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.

(Some Guy)   This is the thread where you defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks. Now with a Venn diagram for easy navigation   (crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk) divider line 520
    More: Cool, Venn diagram, critical thinking  
•       •       •

16607 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 3:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



520 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 10:24:14 PM  

RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.


let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?
 
2013-03-26 10:50:59 PM  

Acharne: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.

The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.

Those aren't definitions. They're vague descriptions. You might even say they are willfully obscure.

You're arguing with the Catholic Church over God

[www.myfacewhen.net image 192x191]

Why are you trolling and wasting people's time?


willfullyobscure: There is literally no way to post in this thread without  XOR Poe/Trolling. It is a logical impossibility to not be either/or, or both.


Same reason erry1 else is postan ITT

media.onsugar.com

Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe
 
2013-03-26 10:52:41 PM  

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God
I don't believe in god.

2 beliefs

/agnostic



Person A: "I have a thousand dollars worth of gold in my pocket!"

Person B: "Oh yeah?  Show me.  Let's see it."

Does person B have a "belief" or just a question?
 
2013-03-26 10:53:46 PM  
This one is easy for me.  I don't believe in a single thing in that diagram.
 
2013-03-26 11:01:36 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence"


wat

/That's a new one for me. Never heard of that.
 
2013-03-26 11:10:06 PM  

pippi longstocking: If you believe something and can't explain why, then you're a moron.


I can't explain why your mother loves you, but I believe she does.
 
2013-03-26 11:12:51 PM  

Jimmysolson: Fecal Conservative: Q&D
[i45.tinypic.com image 600x397]

Dooshbaggery on the right is wrong!


Yep.
 
2013-03-26 11:14:48 PM  

Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?


My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.
 
2013-03-26 11:21:49 PM  

willfullyobscure: Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe


I refute the Catholic Encylopedia and the nature of God.

I see you're off your meds, that explains it.
 
2013-03-26 11:56:06 PM  
I believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.
 
2013-03-27 12:17:00 AM  
I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.
 
2013-03-27 12:35:45 AM  
People we need to come together, racism,prejudice,sexism, stereo typing all gotta go soon we are falling.

Quote "we are all in the same boat and it's sinking".
 
2013-03-27 12:35:53 AM  

SquiggsIN: Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.


This is not a correct summary of the position of the majority of atheists.

The position is that when there is no evidence to support a claim the only logical position is to reject the claim.

The religious claim that god exists but they offer no evidence. Therefore the claim is rejected just as if they claimed they can fly like superman or that Santa is real.

Rejecting an unsupported claim is basic logic and reason. We all do it all the time for countless subjects. Religious people want their claims to get a special "we don't need evidence" free pass and that's not going to happen. Their claims of god existing have the same amount of support as the claim that the easter bunny exists - the two claims get the same level of acceptance. There is no arrogance involved.
 
2013-03-27 12:42:32 AM  

whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.


God is why fnord
 
2013-03-27 12:54:11 AM  

spentshells: People we need to come together, racism,prejudice,sexism, stereo typing all gotta go soon we are falling.

Quote "we are all in the same boat and it's sinking".


We're only in the same boat and sinking because nobody wants to admit that the person next to them might have a better idea than themselves.  Some want to jump out and swim, others want to stop those because they think they might drown, some want to bail the water out and others get in the way trying to plug the hole.

Instead of trying to work the solution, they simply are continuing to argue over words and egos.
 
2013-03-27 12:58:55 AM  
SquiggsIN:  If you understood simple genetics and how traits are inherited you'd see why as time approaches infinity that recessive traits like being blonde would effectively diminish to zero.

Unless being blonde increases ones chance of reproducing. In which case, even a double recessive or multiple site recessive trait like blonde hair will remain. Remember, the inheritablity isn't the only thing that has to be focused on.
 
2013-03-27 12:59:03 AM  

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God
I don't believe in god.

2 beliefs

/agnostic


Because I'm bored...and on the off chance that you are legitimate.

Language is a bit of a barrier here.

It's clear to say what a "belief" is.  You believe in God.

I'm going to word the statements differently as it pertains to religion.

There is a God.
There is no God.

Your second example is missing.
I don't believe in a God.  I also don't disbelieve.

No matter how remote of a chance, a rational person cannot say there is not some otherwordly power that created earth when they take the time to sit down and logicly study the question.

That is the technical standing of proper theories.

HOWEVER...

