Ah, but why do you assume that? Isn't that assuming that things are the way they are, simply because they are? Frankly, that is not a satisfying answer to me. Given the intellectual traits and curiosity of many of the more well known atheists, I'm rather surprised they are not willing to investigate the question, but simply assume it has no answer.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you start with the premis there is no 'why' religion is redundant.
It applies the other way though. They've decided it doesn't have an answer, religious people have decided it does. There's no hard evidence to swing it either way.RAIMIUS wrote:
Ah, but why do you assume that? Isn't that assuming that things are the way they are, simply because they are? Frankly, that is not a satisfying answer to me. Given the intellectual traits and curiosity of many of the more well known atheists, I'm rather surprised they are not willing to investigate the question, but simply assume it has no answer.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you start with the premis there is no 'why' religion is redundant.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
you need to stop getting stoned and thinking that shit sounds smartSuperior Mind wrote:
Science prevails eternally.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Good point. It is exceedingly hard to find evidence for such ideas, either way.Spark wrote:
It applies the other way though. They've decided it doesn't have an answer, religious people have decided it does. There's no hard evidence to swing it either way.RAIMIUS wrote:
Ah, but why do you assume that? Isn't that assuming that things are the way they are, simply because they are? Frankly, that is not a satisfying answer to me. Given the intellectual traits and curiosity of many of the more well known atheists, I'm rather surprised they are not willing to investigate the question, but simply assume it has no answer.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you start with the premis there is no 'why' religion is redundant.
it's not about evidence, it's about something people just take out of the blue. you are a physicist ffs, you should know that for there being a question first there must be either logical or empirical reason for that question to be asked. one doesn't simply - bam! - and decide to start researching the matter of there being, like, magical fairies living in his backyard - that would be total loonacy, right? how then assuming there might be an infinitely powerfull all-knowing and immeasurably kewl being that it the creator or everything there is is any less ridiculous?Spark wrote:
It applies the other way though. They've decided it doesn't have an answer, religious people have decided it does. There's no hard evidence to swing it either way.RAIMIUS wrote:
Ah, but why do you assume that? Isn't that assuming that things are the way they are, simply because they are? Frankly, that is not a satisfying answer to me. Given the intellectual traits and curiosity of many of the more well known atheists, I'm rather surprised they are not willing to investigate the question, but simply assume it has no answer.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you start with the premis there is no 'why' religion is redundant.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Science is all about evidence. You have no evidence either way. There is no scientific basis to rule in or out a creator within the parameters that scientific evidence has given you.
I heard someone recently cite the dark matter example - something those defining properties are that we can't see it but it has gravity, because we need it to. Does that not strike anyone as somewhat ridiculous? But it's completely scientific because the theory fits the evidence.
I heard someone recently cite the dark matter example - something those defining properties are that we can't see it but it has gravity, because we need it to. Does that not strike anyone as somewhat ridiculous? But it's completely scientific because the theory fits the evidence.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Until relatively recently, the scientific method did not exist. The march of science is peppered with new discoveries, figures and tools for measurement. So I fall under the camp of "the nature of god is impossible to measure because we don't have the tools to do it and wouldn't know where to start" more than "all gods don't exist because unscientific people believe in them."
Are you sure about that?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Until relatively recently, the scientific method did not exist.
lol think he might like to check his history
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
relatively recently
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6910
The scientific method doesn't necessarily need definition to exist. Anyone that experiments by trial and error with some kind of goal in mind exercises the scientific method.
This. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity. It can prove or disprove specific aspects of religions, such as has been done for literal creationism, but again, the "why's" are a philosophical one, not a scientific one.Spark wrote:
There is no scientific basis to rule in or out a creator within the parameters that scientific evidence has given you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Matched results by repeated experimentation is when it really started taking recognizable form by today's standards. Not just when Aristotle would "observe" that it was simply natural for a cart to roll to a halt. Doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to know what I'm talking about.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6910
The concept of the divine is absurd and simultaneously plausible. Like all possibilities, they are possible. There are an infinite number of possibilities of every nature and conjuration. However, to deny certain observable truths about this one physical cosmos- one which we can all agree upon as existing- is ignorance at best.
everyday nature is completely absurd too... so if the divine is absurd... ?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Its only plausible as far as any other theory for which there is no observable evidence and can't be disproved.Superior Mind wrote:
The concept of the divine is absurd and simultaneously plausible.
