so crazy.

/besides, that's not a textbook definition of lunacy, just an expression
 
2007-04-04 03:06:42 PM  
mp3sum

I think you miss the stark difference between a theory and a belief. One is potentially true, the other is held to be true. Scientists can theorize about dark matter, and then perform test to prove its existence. A prior belief simply is not necessary.


A hypothesis comes before a theory. A hypothesis is an idea. If you didn't believe that the idea was possibly true, why would you bother testing it? Unless you were testing for the negative, but then you still have a belief that it's not true. Either way, someone came up with the idea of dark matter, and some people believe it and some people don't. Both are testing for their particular belief. Really it's a belief in possibilities when you get right down to it, which is what any good scientist should believe in. But it still all comes down to belief.

What will really throw you for a loop is when you start reading about quantum mechanics and look at the tests involving scientists thinking about what the results of a test will be before the test is done, and then comparing. Kinda freaky...
 
2007-04-04 03:07:03 PM  
muninsfire

Sort of by definition, really. Those propositions would be supernatural--there is no meaningful way to test for them within the framework.


If the supernatural is some thing that cannot be tested for meaningfully (a good a definition as any) then there are a lot of supernatural things - any one-off event is not really subject to testing. And I think this is where we wheel in Hume.


/Dawkins, who apparently thinks that one can test for the existence of G-d, is entirely wrong in that regard: a hypothetical omnipotent being would be entirely capable of negating any test for his or her existence, and the record of that being's inclinations specifically states that he or she would do so--"Thou shalt not test the Lord thy G-d"--and as such, the question is rendered moot.


I think Dawkins - an excellent scientist - occasionally lets his hatred of religion get the better of him. This would be one such occasion. At least he's got a substantial intellectual success behind him in other fields. Those that trot out the 'religion is teh dumb' mantra don't usually have such a luxury.

I remember someone saying to me via Fark - not sure who - that all religion was stupid, and they'd come to this conclusion after reading (just) the Bible, so they weren't completely clueless.
 
2007-04-04 03:07:27 PM  
we_hates
But that isn't what happens. Of course Christianity wouldn't have to do the shiat they do, and if they ever stop, I will stop criticizing them.


It happens. Just not always.
 
2007-04-04 03:08:01 PM  
And I believe I don't know how to use a damned close bracket...
 
2007-04-04 03:08:09 PM  
muninsfire:

Facts are observed phenomenae, that's all. You can't prove a fact...

It is a fact that there are clouds here. I can point to a fact (a picture out the window, or a radar image) that shows this. No theory about it.


Are you saying you can't prove that there are clouds out there?
 
2007-04-04 03:08:10 PM  
yelmrog: mp3sum:There are a plethora of base assumptions when you get right down to the reasoning behind science, our language, and all the sensory interpretation we make. The base of the building is built on faith, hence so are all the upper stories.

Okay so EVERYTHING is based on faith. Faith that existence exists. So science and religion are the same? Uhm. No. Science is constantly being challenged, updated, taken in different directions. Science doesn't still hold to Ptolemy. Why does religion still hold to 3000-year old malarky?


They are not the same in terms of conceptual demarcation, but then again nothing is. However, both began from the same building blocks, a desire to explain the world around us. Call it God or call it Quantum Mechanics, they are both subjective interpretations born of out sensory input. Of course the fact that science is based on observable, reproducible phenomena makes it heaps more useful in ensuring the survival of our race :)


muninsfire: mp3sum: Logic is based on faith

No. Logic is a system of rules that have been developed for people to solve problems. There's no faith in logic, merely a set of rules that describes how it works.

A basic logical statement is that if A=B and B=C then A=C.

Do I have to have faith in this? No--what would I have 'faith' in?


Ehehe, you can look at my above answer as well, for it is applicable to your statements. To expound, your logic is based upon one of many ways to describe and model this world. Your faith lies in choosing this method, which was taught to you, over the infinite number of other ways one can choose to interpret things. You only go with logic because you are conditioned to do so, and now it makes sense and becomes useful, so Darwin dictates you must keep it.

As regards its applicability to the real world: yes, there is a base assumption made that it will be considered useful for that. However, you will not find any reputable scientist out there who will claim that they will continue to consider the scientific method valid if this base assumption can be demonstrably shown to be false.

If they did have 'faith' then they would continue to consider it valid even if the assumption was shown to be false.


No, because the basic rules of their existing faith dictate that the assumption does not hold "true" via the scientific method, and thus should be tossed out.

The other option is solipsism, which, yes, would negate everything and make all this meaningless. You're perfectly able to be a solipsist if you want; nobody's stopping you.

/I do have a cure for solipsism, but it requires a roll of duct tape, a chair, and a tire iron.


The difference between my point of view and solipsism is the latter throws out all human interpretation as meaningless, where I simply recognize that at a basic level it takes faith to believe in any subjective interpretation.
 