For example, I say, "There is no God." for the sake of brevity.  As a common function of language, there is usually something understood there that follows.  But I could be wrong.  A VAST majority of people who say it like I do, but when/if they examine it, they will agree that it is possible.  Differentiating between that sort of agnostic and a true disbeliever is almost a futile effort, wasted time.  Either way, neither will gain belief withoutperceived evidence.(I sayperceived because hallucination/revelation/etc can be written off as not concrete share-able proof, but enough to sway an individual).

There's a thing about the argument that I find fascinating.  It is assumed that "belief" in a god is the default state, and therefore disbelief is anaberration.

What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....if it is a fiction, what other evidence is there?

If we write off hear-say evidence as not very reliable, where does that leave us?  If we discovered the christian bible was fake, or better, if it had never existed, the stories never spread, religious people would be a member of a different religion.  Regress it far enough back, and there is no religion.  It is all words passed down generation to generation as truth.

If that were possible in some bizzaro universe, what would make people come up with the idea of god in the first place.  Imagine that society went on much as it did, but with government instead of a church.  People were nice to eachother because they wanted people to be nice to them, civil rights, etc, all of that.

Here we sit, in modern times, now educated enough to where there's not a lot of mystery around us.  We have answers for things people never thought possible.  Thunder and lightning, weather, genetics, even human emotions, computers, hell, we can implant cameras into people's brains, sure, some of it is in early stages but as time goes on our collective intelligence rises.  What is the question where an educated man would have to leap to a conclusion of God being the only viable answer.

Whether it is by intent for power, or hallucination, I think that is the only way the very idea of God could have come about.  The same way a follower of Allah questions followers of Jesus and visa versa.

Most religious people alive today don't believe in other religions because they were never taught to believe in them.  Take one more religious education away from them and where do we sit?

Sure, there could be something out there, but as it stands now, only imagination could possibly think of anything, and only mental problems will convince it of absolute truth.  As we see now, most people with claims of such things now are viewed as ill people, be it pink elephants or fairies.  Why is God different?

Meh.  I have an absence of belief.  I may ponder and daydream, I even admit something is possible, but for all intents and purposes that matter outside of daydreams, there is no God.  There is no real-world application where the concept has any power except in manipulation of others, whether I believe or not.  It doesn't explain emotions, thunder, lightning, etc.

So why bother?

To comfort and baby regular old human insecurities.  Fear of death, succor to stop people from going absolutely crazy when they're suffering.

fark that, we've got drugs that can end suffering.  Fear of death, everyone has that.  People may pray to god while in foxholes, but it's desperation, and it rarely helps.  the types it does help, the tend to be suicide bombers that won't survive anyhow, but are still shiatting their pants in fear, it's just not quite crippling.

Love of family, and pride in community/country, etc, those things can serve the same psychological need to belay crippling fear in a moment of need.  Maybe if we concentrated on those things instead of fairytales, we'd be a bit better off.

See what happens when people get pedantic and fight when I say, "There is no God."?  A shiat ton of words and explanations come out, and even if you read this, it won't matter in 5 minutes.  Me, I had time to waste, but I don't always, so again, why bother?
 
2013-03-27 01:04:26 AM  

Frederick: I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.


Frederick         

(favorite: I lick hand rails to remain robust.)

I view everything with skepticism to remain robust.

I find that belief leads to complacency, in addition to looking like a fool and missing good opportunities in life, either by demand of religion or by people avoiding me because I'm gullible/odd.

Well, I'm still odd, but that's for more social reasons. And sure, I'm dumb, but it's only because i can't possibly study everything, no one person can.
 
2013-03-27 01:23:33 AM  

omeganuepsilon: What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....


ql;vi

/quite long, very interesting.
 
2013-03-27 01:46:52 AM  

Acharne: omeganuepsilon: What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....

ql;vi

/quite long, very interesting.


Thanks
Over the period of maybe hundreds of similar topics, I've refined my view of the concepts if not the words/grammar. Big fan of concepts that are not readily explained, though I did borrow a bit here and there(specifically the classic "You disbelieve all other religions, I just disbelieve one more than you."(paraphrased) and re-worded them to fit my rambling stream.

Great time sink when you realize you're bored of all of your other hobbies.
/also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot
 
2013-03-27 02:14:40 AM  

crazyeddie: Ambitwistor: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm

The citations are a playground of good information about adenosine production using deep brain stimulation.  Thanks for the links.

Acupuncture still falls under the "Sigh, ok so we haven't disproven it in the technical sense, because science doesn't work that way.  However, we can provisionally reject the claims it makes."

