The Ranting/Debate Thread

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Science isn't process of organizing data, but the process for testing it. And in science nothing is ever proven to be true.

It's a process for both testing and organizing. Without organization, the tests would fail. But dang... now you really got me.. "in science nothing is ever proven to be true"... *insert face palm*

How can you be serious? Agreed that some things have complications, but to suggest all things (that have been tested) are not proven to be true? I have to ignore that for now. >_>

Yes, determinism could be proven to be true, assuming omniscience and a computer capable of simulating the entire universe(neither of which is possible within the universe)

I think you just contradicted yourself with your claim about science.

As for Grandfather paradox(which is what I assume you're referring to), if determinism is true, the paradox can be solved very neatly: If you travel back in time, everything happens the way it already happened and no paradox is possible: you can't do anything that would cause paradox, because that would conflict with determinism.

Well, to make things more confusing... for the record, traveling back in time is a paradox in itself.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

It's a process for both testing and organizing. Without organization, the tests would fail. But dang... now you really got me.. "in science nothing is ever proven to be true"... *insert face palm*

How can you be serious? Agreed that some things have complications, but to suggest all things (that have been tested) are not proven to be true? I have to ignore that for now. >_>

You must be registered to see the links

You should probably read the entire article, as it seems that your understanding of science is somewhat lacking.

I think you just contradicted yourself with your claim about science.

Pay attention to the part where I said that it wouldn't be possible, even though it is in parenthesis.

Well, to make things more confusing... for the record, traveling back in time is a paradox in itself.

How so?

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You must be registered to see the links

You should probably read the entire article, as it seems that your understanding of science is somewhat lacking.

Everything always being open to fallacy would only suggest that science is useless. But it's not, that's because not everything lasts forever. A function that begins, can and will meet it's end. So if we examine a function, using science and initially figure it out. Well, once that function ends, was it then not true?

How so?

The good ol' concept of the man who opens a portal to see himself back in time, to the point of when he was about to open the portal. The man then shoots himself through the portal. What happens to the man in the present time?

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Everything always being open to fallacy would only suggest that science is useless. But it's not, that's because not everything lasts forever. A function that begins, can and will meet it's end. So if we examine a function, using science and initially figure it out. Well, once that function ends, was it then not true?

Maybe. But by using science, it can't be proven to be true.

The good ol' concept of the man who opens a portal to see himself back in time, to the point of when he was about to open the portal. The man then shoots himself through the portal. What happens to the man in the present time?

Yes, that's the grandfather paradox I mentioned earlier.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I believe Hooker has summed up what I'd say quite nicely, but I'll just add this: Just because we do not know the answer right now does not mean that there is not an answer.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Debates are won based on facts, not concepts.

Back to the original debate with this point... how can one debate that there is or isn't a deity without the facts to support said cause?

I say there is, but I can not prove it. However, one cannot prove that there is not one, so the entire thing comes down to personal belief and faith.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

No hard evidence for a greater power, and no hard evidence against a greater power. In this case, I'd say the obvious answer is to assume that there is not a greater power until some form of evidence for it comes first. Assuming that something does exist because it can't be proven not to, is rather backwards logic.

For a great many people, having been told something by elders as they grow up is enough to consider as that initial evidence. Since there is no "real evidence" either way, with nothing but other peoples opinions to throw into the debate latter in life, most tend to stick to their initial belief.

Personally I got in trouble when I was very young (some time during first school) for vocally calling out god as a hoax during a baptism. Embarrassed my parents quite a bit. It was around the same time I'd learnt the truth behind santa, the tooth fairy and all that (I had a tip off from an older spoil sport, but it didn't last long for me), and I naturally lumped "God" into the same basket. All seemed so obvious. Grown-ups tell kids crazy stories for fun, was the conclusion I'd came to. What I didn't understand was why they took this particular "game" to such lengths, and being a bit cranky at the time and fed up of being made to sit quietly decided to ask in the middle of the ceremony, explaining that I already knew all about "god and santa". It's quite funny thinking back on it.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Mmmm, my main problem with it, besides the evangelicals all getting up in people's faces, is that it seems atleast 1/2 of the people that believe do so simply because their parents told them too.... Very disapointing. Now if someone's actually sat down, thought about the issue for a long time, made their own conclusions, etc, then that's alright.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Wholly agree with OAMP.

I think it wasn't til around high school that I stopped to think again, and came to accept that it was fair to speculate that there might be a deity or greater power of some form after all. I just knew for certain that none of the existing religions I'd learnt of up to that point made any sense to me.

