Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 31 of 34

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   To the tw religious ppl (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696182)

MC Hamster 11-02-2020 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19254460)
TWHOF.

Now.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

I'd buy The Book of Robert, but only if it were bound in denim.

Falhawk 11-02-2020 18:19

How could it not be?

Also, isn't the book of Mormon a USA bible?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

MC Hamster 11-02-2020 18:22

(It is. This is part of the funny. SSssshhhh)

Amadeus 11-03-2020 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by amRam (Post 19253987)
It's not guilt. You need to read more wikipedia I think. The entire point of most of the teachings is to follow an ideal (Jesus for example) and on that path you'll reach "heaven"

By that same method the teachings expose you to hell so that you can know what it is and how to avoid it.

These are very basic fundamental lessons. Position yourself towards the greatest good you can imagine, follow that path and good things will come to you. Understand your own capacity for evil and control it so you don't "go to hell"

You can boil this lesson down from a million different stories. The point being that it works well on an individual level and has a proven track record.

It's nice that that's your takeaway from it, but how do you explain the thousands of denominations of christianity who all disagree with your interpretation? According to most of them, what the book says is that you're an inherently flawed worthless being who deserves eternal punishment for something your ancestors did unless you get with the program.

And so we arrive back to the very first question posed in this thread: what makes your interpretation more correct than everyone else's?

Data 11-03-2020 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19254943)
According to most of them, what the book says is that you're an inherently flawed worthless being who deserves eternal punishment for something your ancestors did unless you get with the program.

:lol: This ****ing guy...

Amadeus 11-03-2020 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Data (Post 19254331)
I keep coming back to this because it's so unbelievably stupid.

Belief in a higher power can't be irrational because it cannot be objectively disproven, anymore than the multiverse hypothesis or the simulation hypothesis could be disproven. There's a reason these things are studied in philosophy and not theoretical physics -- they try to answer questions science isn't prepared to tackle.

The fact that it's an unfalsifiable proposition is exactly what makes belief in it irrational. Pick your example: Russell's teapot, invisible dragon in my garage, leprechauns, etc. I doubt you'd hesitate to call belief in any of these things irrational, but you want to make a special exception for belief in a god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Data (Post 19254331)
Moreover, people commonly hold all sorts of irrational beliefs with absolutely no dangerous results. Do you have a lucky number? Do you believe all celebrity deaths come in threes? Have you ever loved someone who hated you? Have you ever argued with a pedophile on the internet?

So your premise is garbage and your conclusion is a ****ing joke. You should seriously kill yourself.

See, what you're saying here is that it's ok to eat the asbestos burger so long as there's not a whole lot of asbestos in it. Besides the fact that this is still an argument for asbestos-free burgers, religions have a tendency to be super ****ing invasive into not just the lives of the believers, but also everyone around those believers by telling the believers how to treat them (spoiler, not well).

Get back to me when the catholic church has stopped actively spreading AIDS in Africa because of scripture, and we can talk about how harmless religious beliefs are.

Data 11-03-2020 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19254945)
Get back to me when the catholic church has stopped actively spreading AIDS in Africa because of scripture, and we can talk about how harmless religious beliefs are.

https://i.imgur.com/TcGQ0C5.gif

amRam 11-03-2020 17:00

We need some secular utopia up in this *****

End dangerous religious beliefs immediately

Pagy 11-03-2020 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Data (Post 19254944)
:lol: This ****ing guy...

i thought he was talking about woke people claiming this on a daily basis oops

NoGodForMe 11-03-2020 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19254542)
How could it not be?

Also, isn't the book of Mormon a USA bible?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Not really.
Book of Mormon - Wikipedia
"The Book of Mormon contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2200 BC to AD 421.

That's not modern. It would have to start around 1492 AD when Columbus came to America.

They follow Jesus Christ. They have issues as stated in this article.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia

The Pumpkin King 11-03-2020 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
No, that's actually a pretty irrelevant question. You've already noted there's nothing out there to empirically prove His existence. You're demanding the existence of some anonymous "Intelligent Designer", but even you don't seem to be willing to state that's the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God (and not one of the thousands of others people have and do believe in around the world, all of which come with their own creation mythology which is equally plausible if "there must be a consciousness behind this" is your only proof)

Usually in such discussions I compress my views as much as possible to find common ground. That way unique issues can be isolated and focused on.

The gap between Atheism and Theism is more than a large enough range to get lost in. Also I have been accused of adding complexity on numerous occasions, so I'm inclined to keep things as simple as I can.

What would the discussion gain from mentioning my own affiliation and the intricate differences between the various religions?

That would be like moving the discussion to advanced quantum physics when we already don't even agree on many of the most basic premises of our universe as it stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
As I said, random chance. In an infinite number of dice throws, the one that results in you and me having this conversation must occur.

Again, you are missing so much from here. What causes the dice roll? What created the space for the dice roll to happen? What created "time" so that the dice roll was even noticeable.

As someone that doesn't believe in the supernatural, surely dice cannot simply roll themselves while lingering in a "nothingness" devoid of time and space.

Random chance of what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Now you're either being deliberately naive or else you genuinely don't understand evolution. This is not something there's really any significant scientific doubt over. The Cambrian Explosion took place over at least ten million years, which puts it longer than us hominids have even existed. Biologically speaking, it's really not that rapid. So yes, it's entirely possible for the sort of evolution those short-lived lifeforms would be subject to to have happened in that sort of timeframe.

Wow, both of those sound pretty bad. Are you certain it is either or?

If no scientists doubt it, than why can I link a video with 1,000 scientists saying you have every reason to doubt it?

Are those 1,000 scientists insignificant? If so, why?