Read  The Believing Brain for a fun understanding of why people believe stupid shiat and won't listen to all the reasons they are full of bullocks.


It looked to me like they proposed a viable mechanism by which acupuncture might have an effect. However, I couldn't find anything in there that would indicate how acupuncture would be more effective in stimulating adenosine and endorphin production than other methods. Striking yourself with a hammer, stubbing your toe, banging your head against a wall, that sort of thing.
 
2013-03-27 02:49:30 AM  
Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.
 
2013-03-27 03:02:15 AM  

Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"


I remember a documentary from a few years back, where they found a room that could be used to set up a primitive camera that was capable of leaving a negative image on linen, kind of like the old trick of putting your hand on construction paper, leaving it there in the sunlight for five minutes, then removing your hand  and leaving a "print" of your hand's outline.

It turns out Leonardo DaVinci frequented the area; and there is evidence that he was interested in such a technique for use in art.

/Is Christian
//Still hates bullshiat
 
2013-03-27 03:03:57 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Frederick: I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.

Frederick

(favorite: I lick hand rails to remain robust.)

I view everything with skepticism to remain robust.

I find that belief leads to complacency, in addition to looking like a fool and missing good opportunities in life, either by demand of religion or by people avoiding me because I'm gullible/odd.

Well, I'm still odd, but that's for more social reasons. And sure, I'm dumb, but it's only because i can't possibly study everything, no one person can.


I see what you did there; using my words.

Skepticism can be healthy.  Too much skepticism makes you a cynic.
One of the things I enjoy about getting to know someone is finding out if they have any ghost, UFO, Ouija board, ESP, prayer, Voodoo, reincarnation, etc. stories.  Almost everyone I've met has something -and I find it terribly interesting.
So come on, share -surely you've got something along those lines.

/I believe in a version of reincarnation, for example, and am agnostic about most in the diagram.
 
2013-03-27 03:06:42 AM  

omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot


Faction infighting?
 
2013-03-27 04:18:28 AM  

HalfOffOffer: Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.



Yes, what's up with that voodoo of aspirin, antibiotics, and mending a broken bone?
 
2013-03-27 04:33:11 AM  

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God and also know he exists/believe his existence is knowable.
I believe in god, but I but I believe it is impossible to know if he exists.
I don't believe in god, but I believe it is impossible to know if he exists

.
I don't believe in god, and I also know he doesn't exist/believe his existence is knowable.

2 4 beliefs


Almost all atheists are #3.  Most theists are #1, but a significant portion are #2.  Almost no one is #4.  Gnosticism regarding the supernatural is incompatible with scientific principle based on the definition of the two concepts, and I would argue that it's probably inherently irrational also.

/agnostic

So, you think it's impossible to know if gods exist.  If you also hold a belief that they do, you're a theist.  If you don't hold that belief, you're an atheist.  Note that there is no "in between" position, any more than you can "have" and also "not have" an apple in your pocket.

common sense is an oxymoron: Somacandra: The funny thing is that people involved in these really won't care that anyone else thinks its bollocks. For instance, I don't care what your "evaluation" of acupuncture and chiropractic are, I've had enough experience with both to know that they've really worked well for me in handling certain issues than before I had experience with them. As a practical guy, that's all the evidence I really want or need. YMMV.


Chiropractic for treating musculoskeletal back pain by spinal manipulation = legitimate.
Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence" = quackery.


Yes, thank you.  I went to a chiropractor once for a sports injury because someone recommended him, he was cheap, and I didn't have health insurance at the time.  My sciatic nerve had been killing me to the point that I could barely walk for almost a week.  He cracked my back, told me to go home and ice it, and I was completely better a day later.  I went back to thank him, and he got out a tentative "You know, the theory of chiropractic..." before I cut him off with a shake of my head, and he went "OK, never mind.  If you have any more problems, give me call."

SquiggsIN: I probably agree with you, mostly. But, atheists absolutely are arrogant to state that the lack of evidence of a deity disproves the existence of one. With the complete lack of evidence for or against said existence, both atheism and theism must be categorically rejected, right? Such logic leads to apathy, agnosticism, or insanity. (or a healthy combination of the 3)


Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive.  See above.  Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.  An overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic about gods.  "Strong atheism" is just a red herring that theists apply because they can't or won't admit that people can think the supernatural is bunk for rational reasons and not because they're "denying god because they're angry at him", or some nonsense.

SquiggsIN: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it?