I've always been a bit more open to the concept of a spiritual world of some form, since that always seemed a slightly more logical thing. Not too far back things like electricity and micro oganisims were a total mystery to us. It's believable enough to think that come another century or two that we could discover more. I still don't believe in any type of spirituality, for the same reasons. It's just easier to accept as a concept. It's hard to weigh up the amount of mixed stories you hear, but so far nothing strikes me as reason to believe.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You would say it's the obvious path to assume "nothin there" Squid. However also like you said not even that long ago elements such as electricity, protons, and so forth did not exist to us. There was no proof at all, and yet they existed. People who built the first planes to try and fly were ridiculed, and now it costs 7 Euros to fly from Glasgow to Dublin. So with that in mind, is it so obvious that for us to turn a blind eye and stamp our foot on the ground and say "that doesn't exist" to something that has yet to be proven in either fashion.

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Back to the original debate with this point... how can one debate that there is or isn't a deity without the facts to support said cause?

I say there is, but I can not prove it. However, one cannot prove that there is not one, so the entire thing comes down to personal belief and faith.

The great debates that take place with the religious vs. people like Sam Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens: one side has substance, the other is only holding up their finger and saying "no".

Most atheists are using the facts that point out contradictions or flaws in any scriptures. One side claims Noah's Arc took place, the other shows facts to why such a claim is more than ridiculous. The best fact of all however, is Evolution. It shows that the time of the human race and all of life was greater than what people assumed and wrote in their books.

Perhaps you don't have a religion, but just believe in "something". In that case, the good ol' cheese burger comes into play.

You want the cheeseburger but without any cheese. You're believing something that is derived from something else. We have evidence to show that the source material is false and so you pick and choose... well... "I'll take the parts that seem to work".

What happens in years to come when the amount of fallacies grow in numbers? Say they're at 50% now, what about when it gets to 90% or more? Are you still going to claim your burger is a cheeseburger?

A text that is "supposed" to be absolute, is proven to be anything but. What more has to be proven? Discovering one fallacy should have been enough to bring down the whole religion(s). Ah, but now we get with Steven Pinker (Atheist) and more with Sam Harris. Both men know the mind enough to know that emotions, fear etc. - all play a part to why faith is so strong.

So a lot of talk in the atheist communities is rolling around the psychology. We've gained facts that show fallacy over written/said claims of faith. Now we're studying the other part to what's apparently holding people back. I'm sure that if you read more on what Sam and Steven have shown, you would note that fallacy is already there.

Now I'm done for now. I think we're only going to circle the debate at this point. D=

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I think ye miss my standpoint in this whole thing. I'm not defending scripture, the Koran, or any other one single religion. I'm defending the possibility of there being a diety out there.

Not once have I claimed full truth of scripture, yet it is now used to deny the existence of anything?

And what about people who find their spiritual path because it simply feels right to them? Yes, feeling, emotion... use whatever big words you want to describe it all, but to some people it can simply feel right. Just like with you, not believing in anything feels right. Glad you found your path.

However, I find it highly hypocritical that one can speak out against having a belief push towards them, then just as violently push back with their own belief.

As to the great cheeseburger... how come everything is to become a fallacy? How can it get to become 90% false if your beliefs centre around the diety itself. You keep talking about proof, and all this proof against scripture, but nothing has been proven against the existence of a diety. This is my entire point. Nothing else, just the possible existence of a diety, a God, a Goddess, a flying fucking spaghetti creature, Cthulu, what have ye. I'm not even getting at what said diety could be like.

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I think ye miss my standpoint in this whole thing. I'm not defending scripture, the Koran, or any other one single religion. I'm defending the possibility of there being a diety out there.

Not once have I claimed full truth of scripture, yet it is now used to deny the existence of anything?

And what about people who find their spiritual path because it simply feels right to them? Yes, feeling, emotion... use whatever big words you want to describe it all, but to some people it can simply feel right. Just like with you, not believing in anything feels right. Glad you found your path.

However, I find it highly hypocritical that one can speak out against having a belief push towards them, then just as violently push back with their own belief.

As to the great cheeseburger... how come everything is to become a fallacy? How can it get to become 90% false if your beliefs centre around the diety itself. You keep talking about proof, and all this proof against scripture, but nothing has been proven against the existence of a diety. This is my entire point. Nothing else, just the possible existence of a diety, a God, a Goddess, a flying fucking spaghetti creature, Cthulu, what have ye. I'm not even getting at what said diety could be like.

I guess the debate goes on! xD

I got your point. Please understand that I'm suggesting that you're defense is exactly the same as saying pink unicorns are possible. Fortunately, we have information gathered (thanks to science) that can show why that possibility is not likely.