If you are willing to say that these 1,000 scientists are "deliberately naive" or "genuinely don't understand evolution" you are more than welcome to, and I'm fine to be lumped in with these 1,000 other idiots that "just don't understand."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Nonsense. Again, you're assuming conscious 'design' where there need not be any. Take that random number generator, punch a seed into it and it'll give you your social security number. Design? No. Punch in an infinite number of seeds, and one of those results must be that number. If you have a filter on that generator that will only show the number if it matches your social security number, then voila, there you have it. We have a filter on our universe as being one that works for us. Infinite random setups, and out we pop. No magic, no design or designer, just simple logic. We're here because we can be.

The beauty of the example you give is that it proves my exact point. You are using a source of intelligence, in this case, a human, to operate a device, driven by energy, probably electricity, and using the conscious being operating it to willfully feed the machine data in the form of a social security number, which is purposeful intent.

And you listed all of those things without it even once dawning on you that your own example requires intelligence, consciousness, and willful intent, just as I described.

Give this one another go and you will watch the same thing happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
It really doesn't. There are any number of articles out there which point out the numerous flaws in that statement.

I would love to read any articles showing flaws with intelligent design. Links would be very welcome. Usually when I read them they are full of assumptions, gaps in logic, and sometimes even statements that are simply not true. If you like you can link one and we can discuss it.

I have consumed a very large amount of material on the topic, and found the opinion that this universe randomly spawned out of nothingness for no good reason to be highly illogical. I also found it to go against much of what we have learned through scientific experiment.

Everything we know about science points to the near mathematical impossibility of the fine-tuning of this universe happening by accident. This serves as very strong evidence that our universe was indeed created by a causal agent of high intelligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
...and that right there is one of its fundamental flaws. It isn't until you prove it, and even then you should be open to the possibility that it is not. Your mind is closed to the possibility that it's wrong.

Just like you are with Darwinian Theory right? Strongly open to the possibility it is wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
The process can happen perfectly well without a creator. There is absolutely no need for it. You are inserting a variable which need not exist. Yes: by definition, you are adding unnecessary complexity.

You are more than welcome to attempt to teach me how a universe could be created without intelligence, consciousness, or intent.

Your above example used all three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
We are here. We are a product of the constants that created this universe. Other constants, we'd be different, or non-existent. Either way, we are the only possible outcome of this specific universe. In that way, it absolutely is made for us. The other universe with a 50:1 girl to guy ratio in which we fly through space and live in eternal bliss - that's out there too, it's just a different dice roll.

You think life is unfathomably robust, that regardless of the circumstances of the universe, we'd come out with shine on our shoes.

I just absolutely disagree.

I think it is quite the opposite.

The other dice rolls are either cataclysm or nothingness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You seem to equate understanding with agreeing. They are not two in the same.

I'm allowed to understand your argument and flat out disagree with it.

Many people on here, upon seeing me restrain belief in the scientific validity of Darwinian Theory, have just drawn the conclusion "Well he must not understand it then."

You are welcome to draw that conclusion as you like.

I have drawn a very similar conclusion that the reason many people believe in Darwinian Theory is because they actually don't understand on a deeper level what it is teaching.

In all cases that I see people discussing Darwinian Theory, there are a long list of assumptions that are made that cannot be verified through scientific experiment, there are gaps in logic that go fully overlooked, and none of the points of scrutiny I bring up ever go even moderately addressed. As you may have noticed when I interacted with others, I can't even ask simple questions about evolution without facing potent ridicule. To me, that sounds, looks, and feels like religious fanaticism whose control method is public humiliation. I'm sure anyone saying the world was round 600 years ago faced similar ridicule when bringing up obvious gaps in logic or asking scrutinizing questions.

If Darwinian Theory was less dogma and more a scientific truth, people would be way less emotional about it when discussing the matter.

Nobody gets riled up discussing the existence vs non-existence of the sun.

If Darwinian Theory were basic science, when people asked questions about it, they would simply be answered with measurable accuracy and it would be accepted by all as scientific truth. However, that is not what we observe. We observe volatile emotional reactions. people getting very noticeably upset, throwing insults, and even following others around berating them for having asked basic questions about the theory, how sad.

How long does it take for one animal to become another totally different animal that is unrecognizable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
No, I've already stated I don't know (or particularly care) what Secular Humanism teaches, I'm not here to try to put a label on my own thoughts on life. Therefore I'm not going to correct you. I'm not suggesting I agree though, only that I don't know. There's a fundamental difference in that reasoning that's somewhat relevant here.

I understand the difference between agreeing and saying "I don't know." I'm certain you could say the same.

It is a fact that secular humanism teaches that life has no intrinsic meaning, value, or purpose. What I suppose I meant to say was that "Since there is no disagreement, I think we are fine to move on from this issue."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
"wrong"? What is "wrong"? Define it. How are you measuring that? Exactly how 'wrong' are these things? What is the unit of measurement? How does that compare to cheating on your wife, or lying on your tax return, or donating to charity?

No, the word objective has nothing to do with units of measurement. Only that there is a truth underlying the matter that is not subject to ones opinion.

In our particular discussion the word "wrong" could be loosely translated as "immoral".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Those would be entirely straightforward, simple questions to answer if what you stated was true. You could tell me down to ten decimal places how those compare. That's what "Objective" means.

If you want them ranked/measured in terms of immorality, sure:

1) Torturing babies for entertainment
2) Cheating on your wife
3) Evading taxes
4) Donating to charity (a moral action)

They are easily ranked. And yes, because they are objective, it was very easy to do so.

And no, objectivity has nothing to do with ultra-specific finite measurements, it simply means the truth of the matter is not influenced by
personal feelings or opinions.