Onus Probandi
 
2013-03-27 04:46:38 AM  

omeganuepsilon: If that were possible in some bizzaro universe, what would make people come up with the idea of god in the first place.


There is a fair bit of evidence that a significant proportion of us have brains that are naturally structured in such a way that facilitates religious thinking.  Faced with a general lack of knowledge about the natural world, it's reasonable to conclude that early cultures would almost inevitably invent religion in order to explain what they saw.

In short, religion is natural in the way that viruses are natural.  Sometimes harmless, sometimes destructive. Also, worth inoculating against, but always very difficult to eradicate completely.

The real "miracle" is that we were smart enough to eventually invent logic and the scientific process at all, IMO.
 
2013-03-27 05:23:18 AM  
What I Believe or Not:
I do not believe a deity caused everything to exist nor that he/she brought everything into being.
I do not believe there was ever a beginning nor that there will ever be an end.
I do not believe that something can be created out of what is truly nothing (void).
I believe time is a measurement of motion and that everything is in motion in the eternal present.
I believe it is always now, always has been now and always will be now.
I believe that what exists now (matter), has always existed and will always exist.
I believe humans are nothing more than fancy animals.
I believe all mammals possess a sense of Spirit and possibly birds as well.
I believe reptiles, fish and insects do not.
I believe that if cattle were intelligent and had opposable udders their god would be:
The Great Creator Cow and the bulls would serve only one useful purpose.
That's some of the stuff I Believe or Not.
.
 
2013-03-27 05:23:35 AM  

Z-clipped: Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. See above. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.


Replace "theological" with "ontological" and you're dead on. And to keep in the theme of the thread:

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-27 05:30:11 AM  

Z-clipped:

SquiggsIN: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it?

Onus Probandi

It's always annoying when someone commits a fallacy while pointing one out.  The burden of proof only applies when it comes to a proof.  It does NOT mean that it has been proved to not exist.  You CAN say that, without proof, a compelling case was NOT made for the existence of God, or gods, but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.
 
2013-03-27 05:50:49 AM  

Smidge204: Z-clipped: Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. See above. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.

Replace "theological" with "ontological" and you're dead on. And to keep in the theme of the thread:


Yes, sorry, I was doing too many things at once when I typed that.  Thanks for the correction.  That's exactly what I meant to say.

GeneralJim: It's always annoying when someone commits a fallacy while pointing one out. The burden of proof only applies when it comes to a proof. It does NOT mean that it has been proved to not exist. You CAN say that, without proof, a compelling case was NOT made for the existence of God, or gods, but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.


I didn't.  I implied that, in the face of a complete lack of evidence for the positive claim, evidence of a negative claim is not required.  The positive claim can be reasonably dismissed without it.

In other words, absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence.

At the risk of being snarky, I'll also note that in attempting to point out my committing a logical fallacy while pointing out a logical fallacy, you've committed a logical (straw man) fallacy.  I never implied that a proof of the absence of god exists; in fact, I personally believe such a proof is inherently impossible.  I just also believe that it's irrelevant, since all belief in gods can be reduced to wishful thinking.
 
2013-03-27 06:01:41 AM  

GeneralJim: but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.


More to the point, specific Gods for which specific claims have been given can be shown to not exist by demonstrating the claims made about them to be false or logically inconsistent. At best you have retreated into amorphic deism at this point. Such claims are by their nature unfalsifiable since they lack testable claims, and they are also of no real consequence for that very same reason.

To quote the late Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-27 06:27:35 AM  

Leet Jesus: Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?

My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.


I can't give this response the answer it deserves because of time... as in it's time to go to work. I couldn't answer anyway because people a lot more knowledgeable than I am only have theories as to how time really works. I don't believe in a soul/afterlife I don't believe that the conscious 'me' can experience anything when I am not alive. Not even able to experience the realization that I died nor that there is a whole lot of nothing afterward. Whether time is a product or byproduct, of the conscious mind or not is something I might give some thought to... but not now. The perception that my mind thinks of as 'the buttcrack of dawn' has come and I must be off to work.
 
2013-03-27 07:43:03 AM  
So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?
 
2013-03-27 07:43:47 AM  

EyeballKid: So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?


On the Venn diagram, I mean, not where's the nearest meeting.
 
2013-03-27 08:18:02 AM  
farm3.static.flickr.com
Then you've got your nothing
Some folks believe in nothing
But if you believe in nothing
Then what's to keep the nothing
From coming for you?
 
2013-03-27 08:26:32 AM  

Majick Thise: Leet Jesus: Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?

My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.