You must be registered to see the links

I really wish I had the full interview. But that man suggest that god is unnecessary thanks to what we know so far.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Your backup video is unsupported internationally.

But so what if a diety is "unnecessary".

But no, I cannot continue this debate. There will be no winner as it is clear that my opponent is unwilling to accept a possibility. Which is fine. His life choice.

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Your backup video is unsupported internationally.

But so what if a diety is "unnecessary".

But no, I cannot continue this debate. There will be no winner as it is clear that my opponent is unwilling to accept a possibility. Which is fine. His life choice.

You sound upset.

I've already stated before (in another thread I think), that I'm not unwilling to accept the possibility. I'm only choosing not to accept the actual claim until the evidence is put forth.

What matters about a god being unnecessary, and how science has also shown that the claims have fallacies, all relates to why one should be on the same position as I.

No need to say that the possibility is not true, but there is a need to not accept it as true until the evidence is there.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I think ye miss my standpoint in this whole thing. I'm not defending scripture, the Koran, or any other one single religion. I'm defending the possibility of there being a diety out there.

How many atheists even claim that it isn't possible for there to be a god?

 

[Luppikun]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I personally believe that if there IS a God, there has to be a Goddess as well. Opposites must exist.
But I'm not Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Agnostic, none of that. (Although I used to be Acrostic, I changed my religion)
And there must be some being out there... How else do I explain why everything goes wrong for me? *sarcasm*

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You sound upset.

I've already stated before (in another thread I think), that I'm not unwilling to accept the possibility. I'm only choosing not to accept the actual claim until the evidence is put forth.

What matters about a god being unnecessary, and how science has also shown that the claims have fallacies, all relates to why one should be on the same position as I.

No need to say that the possibility is not true, but there is a need to not accept it as true until the evidence is there.

Like I said, my point has always been the possibility over the actual existence.

Also, the note of "should be in the same position as I" is one of the things I'm talking about, where it's just as wrong for Atheists to be shoving their beliefs on other people. What people should be doing is discovering things for themselves. Science itself is not infallible, being based off theories and concepts itself.

And there is no need to accept it. Maybe for you, but again, not the whole planet. That is someone once again claiming that every single person should follow their belief system.

How many atheists even claim that it isn't possible for there to be a god?

Couldn't give you a proper number as I haven't conducted a full planet wide survey. However there are quite a few out there that simply stamp down their foot and say "no".

I personally believe that if there IS a God, there has to be a Goddess as well. Opposites must exist.
But I'm not Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Agnostic, none of that. (Although I used to be Acrostic, I changed my religion)
And there must be some being out there... How else do I explain why everything goes wrong for me?

Those are your beliefs, but if there is something out there, it doesn't mean that they are the reason things go wrong.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You would say it's the obvious path to assume "nothin there" Squid. However also like you said not even that long ago elements such as electricity, protons, and so forth did not exist to us. There was no proof at all, and yet they existed. People who built the first planes to try and fly were ridiculed, and now it costs 7 Euros to fly from Glasgow to Dublin. So with that in mind, is it so obvious that for us to turn a blind eye and stamp our foot on the ground and say "that doesn't exist" to something that has yet to be proven in either fashion.

The difference there is that we saw evidence of electricity and similar things all the time in the form of lighting. It was as clearly real as anything else, just not understood. Gods and deities on the other hand still have zero initial evidence beyond their use to try and explain strange phenomenon such as lightning.

Though I never did say that I turn a blind eye and rule it out altogether. I'm plenty willing to accept the possibility. Just that there is nothing I've seen to suggest it thus far, so it would be backwards of me to start believing in something with no basis. I don't do it for anything else, and so deities and the like get no special treatment.

Innocent until proven guilty.

A person may well be guilty of something, and a god may well exist, but until there's good reason for thinking so, I'm not going to put that guy on trial.

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Also, the note of "should be in the same position as I" is one of the things I'm talking about, where it's just as wrong for Atheists to be shoving their beliefs on other people. What people should be doing is discovering things for themselves. Science itself is not infallible, being based off theories and concepts itself.

And there is no need to accept it. Maybe for you, but again, not the whole planet. That is someone once again claiming that every single person should follow their belief system.

I take that back, entirely. People can have their beliefs, so long it's kept to themselves. Now it's very difficult for this rule to happen because a lot of religions are supposed to be absolute/true. So it's almost impossible for a person who believes to ignore everything we're discovering today, without either causing major problems for your life or for others.

One way or another, heads will clash. I can certainly suggest that anytime they do, it won't be the 'atheist' who started it.