Maybe our world is a 4D hallucination in the mind of a 20 dimensional being which is as real as he believes it to be.
Oh wow, I just created a concept as valid as Christianity, it makes more sense at least.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-27 18:12:36)
Fuck Israel
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6910
Yes, but nature is within our realm of knowable sensations. If you want to start questing all reality then why bother with this thread.Uzique wrote:
everyday nature is completely absurd too... so if the divine is absurd... ?
Dilbert, thank you for validating my point.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-12-27 18:17:57)
Its not really plausible at all, just absurd until there is a scrap of evidence which suggests otherwise.
Unless you're a nutball in which case anything said by a man in a dress is apparently plausible...
Unless you're a nutball in which case anything said by a man in a dress is apparently plausible...
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-27 18:22:48)
Fuck Israel
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6910
If you consider there to be an infinite number of universes then any idea is, has, or will happen.
However, for what is true of this universe, which we do know exists, we can soundly disclaim most what-ifs.
However, for what is true of this universe, which we do know exists, we can soundly disclaim most what-ifs.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-12-27 18:33:22)
this is about religion, dude.Spark wrote:
Science is all about evidence.
science does not deal with this shit at all - that's not it's purpose. science, as i said, is there to deal with what's observed or logically presumed, which rules religion and its methods out completely. there's no basis to rule out the creator, that's right, but there's no basis to research the question in the first place - that was my point. it's a common misconception to view religion and science as if those were somehow opposite in their views on stuff, when the fact of the matter is science has nothing to do with religion at all. so called "big questions" are totally out of science's concern.You have no evidence either way. There is no scientific basis to rule in or out a creator within the parameters that scientific evidence has given you.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-12-27 21:08:09)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Right so assuming there are infinite universes one of them will have a god-creator?Superior Mind wrote:
If you consider there to be an infinite number of universes then any idea is, has, or will happen.
However, for what is true of this universe, which we do know exists, we can soundly disclaim most what-ifs.
Not buying that either, unless you also accept that in one of these universes its inevitable there will be a tree which produces pornographic blu-ray discs as fruit.
I don't care how big infinity is, it does not mean all things are inevitable.
Fuck Israel
it sort of does
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
that was my point too...Shahter wrote:
this is about religion, dude.Spark wrote:
Science is all about evidence.science does not deal with this shit at all - that's not it's purpose. science, as i said, is there to deal with what's observed or logically presumed, which rules religion and its methods out completely. there's no basis to rule out the creator, that's right, but there's no basis to research the question in the first place - that was my point. it's a common misconception to view religion and science as if those were somehow opposite in their views on stuff, when the fact of the matter is science has nothing to do with religion at all. so called "big questions" are totally out of science's concern.You have no evidence either way. There is no scientific basis to rule in or out a creator within the parameters that scientific evidence has given you.
and hence what i'm saying is that everyone's stance is a personal judgement call and to call the other stance ridiculous is without any substance at all.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
technically, no. there are many kinds of infinity.FatherTed wrote:
it sort of does
mathematicians to agree
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i agree, though it must be noted that "taking a stance" on the matters of religion would be without any substance in the first place, because, whether faith, on which all religion is ultimately based, is a sixth sense or a sort of crutch people use to cope with the fact of their own mortality, there's no way to communicate that shit to others. my only problem with religion is that it keeps masquerading as science when it's not and intruding in the realm of logic and rationalism when it has no place there. but other than that everybody is totally welcome to believe in magical fairies living in their backyard as long as they keep that shit to themselves.Spark wrote:
that was my point too...Shahter wrote:
this is about religion, dude.Spark wrote:
Science is all about evidence.science does not deal with this shit at all - that's not it's purpose. science, as i said, is there to deal with what's observed or logically presumed, which rules religion and its methods out completely. there's no basis to rule out the creator, that's right, but there's no basis to research the question in the first place - that was my point. it's a common misconception to view religion and science as if those were somehow opposite in their views on stuff, when the fact of the matter is science has nothing to do with religion at all. so called "big questions" are totally out of science's concern.You have no evidence either way. There is no scientific basis to rule in or out a creator within the parameters that scientific evidence has given you.
and hence what i'm saying is that everyone's stance is a personal judgement call and to call the other stance ridiculous is without any substance at all.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.