2007-04-04 03:09:42 PM  
kingMountain
"998...999...1000 words; all done!", said the journalist.

998...999...Nya! 1000 arrows! More arrows I must shoot! More statues I must make, nya!

/first thing I thought of
//hasn't read the rest of the thread yet
 
2007-04-04 03:09:53 PM  
Wanted for questioning:

img235.imageshack.us
 
2007-04-04 03:10:09 PM  
The Dalai Lama is a huckster.
 
2007-04-04 03:11:13 PM  
Ah, Jesus. The 5th re-incarnation of a totaly awesome Bhudist.
 
2007-04-04 03:11:47 PM  
mp3sum

Dude, the words ontological and observable and universe are all just conceptual constructs taught to you by another person so that you can break down your perceptual data and survive in this world. At a basic level, I can dispute any of these definitions by arguing the very building blocks from which they were created. Your science is just something you believe :(


I am such a whore for the white bourgois power structure metanarrative.

/I should learn Anti racist maths.
 
2007-04-04 03:11:55 PM  
Dawkins, who apparently thinks that one can test for the existence of G-d, is entirely wrong in that regard: a hypothetical omnipotent being would be entirely capable of negating any test for his or her existence, and the record of that being's inclinations specifically states that he or she would do so--"Thou shalt not test the Lord thy G-d"--and as such, the question is rendered moot.


Not sure who wrote this but...

If an omnipotent being requires faith, and proving God exists can't be allowed because it would negate faith, and God would interfere with any tests to prove God's existance, then wouldn't all the tests coming out negative prove that God exists?

//And would he vanish in a puff of logic?
 
2007-04-04 03:12:54 PM  
As long as keeps some of them Buddhists from an eternity in a fiery Hell, its probably worth it.
 
2007-04-04 03:15:07 PM  
Bonehead: mp3sum
I think you miss the stark difference between a theory and a belief. One is potentially true, the other is held to be true. Scientists can theorize about dark matter, and then perform test to prove its existence. A prior belief simply is not necessary.

A hypothesis comes before a theory. A hypothesis is an idea. If you didn't believe that the idea was possibly true, why would you bother testing it? Unless you were testing for the negative, but then you still have a belief that it's not true. Either way, someone came up with the idea of dark matter, and some people believe it and some people don't. Both are testing for their particular belief. Really it's a belief in possibilities when you get right down to it, which is what any good scientist should believe in. But it still all comes down to belief.


The key is viewing it as potentially true, or already true because it is a self actualized belief. As for it being "a belief in possibilities", one could certainly take the middle road and make no decision as to potential possibility until scientific proof makes an appearance. Kinda like being an atheist :)

What will really throw you for a loop is when you start reading about quantum mechanics and look at the tests involving scientists thinking about what the results of a test will be before the test is done, and then comparing. Kinda freaky...

Being a philosopher in search of objective truth, I try to stay away from interpretive science. But Quantum Mechanics is really wild stuff, and does delve into the realm of causality and free will, while posing many scientific quandaries as well. It's bad medicine for the self-loathing intellectual in me.
 
2007-04-04 03:17:32 PM  
Biohazard24: You can prove a fact, without actually looking at something.

Absolutely. There are plenty of historical records of facts.

Though your choice of 'death' depends upon a very specific definition of 'life' to be meaningful--consider the common amoeba for a counterexample.

But those that do, become laws, which is a synonym for fact.

That's really not correct. Scientific laws are base observations; theories are the models that describe them. For instance, the law of universal gravitation states that every object gravitationally attracts every other object that has mass. There are, however, various theories of gravity that describe how that works.

Re-check your definitions a bit. Things have changed since you (and I) originally learned about what science is.

GiantRobot: If the supernatural is some thing that cannot be tested for meaningfully (a good a definition as any) then there are a lot of supernatural things - any one-off event is not really subject to testing. And I think this is where we wheel in Hume.

Assuming that it's not possible to repeat the one-off event (rather by definition, ne?) then yeah, it gets a bit odd.

I think Dawkins - an excellent scientist - occasionally lets his hatred of religion get the better of him. This would be one such occasion.

Absolutely. He's great in the zoology department, but he really needs to calm down about religion--it just makes things difficult for the rest of us who are trying to show people that science and religion really have nothing to do with each other.

trappedspirit: Are you saying you can't prove that there are clouds out there?

There's no proof--either I can show you that there are, or I can't show you that there are.

I could, I suppose, work out a proof based on relative humidity or something, but that'd be overly complicated.

mp3sum: Your faith lies in choosing this method, which was taught to you, over the infinite number of other ways one can choose to interpret things.

I don't see that it's faith--I merely have observed that this way works better than anything else I've looked at, and have chosen it as the best way to interpret the world that I've found.

Should I find a better way, I would switch to that. No faith involved--just results that work for me.

No, because the basic rules of their existing faith dictate that the assumption does not hold "true" via the scientific method, and thus should be tossed out.