There are a long list of objective truths in this world that cannot be measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
No, morality is not objective. Morality is a human construct and entirely dependent on the subject. You would not need to cite such an extreme example if it weren't, because we'd be able to agree that sacrificing a goat to appease a god (the wrong one, not yours) is X units of wrong.

Humans are hard-wired with a long list of things, like an urge to sleep, drive to eat, placing our hands on injured areas, etc. None of these things are human constructs.

Morality is hard-coded within us in like fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
That by no means that secularism has no morality. Philosophers have discussed it since well before Christianity (or even monotheism) even existed, and I'd suggest that treating someone with kindness and respect because you are able to empathise with their situation is (subjectively) far more "moral" than doing so to secure your own place in some blissful afterlife. That is an entirely selfish stance and fundamentally lacks morality.

These are some super interesting points.

You will get no argument from me on not needing religion to be a moral individual. Saying otherwise would conflict with my above argument that morality is hard-coded within us.

I do not think you need a particular worldview to be moral at all, though some definitely encourage it.

Committing a moral act for the purpose of selfish gain does not inherintly convert the act to being immoral.

There are many situations where it is perfectly fine to act in one's own selfish interest. Doing so is not inherintly immoral.

You could even open up a can of worms and say that most all moral acts are selfish, as mostly people do them to feel good about themselves, or to prevent themselves from feeling bad.

Can you explain more about why you view doing moral acts to secure one's reward in the afterlife is inherintly immoral?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Yeah, but an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and you get the entire Library of Congress. This is the bit you're skipping over or just not grasping. An infinite universe means this has to exist.

I think we are having another disconnect here.

I understand your perspective, one of raw probability. If you have a 100-sided-die, eventually it will land on 100. I get it.

However, I think this example is lacking in terms of practicality towards our discussion on the creation of the universe where multiple parameters must enter the discussion.

Your proposal is one of raw math, that nobody would ever disagree with.

The creation of the universe, is not simply a discussion on raw math. It's a more complex discussion.

In your example, there are infinite monkeys, and infinite typewriters. Who is to say we even have one typewriter? There are arbitrary things we are discussing at this point.

All I am saying is that incredible complexity and design does not spawn on its own accord like you are presuming. Complex design requires a source of intelligence for it to come into existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Yep. Politics and Power, it really comes down to that. Going back to a previous subject, Lithuania was home to the last surviving pagan religion in Europe. They actually had crusades called against them by the Pope. They adopted Christianity as a way to put an end the religiously-sanctioned invasion of their homeland by the Teutonic order, it really comes down to that. Accept Jesus or die. How does that rate on the objective morality scale?

I think your notion that religion mostly spreads through violence and politics is based on a worldview that sees all religion as the same, when they are not.

Oppression, mass-murder, and genocide rates very high on the scale of immorality.

Again, there are so many examples of each worldview committing atrocities that I find the discussion mostly a waste.

If you are mentioning the crusades, then likely you are unaware of the fact that history does not paint a very bright picture of secular humanism at all. The horrors that have spawned from that worldview are quite astounding.

Mankind, in its essence, is depraved. It does not matter what worldview you adhere to. People of all shapes, sizes, and beliefs do very bad things indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Yep, so we're not around to wonder at those versions. We only get to see this one, with the familiar constants that 'work' for us. And yes, with one of those seeds, we are purple. We are every conceivable possibility.

That is a fascinating view.

One full of deep beauty.

It is interesting though, because we can't test this by changing all the parameters of the universe.

I am convinced that if we were to have such an ability to shift all of the constants in the universe, that you would see that we are quite the opposite of what you imagine. We would be rendered into dust at best. More than likely we never would have existed to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Given that then, why raise the subject? If it's 'nothing more' than a letter to long-dead Corinthians, why is it still being published? You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that only bits and pieces of it are relevant, then you're beginning to make judgement calls on it, and if you're making judgement calls on it then you are imposing your own views on what is and what is not important to it. So you're going to be ignoring bits you don't agree with, while putting undue importance on the bits you like, consciously or not. If you're only accepting the bits that you view as 'still valid', then you acknowledge that there is no fundamental pervasive wisdom in there, just stuff that you agree with and stuff that you don't.

Oh I would never say that it's a worthless letter of no value.

I think the entire letter is relevant and valuable.

What I'm suggesting is that most people do not understand the letter very well at all.

On the above point, I think you are not arguing with me. Either that or I failed to articulate myself well.

I am doing none of the cherry picking you describe.

I'm actually accusing most others of doing such cherry picking, highlighted by the fact that they would attack the verse where women are chastised and completely ignore the verse where men are chastised. That is cherry-picking indeed.

If I were to prescribe to a holy book, I would not adhere to verses I liked, and ignore verses I did not, as I've seen many do. It's just not my style. You have to accept such things in full entirety. It's an all or nothing deal.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Why would we keep teaching those stories which have not? During the past 100 years we have unprecedented levels of advancement and development in all sorts of fundamental understandings of the universe, of personal and social development and change. How many of those stories have been edited out of the Bible as being no longer valid? We've had decades of evidence to say that camels just weren't around in the middle east in the time of Abraham, yet check out the book and there he still is, with his giant herds of animals which weren't there.

I've never heard about camels in the desert being a stretch, but I'm curious to read about that.

As for our advancement. I have a very different perspective.

We have advanced in technology, yes. Some other areas we have advanced in too.

However, mostly, we have not moved forward at all.

We are still just as violent, just as hostile, just as nasty, just as lonely, just as troubled, just as disturbed as we ever have been. Only now it's on a far greater scale. The amount of people that died in world war 2 is insane.