I can't give this response the answer it deserves because of time... as in it's time to go to work. I couldn't answer anyway because people a lot more knowledgeable than I am only have theories as to how time really works. I don't believe in a soul/afterlife I don't believe that the conscious 'me' can experience anything when I am not alive. Not even able to experience the realization that I died nor that there is a whole lot of ...


I just wrote a paper on this about a week ago.  Basically, the current agreement between scientists and philosophers is that time is "real" in the sense that it is a physical part of the fabric of the space (Einstein), but that our perception of time's flow is an illusion (Parmenides, FTW in 500 BC).  Our position on the fabric is not special, so the future is deterministic but the "many worlds" interpretation of QM illustrates that we have infinite possible "predetermined" futures.  Many of the most promising prospects for a TOE require time to either be quantized, or imply that time is essentially meaningless below the Planck length, which effectively quantizes both time and space for our purposes.

I don't see how this really affects the religious argument though, except for the whole "quantum immortality" idea.  Still, as silly as it is, I think quantum immortality is enormously more likely than the existence of a mystical "soul" that carries our consciousness forward.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:36 AM  

Acharne: willfullyobscure: Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe

I refute the Catholic Encylopedia and the nature of God.

I see you're off your meds, that explains it.


"re·fute
/riˈfyoot/Verb

Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Prove that (someone) is wrong. "


Your refutin' needs to do some actual refutin', son. Let me help. We'll start with one of the several methods of Catholic proof of the existence of God. Please argue, without fallacy, against the following statement. Otherwise, admit that God exists and you have lost the debate:

"
A priori, or ontological, argument

This argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.

As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus: The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it."
 
2013-03-27 08:53:02 AM  

SquiggsIN: I'll play devil's advocate for a second here.... the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it? Based on what you call basic logic and reason, there is no evidence proving that a god doesn't exist so that claim should also be outright rejected.


"the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it " ... and if a claim was being put forward that "God does not exist" then this would be relevant. There would be a need to present evidence in support of a claim.

But atheists are not putting forth a claim ... we are deciding if we feel the claim put forth by religious people, that gods exist, holds any water. So we look at the evidence presented by the religious to support their claim and discover that there is none.

Now I can't speak for everyone but I personally feel that the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is very valid. The claim that gods are real is quite extraordinary yet not only is no extraordinary evidence presented to support the claim but no evidence is presented.

By the basic rules of logic and reason the claim should be rejected until more evidence is presented ... then the claim can be re-evaluated.

Note that this is not actually saying that the claim is wrong ... it is saying that, without evidence, we cannot accept it as correct. It puts it in a state of limbo (along with an infinite number of other unsubstantiated claims).
 
2013-03-27 09:20:55 AM  

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


Someone's a baseball fan. ;)
 
2013-03-27 09:23:19 AM  
Dang, my pic didn't go through. There we go.
0.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com
 
2013-03-27 09:28:33 AM  

EyeballKid: So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?


Agreed. It should be under Pseudoscience on the chart at the bottom of the page, next to Facilitated Communication
 
2013-03-27 09:55:07 AM  

Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", .


Philosophical, or semantic?

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
 
2013-03-27 10:16:13 AM  

Acharne: omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot

Faction infighting?


Oppression from my fat ass, what upset the applecart and caused the revolt was slipping on the ice.

/was going to say something...occult as a word can mean "hidden"
 
2013-03-27 11:12:05 AM  

Wangiss: sciencism


The fark?
 
2013-03-27 11:16:33 AM  
i.imm.io

In a related theme, I got through watching an excellent TED talk on being WRONG.

/picture unrelated
 
2013-03-27 11:35:28 AM  

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


If I had a nickel for every time I've felt that way...

And I think you meant 'trivial'.  It's okay, obviously English isn't your first language.
 
2013-03-27 12:22:44 PM  

MBooda: Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


Incorrect. Agnosticism is a rather broad philosophical topic, but in this context it refers to an epistemological position (i.e. whether knowledge of a divine being is inherently possible).  It has nothing to do with belief, and it is not a middle position between theism and atheism.  Atheism also comes in several flavors; not just the one you're espousing.  At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

You're welcome to your opinion, but please get with the program on the terminology.

kemosabe: Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]

Someone's a baseball fan. ;)


How is it that you've never seen Bull Durham?  Were you raised by wolves, man?!
 
2013-03-27 12:31:23 PM  

HalfOffOffer: Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.


You know what they call "alternative medicine" when it actually works?   "Medicine."
 
Displayed 50 of 520 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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