I think we may have a disconnect on our definition of 'faith'--can you give me yours?
 
2007-04-04 03:19:33 PM  
Bonehead: If an omnipotent being requires faith, and proving God exists can't be allowed because it would negate faith, and God would interfere with any tests to prove God's existance, then wouldn't all the tests coming out negative prove that God exists?

Not necessarily--as the test would come out with the same result if G-d did not exist.

mp3sum: Being a philosopher in search of objective truth, I try to stay away from interpretive science.

You're missing out on a lot of fun.

But Quantum Mechanics is really wild stuff, and does delve into the realm of causality and free will, while posing many scientific quandaries as well.

You may already be a Quantum Taoist.
 
2007-04-04 03:20:47 PM  
mp3sum:

The key is viewing it as potentially true, or already true because it is a self actualized belief. As for it being "a belief in possibilities", one could certainly take the middle road and make no decision as to potential possibility until scientific proof makes an appearance. Kinda like being an atheist :)

Yeah, but if you didn't strongly suspect that the cat had a force field around it, then how do you explain the "throwing baseballs at it" experiment you performed. What other reason would you have but to start with the belief that the cat was surrounded by a force field?
 
2007-04-04 03:20:53 PM  
GiantRobot: mp3sum

Dude, the words ontological and observable and universe are all just conceptual constructs taught to you by another person so that you can break down your perceptual data and survive in this world. At a basic level, I can dispute any of these definitions by arguing the very building blocks from which they were created. Your science is just something you believe :(

I am such a whore for the white bourgois power structure metanarrative.


Nothing to do with power, my good friend. Simply an attempt to break down what we all seem to take for granted. Maybe there's nothing to find, in which case coming to that realization is the real truth.

/Am I white?


Bonehead: If an omnipotent being requires faith, and proving God exists can't be allowed because it would negate faith, and God would interfere with any tests to prove God's existance, then wouldn't all the tests coming out negative prove that God exists?

Unfortunately, double negation only equals true when relying on logic in a purely mathematical context. Doesn't cut it in the real world :(

/Wouldn't mind some proof one way or the other.
 
2007-04-04 03:23:04 PM  
muninsfire:

Q: I could, I suppose, work out a proof based on relative humidity or something, but that'd be overly complicated.

A: You're missing out on a lot of fun.
 
2007-04-04 03:23:34 PM  
um is it really advisable to tell everyone the room where a spiritual leader will be staying?
 
2007-04-04 03:23:53 PM  
trappedspirit: Yeah, but if you didn't strongly suspect that the cat had a force field around it, then how do you explain the "throwing baseballs at it" experiment you performed. What other reason would you have but to start with the belief that the cat was surrounded by a force field?

Why a force field? Why not a plexiglass bubble? Why not odd air currents?

You perform an experiment generally to determine the cause of some observation. What led you to perform the baseball/cat experiment?
 
2007-04-04 03:24:03 PM  
none of these retarded concepts matter, they're merely fodder for everybody's egos to see who can "win" the argument

religion does not have a monopoly on faith, faith is an innate human instinct, i have faith that i am alive, but i also have the ability to doubt, and it's these two in conflict that creates a sort of brain logic (things exist, things may also not exist, if i do it this way it may turn out right but then again it may not (of course, you don't actually think this, it just is))... that's why humans have to practice because we're never right about the world around us, so we have to develop the skill in order to survive and interact (and of course, things are easier on the mind if you don't question, but that doesn't make life easier, just makes you more blind to the world around you)

in the end, deriving from this, is that Jesus is a great figure, the idea that God loves all of us (in a different figure form than the old testament though - which was more rules and brutal father-figure, in the new testament more forgiving)... and why is that? because Jesus is a giver of love despite faults, so faults are what brings us down...

really, all you need is a good attitude at your core, all of these concepts are just taking our human emotions and forcing them into squares or circles or whatever, when in reality emotions are not shapes or forms, they're all over the place... it's like we're trying to take people and force them into a box like we force war into a box or economics into a box or religion into a box...

also, i have a distrust to people who believe in the message more than they believe in acting on the message (and why people who say others are damned to hell piss me off, it'd be like if i read a book about fixing cars, but hadn't actually fixed one, and never will, but whenever somebody DOES try and does it wrong, i berate them...)
 
2007-04-04 03:24:22 PM  
muninsfire

Absolutely. He's great in the zoology department, but he really needs to calm down about religion--it just makes things difficult for the rest of us who are trying to show people that science and religion really have nothing to do with each other.


By dismissing religion outright he's also missing out on a lot of fun stuff such as crazy shamanistic rituals with yage or DMT based mindfarking substances or the massive brain changes and insights into the nature of consciousness that Tibetan Buddhism can demonstrate.

It's not all smiting gays.
 
2007-04-04 03:24:40 PM  
What would a Christian say to a Buddhist Hot Dog Vendor?
 
Displayed 50 of 512 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report