If you look around the world, you will see that it is still paved with horrors. Starving children all over the globe when we have enough food to feed them all and more.

No, mankind is still woefully underdeveloped and sick deeply in its heart.

We can get nice paint jobs for our high-tech sports cars all we want. It will not hide our lack of advancement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
I'd prefer she go check out some Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams. Highly entertaining stuff and still with some very good messages, and no-one's going to kill you for not agreeing with them. Maybe she could go read some Plato, or Homer. Maybe go check out Tom Sawyer, or maybe even check out On the Origin of Species, or A Brief History of Time ;)

Awwww Terry Pratchett is awesome. I loved Men At Arms. He's so imaginative and creative. Very entertaining indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
These things have never existed in the past. That's why Jesus had to go and trash the moneylenders who apparently didn't exist and weren't profiteering off the poor that one time. It's a good thing that he did though, and that two thousand years of teaching have stamped that sort of nonsense out entirely.

They can also break them entirely. The value is not in the story or the book, but in the lesson and the teacher, and that need not be one that involves sky wizards.

You believe in sky slime that can morph into a seven headed hydra with lazer beam eyes.

It kind of steals the sting out of the whole sky wizard thing when you are just as guilty of having ludicrous supernatural beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
Again, there's no need for that to be religious. I'd also suggest that if the only thing keeping that child 'enriched' is having to live their life by a specific set of standards to face some theoretical reward or punishment at the end of it, then that child is woefully ill-equipped to deal with any situations which may fall outside of those specific rules and standards. That's where you get atrocities performed "in the name of the book" when someone can find the right way to interpret their hatred and bile.

Again, most Atheists I speak to have a very limited understanding of religion.

Not all religion is simply about punishment and reward.

However, I deeply agree with you about interpretation of holy books.

That stuff gets mega dangerous real fast.

You can interpret any book in any wild crazy way you want.

Teacher: "Go do good things!"

Student: "Ok, I'll kill all the sick people to make the world a better place."

Teacher: "Oh no! What have you done?!?!"

Student: "Only what you told me to do!"

People justify numerous atrocities with holy books. That is absolutely true.

MC Hamster 11-03-2020 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin King (Post 19255050)
Again, you are missing so much from here. What causes the dice roll? What created the space for the dice roll to happen? What created "time" so that the dice roll was even noticeable.

You're aware I'm not talking about actual dice, rolling in space and time, yes? These things need not happen as you and I think about them, ordered and constrained by four dimensions. It's just an analogy.

If you are willing to accept that there is an conscious, intelligent designer which exists outside of our spacetime, then you should be perfectly happy to accept that there is some far more mundane force or system which exists similarly. It's actually a far simpler explanation than what you're suggesting.

Quote:

As someone that doesn't believe in the supernatural, surely dice cannot simply roll themselves while lingering in a "nothingness" devoid of time and space.
Time and Space are merely dimensions in which we operate. To go back to a previous subject, the mathematics behind M-Theory predicts there are eleven such dimensions, so that's a whole lot more than we perceive.

Quote:

If no scientists doubt it, than why can I link a video with 1,000 scientists saying you have every reason to doubt it?

Are those 1,000 scientists insignificant? If so, why?

If you are willing to say that these 1,000 scientists are "deliberately naive" or "genuinely don't understand evolution" you are more than welcome to, and I'm fine to be lumped in with these 1,000 other idiots that "just don't understand."
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...-other-issues/

I said 'significant' - and no, 1000 carefully selected individuals are not particularly significant when you consider that (depending on the survey) something like 97% to 98% of scientists out there agree with it. Again, cherry-picking to support your preposition and ignoring the rest is not how science works.


Quote:

The beauty of the example you give is that it proves my exact point. You are using a source of intelligence, in this case, a human, to operate a device, driven by energy, probably electricity, and using the conscious being operating it to willfully feed the machine data in the form of a social security number, which is purposeful intent.
Nope, the device could be operated by a pecking chicken toy smashing the keyboard, and the filter is one of your own - you're simply unable to see the other numbers. Like I said though, it's an analogy, not a perfect mathematical model.

Quote:

And you listed all of those things without it even once dawning on you that your own example requires intelligence, consciousness, and willful intent, just as I described.
No, it doesn't. You're just demanding it be there. This is the fundamental issue here I'm trying to rephrase in as many ways as I can think of until it registers: Just because something is complex and "beautiful" does not mean it is designed. No-one's out there building snowflakes one by one, it's just a law of the universe that they have to be the way they are.

Quote:

I would love to read any articles showing flaws with intelligent design. Links would be very welcome.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=scientific+fla...lligent+design


Quote:

Everything we know about science points to the near mathematical impossibility of the fine-tuning of this universe happening by accident.
"near" impossibility. Which, in an infinite multiverse, equates to an absolute certainty. As I said, we must be here, irrespective of how 'near' impossible it may be. If you can accept that basic mathematical premise, then all question of 'intent' disappears.

Quote:

This serves as very strong evidence that our universe was indeed created by a causal agent of high intelligence.
No, it doesn't.

Quote:

In all cases that I see people discussing Darwinian Theory, there are a long list of assumptions that are made that cannot be verified through scientific experiment, there are gaps in logic that go fully overlooked, and none of the points of scrutiny I bring up ever go even moderately addressed. As you may have noticed when I interacted with others, I can't even ask simple questions about evolution without facing potent ridicule. To me, that sounds, looks, and feels like religious fanaticism whose control method is public humiliation. I'm sure anyone saying the world was round 600 years ago faced similar ridicule when bringing up obvious gaps in logic or asking scrutinizing questions.

If Darwinian Theory was less dogma and more a scientific truth, people would be way less emotional about it when discussing the matter.
As I linked previously, the vast and overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is with Darwinism. Thanks largely to the vested interests in organised religion, the general population (particularly in the USA) is less convinced. Again, I'm not going to say it's absolute, 100% fact - but yes, it would take some pretty serious convincing. We're talking Einstein correcting Newton on gravity, here.

Quote:

Nobody gets riled up discussing the existence vs non-existence of the sun.
Isn't it nice to be able to agree that it not only exists, but is actually the centre of our solar system, despite the concerted efforts of the church to deny that simple science? How do those geocentrists look today?


Quote:

If Darwinian Theory were basic science, when people asked questions about it, they would simply be answered with measurable accuracy and it would be accepted by all as scientific truth. However, that is not what we observe. We observe volatile emotional reactions. people getting very noticeably upset, throwing insults, and even following others around berating them for having asked basic questions about the theory, how sad.
Similar situation with climate science. Scientific community: absolutely and categorically down with the world getting hotter due to human activity. Vested interests making vast amounts of money out of that activity: "but there's doubt!" and desperately seeking anything to refute it, despite being proven false time after time. At some point, you get sick of the same old **** and tune out. "Come back when you genuinely have something."

Quote:

How long does it take for one animal to become another totally different animal that is unrecognizable?
"It depends." Given a fast reproduction rate and significant environmental factors, "pretty damn fast". 10 million years is a long time. As to the Cambrian Explosion: The fastest inferred rates are still consistent with evolution by natural selection and with data from living organisms, potentially resolving “Darwin’s dilemma.”

Quote:

If you want them ranked/measured in terms of immorality, sure:

1) Torturing babies for entertainment
2) Cheating on your wife
3) Evading taxes
4) Donating to charity (a moral action)
I think there are some out there who might disagree with you on the order of 2 and 3... and that's kind of the point. It's a matter of opinion. If I am destitute and cannot afford to both pay my taxes and feed my family, is it immoral for my family to survive? Is it as immoral as someone earning billions and evading them in order to fund their baby torturing lifestyle? These things must be considered, and the opinion on how (im)moral they may be depends entirely on the views of the judger. That, by definition, is subjective. No, morality is absolutely, 100% a human construct and 100% subjective.

Quote:

Can you explain more about why you view doing moral acts to secure one's reward in the afterlife is inherintly immoral?
I don't, and I never said it was. I suggested the alternative was more moral if it comes from a position of altruism. I also tend to agree though that we're all fundamentally selfish and that that altruism is fed predominantly by the individuals own selfishness - they do it because it makes them happy. We are prisoners of our own experience, so all motivation comes back to ourselves.

Quote:

Your proposal is one of raw math, that nobody would ever disagree with.

The creation of the universe, is not simply a discussion on raw math. It's a more complex discussion.
Why? Why do you feel the need to make it more complicated than it need be. If you can explain it with math "that nobody would ever disagree with", then why do you insist on disagreeing with it, when it works? Why do you feel the need to introduce another variable (one which you cannot define, at that) to a problem which already works?

Quote:

In your example, there are infinite monkeys, and infinite typewriters. Who is to say we even have one typewriter?
Because that's what "infinite" means. Every single possibility.

Quote:

All I am saying is that incredible complexity and design does not spawn on its own accord like you are presuming. Complex design requires a source of intelligence for it to come into existence.
Pardon the French, but: Bull****. You're making assertions here which simply need not be. "Infinite." This "incredible complexity" must happen. Even more incredibly complex systems must also happen. Everything which is possible, happens. Complex or not.

Quote:

I think your notion that religion mostly spreads through violence and politics is based on a worldview that sees all religion as the same, when they are not.
No, it's just a response to your position that one or the other is somehow more inherently 'powerful' than the other. My response is that the vast majority of that power is based on the institutions behind that religion, more than the actual teachings.

Quote:

I am convinced that if we were to have such an ability to shift all of the constants in the universe, that you would see that we are quite the opposite of what you imagine. We would be rendered into dust at best. More than likely we never would have existed to begin with.
Those constants are what produced us, so yes - if they were changed, it would absolutely do a number on us. Again, this does not imply that they were set for our benefit. Do not confuse cause and effect.

Quote:

As for our advancement. I have a very different perspective.
I never tried to suggest we were perfect. Yeah, we still have issues.


Quote:

You believe in sky slime that can morph into a seven headed hydra with lazer beam eyes.

It kind of steals the sting out of the whole sky wizard thing when you are just as guilty of having ludicrous supernatural beliefs.
In some universe: yes, that seven headed hydra with laser beam eyes exists. If you're paying attention, you'll be aware that this also means that in some universe: yes, God exists. Exactly as you describe and exactly as every religion in the world has ever taught - all those gods in all their forms exist. In this universe? I see no evidence, no reason for that to be the case. Could I be wrong? It's possible, and in some universe I am. I just don't think it's this one. But then, I could be wrong.

The Pumpkin King 11-04-2020 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
You're aware I'm not talking about actual dice, rolling in space and time, yes? These things need not happen as you and I think about them, ordered and constrained by four dimensions. It's just an analogy.

I think most people you encounter will know what an analogy is.

The point that you are asserting, that if you roll a 100 sided dice, eventually you would get 100 is not a point anyone would disagree with.

Some analogies are good in that they accurately parallel a similar phenomena, others are bad in that they do not match up in any way.

I was pointing out that you tried to create an analogy to show how the universe could be created without intelligence, consciousness, or intent, yet in your example all three of those things found their way into your analogy by accident. I'm just trying to illustrate how whenever you discuss a universe creation event, intelligence, consciousness, and willful intent always seem to find there way into the discussion.

As far as I know, to create a universe that is in anyway is similar to our own, you do in fact need time and space.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
If you are willing to accept that there is an conscious, intelligent designer which exists outside of our spacetime, then you should be perfectly happy to accept that there is some far more mundane force or system which exists similarly. It's actually a far simpler explanation than what you're suggesting.

What kind of mundane force did you have in mind?

Could you describe this dice-rolling force with any sort of description?

An intelligent person having painted a painting is about as simple an explanation as it gets.

As I stated before, often when you remove things, things can get become counter-intuitively more complicated.

If you remove the painter, then more than likely you will be describing something that isn't as simple to grasp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Time and Space are merely dimensions in which we operate. To go back to a previous subject, the mathematics behind M-Theory predicts there are eleven such dimensions, so that's a whole lot more than we perceive.

Time and space also form the canvas that the painting has been painted on.

I'm super open to the concept of there being multiple dimensions. I'm fascinated with the idea and find it to be a possible likely scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
I said 'significant' - and no, 1000 carefully selected individuals are not particularly significant when you consider that (depending on the survey) something like 97% to 98% of scientists out there agree with it. Again, cherry-picking to support your preposition and ignoring the rest is not how science works.

"significant" is a relative term. If 1,000 angry people were banging loudly on your door outside your home, it may give rise to alarm.

Yes, I can go along with that number. About 98% sounds right.

It's not cherry picking to have a minority opinion. I'm simply saying that there are plenty of qualified individuals that agree with my stance on the matter.

All throughout our human history, there have been many occasions where it was discovered that the minority opinion was in fact, the correct one.

If I lived my life based on mass opinion of what a good life looks like, I would probably despise myself. The way most people choose to live their lives on this planet is kinda disgusting. The way most people think I find to be strange. I have always been a different thinker and I have no trouble with holding a 2% of scientists minority opinion. I have other opinions on different matters that probably register as an even smaller minority.

The whole "mass opinion must be correct" thing never had much influence on me. If I went by that, I would have believed that the Earth was the center of our solar system. I also would have believed the world was flat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Nope, the device could be operated by a pecking chicken toy smashing the keyboard, and the filter is one of your own - you're simply unable to see the other numbers. Like I said though, it's an analogy, not a perfect mathematical model.

Yet again, human intelligence, consciousness, and willful intent are involved in the example. A filter created by a self-aware, conscious, intelligent being is guiding the machine. The willful intent of me having created the filter is there as well.

What I'm saying, again, is that any time you try to create an analogy for the creation of the universe, it either will flat out not make any sense, or it will have intelligence, consciousness, and willful intent involved.

Thus far you are two for two with your attempts at analogies. If you have another go, you will be three for three in creating analogies that involve those three parameters as I said. The only other option is to make an analogy that is simply nonsensical entirely.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
No, it doesn't. You're just demanding it be there. This is the fundamental issue here I'm trying to rephrase in as many ways as I can think of until it registers: Just because something is complex and "beautiful" does not mean it is designed. No-one's out there building snowflakes one by one, it's just a law of the universe that they have to be the way they are.

I'm demanding no such thing. You are using examples with human beings involved. Human beings, by nature, are intelligent, conscious, and have willful intent. This is not my opinion or some sort of mind trick, it's simply a fact about human beings. Each analogy you have created has had a source of intelligence involved in it. I'm not demanding or willing it to be there, as I'm not the one creating the analogies.

You said that you could create a sensible analogy devoid of intelligent involvement, so I'm just waiting for you to do it.

While you are waiting for something to register in my mind, I'm equally waiting for it to register in yours that you have, in fact, twice, made attempts at making analogies that do not involve intelligence, and yet both times, they have involved intelligence.

Does that not strike you as interesting?

Why would you dismiss this without heavily considering the interesting phenomena that has occurred here?


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)

Interesting, you think I have not read material from opposing worldviews? Ones that I held as truth for over a decade?

The reason I requested links is because I have read books, articles, and listened to extensive audio material on the matter, and I have not been compelled that it is far more likely that there is no intelligence behind the creation of our universe. The evidence pointing towards the existence of an intelligent being behind the creation of the universe is far more compelling. I find this to be the case on the grounds of what science reveals to us, what logic dictates, and what all the physical evidence shows us. It is not an opinion based on "wanting to believe" or "needing comfort". I could just as easily accuse secular humanists of arriving at their own conclusions based on comfort and zeal.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
"near" impossibility. Which, in an infinite multiverse, equates to an absolute certainty. As I said, we must be here, irrespective of how 'near' impossible it may be. If you can accept that basic mathematical premise, then all question of 'intent' disappears.

Again, nobody would ever argue with math.

That being said, I'm not even really sure what your premise is.

You've only really talked about infinity playing out and probability being rendered out.

I'm still left with:

1) Where did the time and space for these mathematics to unfold in come from?
2) Why is this math firing off? What catalyzed it?
3) Why are there infinite chances for it to occur, instead of one?
4) How does a 100 sided dice eventually landing on 100 prove that math alone can create a universe?
5) Without time, space, intelligence, or catalyzing events behind it, how does anything that you are saying make sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
No, it doesn't.

If you are to be consistent in your stance, a painting is no longer evidence that a painter exists.

The drawings on your refrigerator door are no longer evidence that your daughter loves you.

Any etchings, markings, or creations of intelligent source, no longer give any grounds for belief in the existence of any intelligence behind them.

If you truly believe this, as you claim. I would ask you to follow through with this and be consistent on it.

When your wife says:

1) Honey, did you see the drawing your daughter made of you?

Your response should now be:

2) I saw the drawing, but that does not serve as any evidence that it was created by any form of intelligence, let alone my own daughter. In fact, the drawing likely spawned from random chaos, something that is not only possible, but more highly probable. I was simultaneously not impressed that a well-designed drawing apparated from nothingness, because that is a usual event in this universe that we live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
As I linked previously, the vast and overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is with Darwinism. Thanks largely to the vested interests in organised religion, the general population (particularly in the USA) is less convinced. Again, I'm not going to say it's absolute, 100% fact - but yes, it would take some pretty serious convincing. We're talking Einstein correcting Newton on gravity, here.

If you go back on the timeline, you will find that there was "overwhelming consensus" that the Earth was the center of the universe.

I have no quarrel on this issue.

I agree that most all scientists believe in Darwinian Theory.

Good thing for you scientists have never been wrong about anything before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Isn't it nice to be able to agree that it not only exists, but is actually the centre of our solar system, despite the concerted efforts of the church to deny that simple science? How do those geocentrists look today?

Those mass opinion geocentrists that made up 98% of the scientific population look pretty laughably stupid. You are right.

The Catholic church has been responsible for a long list of horrific atrocities. People have done such horrific things in the name of their worldviews.

Good thing the world had a nice Theist that knew that God created the universe to bail all of us out and teach us truth about the universe.

Currently, geocentrism is no longer the 98% held scientific opinion that is referred to as "scientific fact".



Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Similar situation with climate science. Scientific community: absolutely and categorically down with the world getting hotter due to human activity. Vested interests making vast amounts of money out of that activity: "but there's doubt!" and desperately seeking anything to refute it, despite being proven false time after time. At some point, you get sick of the same old **** and tune out. "Come back when you genuinely have something."

I do not believe in man-made climate change either. I do believe it is a possibility, but I am withholding judgement until there is scientific certainty.

When I was in college, scientists discovered that trees release methane. This was something that was previously unknown.

I wonder what else they will learn about the weather on our planet in the next few decades.

You seem to think that science is always correct.

This is another reason why I think studying history makes us wise. Throughout history, science has been found wrong countless times. There is nothing wrong with that, as it is inevitable.

But to look at science today and think "surely we aren't mistaken about anything that is held by mass opinion" seems silly to me. You are just repeating the same mistake people throughout history made.

100 years from now we will know with certainty that we were ultra wrong about something that we all thought was true when we were growing up.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
"It depends." Given a fast reproduction rate and significant environmental factors, "pretty damn fast". 10 million years is a long time. As to the Cambrian Explosion: The fastest inferred rates are still consistent with evolution by natural selection and with data from living organisms, potentially resolving “Darwin’s dilemma.”

These are the kind of answers I wish more people would throw out.

It shows you are actually confident in what you believe.

Much respect.

If it were scientific fact, I would assume everyone would respond like this, with a simple numerical answer.

Usually people meltdown when I ask this question, which to me is a clear red flag that I'm dealing with dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
I think there are some out there who might disagree with you on the order of 2 and 3... and that's kind of the point. It's a matter of opinion. If I am destitute and cannot afford to both pay my taxes and feed my family, is it immoral for my family to survive? Is it as immoral as someone earning billions and evading them in order to fund their baby torturing lifestyle? These things must be considered, and the opinion on how (im)moral they may be depends entirely on the views of the judger. That, by definition, is subjective. No, morality is absolutely, 100% a human construct and 100% subjective.

I fully understand and respect your opinion.

I just hold the polar opposite stance.

If you did a poll, I'm certain my answers would hold up quite strongly. The reason is that our morality is hard-wired within us. People generally know the difference between right and wrong.

You can pose these questions all you like, but deep down, you know that torturing babies for fun is worse than tax evasion. Everyone does. It's not up for debate.

Morality is not subjective at all. Context absolutely plays a roll in all discussion on morality, but there is a finite evil that remains unchanged.

If everyone tomorrow decided that torturing babies was "moral" and "upright", it would not change the matter at all. Rather it would be people that have shifted into deep-seated immorality.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
I don't, and I never said it was. I suggested the alternative was more moral if it comes from a position of altruism. I also tend to agree though that we're all fundamentally selfish and that that altruism is fed predominantly by the individuals own selfishness - they do it because it makes them happy. We are prisoners of our own experience, so all motivation comes back to ourselves.

Roger that. My apologies for my mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Why? Why do you feel the need to make it more complicated than it need be. If you can explain it with math "that nobody would ever disagree with", then why do you insist on disagreeing with it, when it works? Why do you feel the need to introduce another variable (one which you cannot define, at that) to a problem which already works?

I'm not making it any more complex than it needs to be. I'm keeping it as simple as possible.

What you are discussing is not a viable proposed universe creation analogy, it's simply raw math. And yes, you are correct, math works. If you roll a 100-sided-die it will certainly land on 100 eventually.

However, saying that the existence of probability is a viable analogy for the creation of the universe seems nonsensical to me.

It's much like saying you can create a hamburger by using a basic math equation.

The point that I'm making is that your analogy does not work.

You need:

1) Time
2) Space
3) A catalyst
4) Intelligence
5) Willful intent
6) Consciousness

Without these things, you are just discussing math, not creation.



Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Pardon the French, but: Bull****. You're making assertions here which simply need not be. "Infinite." This "incredible complexity" must happen. Even more incredibly complex systems must also happen. Everything which is possible, happens. Complex or not..

Oh that's totally fine. Zero offense taken. I know how you feel.

I was an Atheist for a long time, so I know how you feel and I respect your perspective on the matter.

Everything that is possible certainly doesn't happen.

Surely it was possible for me to become a comedian, a brick-layer, an accountant, and a scuba diver, and yet I became none of those things. It seems like we are finitely limited in how much potential we can realize in our lives. Not all possibilities come to fruition.

And no, if you put a rock on a barren planet, it will never manifest itself into a 1000 page encyclopedia as your view suggests. Incredible complexity and precise design does not simply arise by its own accord.

I understand that you directly disagree with me on this matter.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
No, it's just a response to your position that one or the other is somehow more inherently 'powerful' than the other. My response is that the vast majority of that power is based on the institutions behind that religion, more than the actual teachings.

That's a fair stance and easily arguable.

However I believe there is inherent power in the teachings of the different religions that play a huge role in their influence.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
Those constants are what produced us, so yes - if they were changed, it would absolutely do a number on us. Again, this does not imply that they were set for our benefit. Do not confuse cause and effect.

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
I never tried to suggest we were perfect. Yeah, we still have issues.

I apologize if it felt like I was pinning a stance on you that you didn't have. I know you didn't suggest that we were perfect. It was only my intention to show that mankind is still just as depraved as it has always been.



Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255198)
In some universe: yes, that seven headed hydra with laser beam eyes exists. If you're paying attention, you'll be aware that this also means that in some universe: yes, God exists. Exactly as you describe and exactly as every religion in the world has ever taught - all those gods in all their forms exist. In this universe? I see no evidence, no reason for that to be the case. Could I be wrong? It's possible, and in some universe I am. I just don't think it's this one. But then, I could be wrong.

Darwinian Theory suggests that the seven headed hydra is readily on its way in our current universe. We need only wait 10 million years in our current universe for the dice to be rolled, and it to manifest itself into existence without any intelligent outside interference.

I could also be wrong about a long number of things. I don't profess to have all the right answers. In fact, I'm certain that I'm wrong about a number of things, though I do not know what those things are. Hopefully they will be revealed to me in a powerful way someday.

It's very curious to me to hear Atheists repeatedly say "a painting is not evidence of a painter" when ever fiber of their beings acts on that being the case.

An Atheist will pick up a drawing his daughter left for him and smile, knowing that his daughter drew it.

An Atheist will watch the latest television series and get angry at the author for ruining it.

An Atheist will see crayon markings on the wall and know that most likely his son was responsible.

Yet simultaneously, none of these things are even remotely good evidence of any of those conclusions right?

If the visible markings of willful creation do not serve as evidence of a creator...

It just seems silly and impractical. It also seems like something that people say, but do not live lives consistent with that view at all. In fact, their lives reflect the opposite, that they, in fact, are certain, that creations are evidence of a creator.

Amadeus 11-04-2020 06:53

lol TPK still asking the same questions as if they haven't already been answered

MC Hamster 11-04-2020 07:47

I will leave it with this... You insist the universe is designed, that it is complex and beautiful. These are all relative terms. Design versus randomness, complexity versus simplicity, beauty versus ugliness. What then, is your comparison? Where is the simple universe which makes this one complex? The ugly one which makes this beautiful? The random, chaotic one, which makes this designed?

Falhawk 11-04-2020 09:55

I do not recall a seven headed hydra in books on evolution

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Falhawk 11-04-2020 09:56

Book recommendation for tpk: a short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson. It is a very easy read, the audio book version is excellent.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Falhawk 11-04-2020 09:57

Also everything by dawkins

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

The Pumpkin King 11-04-2020 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19255389)
I will leave it with this... You insist the universe is designed, that it is complex and beautiful. These are all relative terms. Design versus randomness, complexity versus simplicity, beauty versus ugliness. What then, is your comparison? Where is the simple universe which makes this one complex? The ugly one which makes this beautiful? The random, chaotic one, which makes this designed?

If these are closing statements then I will make mine as well:

The overwhelming evidence of God's existence is so overtly plain that it is staring you right in the face, everywhere you look.

I encourage you to look at the incredible complexity and design that you see all around you, as well as the near impossibility of the fine-tuning of the physical laws of our universe. The universe around us simply cannot have happened by random chance.

An encyclopedia cannot simply write itself or spawn randomly from chaos. A nuclear submarine does not simply apparate from empty space into existence on its own accord.

Every action within your behavior adheres to this truth on a daily basis as you look at creations with the full knowledge that there is a creator behind their existence. I only ask that you would apply the same common sense of knowing that your daughter made the drawing pinned magnetically to the refrigerator to the infinitely more impressive complex designs that you see plainly in the universe.

Thank you for the excellent discussion. I really appreciated your interaction. It was very fun.

The Pumpkin King 11-04-2020 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19255383)
lol TPK still asking the same questions as if they haven't already been answered

https://media1.giphy.com/media/jBI8U...&rid=giphy.gif

Don't forget to like, subscribe, and ring the bell so that whenever I make a post, you can remind us all about how sweetly bitter you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19255412)
I do not recall a seven headed hydra in books on evolution

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

What do you think humans will evolve into next then?

If not seven-headed-hydras, then perhaps mongoose people?

I think in the distant future, we will look more like giant hairy centaur dolphins with inverted horns...

I am interested to hear about what kind of creature you all think humans will become next.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19255413)
Book recommendation for tpk: a short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson. It is a very easy read, the audio book version is excellent.

Looks pretty cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19255414)
Also everything by dawkins

I really like Dawkins in general. His material is very interesting, though not without giant flaws.

I was very disappointed that he turned down a debate against a famous Theist three consecutive times... I would have watched every single debate with popcorn.

I can't say as I blame him. I wouldn't wanna step into the ring against the champ either if I were him.

William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011 - YouTube

Here is a video of an empty Dawkins desk. It would only take 15 seconds of your time to view.

If Theism is so weak, makes you wonder why it can dominate so hard in formal debates to the point that famous Atheists are afraid to even show up.


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:02.
Page 31 of 34

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC