UER Mobile Forum UER Mobile - Not logged in
Home  Search   User Search   Login  Register  
Messages   New Posts   Favourites   Recent Posts   Recent Views   My LDB   My Buddies  

< (1)[2](3)>
UER Mobile > Private Boards Index > Religious Discussion > EVIL Church doing gay weddings! (Viewed 11083 times)

post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 20 on 1/13/2013 11:39 PM >

Posted by Samurai
how can you sit there and defend a fairy tale?


i am not religious, and if a religious person came in here and started posting about how certain they were that they had all the answers i would attack them immediately and with great pleasure.

atheists bother me because they generally go too far. instead of pointing out the flaws in the practice of most modern religions, and attacking belief in them on those merits, they take the indefensible position of claiming to know with certainty that there is no entity out there whose traits can be characterized as supernatural, and which may or may not have caused the universe we live in to appear. for a freshly evolved organism as-yet confined to one planet and as-yet uncertain about the nature of time, space and reality, that is a pretty arrogant position to take. each Kuhnian paradigm shift humanity has experienced, has shifted humanity's view of reality. who is to say what our view will be in 1000 years?

"science" doesn't bother with the question of "god" because it is beyond the ability of scientific inquiry to prove or disprove. this is a fancy way of saying "we don't know, and at least for now we can't know". whatever individual scientists believe beyond that is philosophical, not scientific.

atheists go a leap beyond the position of science and assert "we do know. there is no higher being and no supernatural." that isn't scientific, is reactionary to the flaws of modern religions, and is almost wholly a philosophical statement and not a scientific one.

the way we can observe, test, measure, interact with and experiment upon the reality around us is as-yet very limited and in the scheme of things quite young. who knows what we'll discover in 1000 or 5000 years, and what it will teach us about our place in all of this.

maybe we'll be exactly in the same place we are now, and reality ends up being guessed correctly on the first try by our contemporary theorists. Maybe reality ends up being like a beach on the ocean on a planet, and all we're seeing now is one grain of sand so we think that's all reality is. MY point is, "I don't know yet" because we're not there yet.

Posted by Samurai
I'll tell you this, 98% of the religious assholes I come across are pompous, pious and ignorant


I have met terrible religious people and I have met admirable, worthy and tolerant religious people. I have also met the same in atheists, agnostics, muslims, hindus and buddhists.

The American "church" does bother me quite a lot. I sense that it is your experience of American Christianity that is behind most of your beliefs on this issue.


Reply with Quote


post by McNulty   |  | This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 21 on 1/14/2013 3:29 AM >

The self denial here makes me LOL.

I though atheists were supposed to be about "facts", I see a lot of argument based more on "belief" than that.


Reply with Quote


post by KublaKhan   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 22 on 1/14/2013 12:13 PM >

Posted by Samurai


where was i for this?

...blah blah blah...

religion should be taught in marketing classes as an example of iron-fist p.r. and having a good publicist.



Jesus...it's like you're all hopped up on Mountain Dew or something.

Dood...chillax.


Reply with Quote


post by splumer   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 23 on 1/14/2013 1:04 PM >

Posted by Aleksandar

atheists bother me because they generally go too far. instead of pointing out the flaws in the practice of most modern religions, and attacking belief in them on those merits, they take the indefensible position of claiming to know with certainty that there is no entity out there whose traits can be characterized as supernatural, and which may or may not have caused the universe we live in to appear. ...


I don't think I need to remind you that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


"science" doesn't bother with the question of "god" because it is beyond the ability of scientific inquiry to prove or disprove. this is a fancy way of saying "we don't know, and at least for now we can't know". whatever individual scientists believe beyond that is philosophical, not scientific.


Science doesn't bother with gods because gods, or any supernatural explanation, mean that we are satisfied with ignorance. The argument from ignorance.


atheists go a leap beyond the position of science and assert "we do know. there is no higher being and no supernatural." that isn't scientific, is reactionary to the flaws of modern religions, and is almost wholly a philosophical statement and not a scientific one.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I can't speak for all of us, but I say there is no good reason to believe in anything supernatural: gods, ghosts, psychic phenomena, etc.



The way we can observe, test, measure, interact with and experiment upon the reality around us is as-yet very limited and in the scheme of things quite young. who knows what we'll discover in 1000 or 5000 years, and what it will teach us about our place in all of this.

maybe we'll be exactly in the same place we are now, and reality ends up being guessed correctly on the first try by our contemporary theorists. Maybe reality ends up being like a beach on the ocean on a planet, and all we're seeing now is one grain of sand so we think that's all reality is. MY point is, "I don't know yet" because we're not there yet.
...


Agreed. I've said all I can here. I'm done.


Reply with Quote


post by McNulty   |  | This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 24 on 1/15/2013 12:34 AM >

Posted by splumer


I don't think I need to remind you that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



Um...so claiming there is no God is not a claim but claiming there is a God is a claim...am I following your reasoning here?


Also, it is funny that when power hungry rulers throughout history have used religion to mobilize people against other groups and to perpetrate evil it is evidence religion is evil. However when examples of power hungry rulers using atheism as a way to mobilize people against other groups and to perpetrate evil it is not damning towards atheism at all.

I think somebody is suffering from case of double standard.


Reply with Quote


post by splumer   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 25 on 1/15/2013 1:36 PM >

Posted by McNulty


Um...so claiming there is no God is not a claim but claiming there is a God is a claim...am I following your reasoning here?


Also, it is funny that when power hungry rulers throughout history have used religion to mobilize people against other groups and to perpetrate evil it is evidence religion is evil. However when examples of power hungry rulers using atheism as a way to mobilize people against other groups and to perpetrate evil it is not damning towards atheism at all.

I think somebody is suffering from case of double standard.


Fair enough question. The default position must be that something doesn't exist. Not just gods, but anything outside our normal realm of experience. If I tell you it's raining outside, you wouldn't have any reason to doubt me. I'm a generally truthful person, and the consequences of not believing me aren't high. If you go outside, and see it's not raining, rather than thinking I was lying, you'd probably think that it just stopped.

However, if I was to make a claim that was out of the ordinary, and for which the consequences of not believing were dire, you'd expect some proof. If I said you had cancer, for example, you'd (rightly) doubt me, because I'm not a doctor, and I have no way of knowing that you have cancer.

Now, if I was to claim that there's a being who exists outside the laws of time and space as we understand them, is omniscient and omnipotent, will send us into a lake of fire if we don't pay him proper tribute but will reward us with an eternity in an unspecified paradise if we do, why is this the default position and I have to prove that it is not true? Is this not an extraordinary claim? Just because we've been raised to believe it doesn't make it true.

I've already answered your second point, and I will not revisit it.



Reply with Quote


post by MonkeyPunchBaby   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 26 on 1/15/2013 2:01 PM >

Or you could just believe in a higher power without all the bullshit from the bible attached. Not every Christian or person of faith "pays tribute" to their god, nor is every Christian afraid of hell. In fact a good number of Christians dont even believe in hell, or believe in a god who is a petty asshole. It's only the atheists and fundamentalists who take the bible literally. The rest of the religious population, you know the other 95% who aren't loudmouth whackjobs, are perfectly content and not doing anything pushy or insane.

Even from a scientific standpoint, the big bang leaves a lot to desire. The most fundamental flaw is the fact you can't build something out of nothing. So with just that simple understanding of physics, believing in a god is not that irrational.

[last edit 1/15/2013 2:02 PM by MonkeyPunchBaby - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by Harvestman   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 27 on 1/15/2013 4:08 PM >

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby
Or you could just believe in a higher power without all the bullshit from the bible attached. Not every Christian or person of faith "pays tribute" to their god, nor is every Christian afraid of hell. In fact a good number of Christians dont even believe in hell, or believe in a god who is a petty asshole. It's only the atheists and fundamentalists who take the bible literally. The rest of the religious population, you know the other 95% who aren't loudmouth whackjobs, are perfectly content and not doing anything pushy or insane.


Not all religious followers are Christians.

I think you just described Deists, actually.


Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 28 on 1/15/2013 9:31 PM >

Posted by splumer
The default position must be that something doesn't exist. Not just gods, but anything outside our normal realm of experience.


not true in the way you mean it. for a long time the higgs boson was only believed to exist -- without evidences -- because its existence would help answer questions we otherwise couldn't answer. and now, with techniques sophisticated enough, we're finding evidences that the higgs boson may in fact exist. theoretical physics rely on the freedom to develop models light on evidence that plug gaps in larger theories. the religious have used this same approach, with the idea of a supernatural entity plugging the gap in how reality and the universe came to be.

Posted by splumer
However, if I was to make a claim that was out of the ordinary...you'd expect some proof.


You have made a claim that is out of the ordinary, and I do expect you to have some proof. You assert that you know with certainty that there is no entity that is "supernatural", who could have acted as the creative impetus behind the appearance of reality and our universe. Worse, you offer an equally arbitrary theory as a replacement.

What you offer in the place of this entity, using the most contemporary theories, is that a supernatural state of quantum information existed outside time, space, matter, energy and physics as we know them, and that somehow this supernatural quantum state triggered the reality and universe we know -- in essence conjuring up a singularity of infinite heat, mass and density. according to you, this singularity interacted with the information that issued forth from this quantum state and exploded, creating the reality we know today. for everything that happened after the explosion, you have evidences. for everything before it (don't repeat your mistake here of poorly understanding krauss) you take it on faith that your belief is correct -- without evidence.

you offer no scientific explanation as to how the supernatural quantum state came to be, or how you can know of its existence as it is beyond any ability for us to ever interact with empirically or study its traces, and the idea of it exists outside everything we know about science. YOU personally believe in it because somebody else told you to.

how is your theory of a supernatural quantum state existing outside time, space, physics, energy and matter, rich in the information necessary to create a universe (with no explanation of how it was formed) any less ridiculous than the possibility of some supernatural agency existing out there somewhere? how does your theory require less faith? why do you consider your theory exempt from the same burden of proof you apply to the idea of a supernatural entity?

Posted by splumer
Now, if I was to claim that there's a being who exists outside the laws of time and space as we understand them, is omniscient and omnipotent, will send us into a lake of fire if we don't pay him proper tribute but will reward us with an eternity in an unspecified paradise if we do


I think you sensed the weakness of your own argument, so you felt the need to create a straw man you could knock down and appear strong yourself. Nobody in this thread has talked about a lake of fire, tributes, eternities or unspecified paradises. You're mixing in abrahamic religions to try to make the concept of a supernatural entity appear ridiculous.

Subtract human religion. Stick with the concept of an entity outside your own understanding.

I suggest that belief in an entity is as equally valid as your belief in a random, unguided supernatural quantum state that breaks all the same rules you set for your critique of 'god'.

McNulty was right. You're blindly caught up in one of the biggest double-standards of the modern world, and the joke is on you. As is typical in such cases, it's funny as hell to everyone else but in the end you'll just get mad.


EDIT: my long posts always have lots of typos and they bug me.

[last edit 1/15/2013 9:37 PM by Aleksandar - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by McNulty   |  | This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 29 on 1/15/2013 10:30 PM >

Posted by splumer


I've already answered your second point, and I will not revisit it.



Not really. You made more excuses for why it doesn't count against atheism when people kill in the name of atheism because of A, B, and C.


Reply with Quote


post by splumer   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 30 on 1/16/2013 2:11 PM >

Here we go again.

Posted by Aleksandar

... theoretical physics rely on the freedom to develop models light on evidence that plug gaps in larger theories. the religious have used this same approach, with the idea of a supernatural entity plugging the gap in how reality and the universe came to be.


Yes, physicist develop models light on evidence, but fill it in with evidence as time goes on. Religious beliefs have retreated over time as science shows their superfluity and wrongness. As an example, I present the Genesis story of the origin of the universe, vs. what we know.


You have made a claim that is out of the ordinary, and I do expect you to have some proof. You assert that you know with certainty that there is no entity that is "supernatural", who could have acted as the creative impetus behind the appearance of reality and our universe. Worse, you offer an equally arbitrary theory as a replacement.


I am sure you're quite aware that one cannot prove a negative. I also, at no point, have ever said that I am 100 percent certain that there are no supernatural entities, whether gods, ghosts, fairies or whatever. I just see no reason to believe that they might exist, and live my life under that assumption.



What you offer in the place of this entity, ... YOU personally believe in it because somebody else told you to.


Well, yeah, and since you're so brilliant, I'll abandon everything I've learned and believe everything you tell me. You don't have any swamp land for sale, do you? I apologize for "poorly understanding" Krauss. I'm not a theoretical physicist. I don't believe in something because "I've been told to." I believe something that might seem counter-intuitive because the person presenting it to me has provided evidence, and the evidence - and thus the theory - seems plausible and also seem to be a better explanation than others I've heard.



how does your theory require less faith? why do you consider your theory exempt from the same burden of proof you apply to the idea of a supernatural entity?


It's not "my" theory, and it's not exempt from the burden of proof. But I'm not the one claiming that a supernatural entity exists. I'm saying that I won't believe one exists until sufficient evidence is provided. The "God of the gaps" argument doesn't work for me. Sorry.



I think you sensed the weakness of your own argument, so you felt the need to create a straw man you could knock down and appear strong yourself. Nobody in this thread has talked about a lake of fire, tributes, eternities or unspecified paradises. You're mixing in abrahamic religions to try to make the concept of a supernatural entity appear ridiculous.

It wasn't a straw man. I was using the traditional concept of God as an example. I thought of using Bertrand Russell's teapot, but I could have just as easily described Vishnu, Thor, Zeus or Marduk. It was an example of an extraordinary claim.


I suggest that belief in an entity is as equally valid as your belief in a random, unguided supernatural quantum state that breaks all the same rules you set for your critique of 'god'.


May I see some evidence of this entity?



McNulty was right. You're blindly caught up in one of the biggest double-standards of the modern world, and the joke is on you. As is typical in such cases, it's funny as hell to everyone else but in the end you'll just get mad.


Again, no evidence, so I don't accept your hypothesis. Like Rousseau said "It is hard to prevent oneself from believing what one so keenly desires."



Reply with Quote


post by MutantMandias   |  | Perverse and Often Baffling

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 31 on 1/16/2013 3:33 PM >

Of course, science is supported by observable and testable phenomena. The Higgs Bosun was theorized as part of an explanation for observed phenomena that didn't precisely match prediction, so the theory was developed to a point where experimental evidence could be used to test the predictions, and Bob's your uncle.

Of course, new theories are generally dependent upon existing "successful" theories, and the existing observed evidence. In effect, most theories of existence are tied into the theory of a singular beginning of (this instance) of the universe, and those theories and predictions are continually strengthened and expanded upon.

Saying that there are gods who created that singular beginning doesn't harm the theories at all, as long as the gods are sane and don't break their own rules. In that case, it doesn't matter, since the rules are the rules.

Saying that gods exist and are the cause of all things, but outside of any rules, means that science might as well be abandoned, since it is worthless. That does in fact seem to be the predominant conservative viewpoint in America today.

So, currently science does assume a singular, unexplained beginning, and assumes certain things about it. If it makes you feel better, you can call that a faith event. Theory and prediction expand and evolve, based on that original assumption and the investigation of evidence, to further define the states and changes of the early (and current) universe. But, the evidence tends to support the original assumption (or leads to new theories which can more accurately predict results). Maybe the assumption was wrong. Being an assumption, it might be. But discrediting it would take down pretty much all existing theories of existence, which actually do a pretty good job of predicting outcomes.

A faith event of assuming that there are gods can provide a person with comfort, if you are the kind of person who gets comfort from such a belief. And that person can live their life and believe that their experiences support their faith based assumption, but that evidence is not the scientific and objective kind of evidence that science depends on.

Of course, maybe we are just getting all Ptolemaic about science. He was able to keep coming up with more complicated explanations for reported observations which would contradict his theory of nested spheres: nudging the sphere's centers or rotation, adding spheres between spheres, etc. But his theories never really predicted things that hadn't previously been observed, which current theoretical physicists are able to do from time to time.


Reply with Quote


post by Roland   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 32 on 1/16/2013 5:01 PM >

I don't think Aleksander is trying to convince anyone that god exists, I think he's simply trying to convince you that the believe in a god or higher power of some form is not entirely unreasonable and does not merit the amount of scorn and derision heaped upon it by some on this board.


Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 33 on 1/16/2013 5:07 PM >

Posted by MutantMandias
[Everything Mandias posted]


Thank you, this is a helpful and clarifying post. You have a way with words.

Posted by MutantMandias
Saying that gods exist and are the cause of all things, but outside of any rules, means that science might as well be abandoned, since it is worthless.


One of the philosophical things that nags at me, is wondering how our understanding of the rules may change as the tools available to us become more sophisticated. I'm confident that we've got a great understanding today. It seems reasonable that our understanding is still young, and that in the scheme of things what seems supernatural today may not seem so in the future. Or maybe not. I generally agree with you though.

Posted by MutantMandias
So, currently science does assume a singular, unexplained beginning, and assumes certain things about it. If it makes you feel better, you can call that a faith event.


The "quantum state of creative information outside time & space" theory does seem like a faith event. It is an interesting theory, but it's the scientific equivalent of a cop-out -- similar to the religious inability to answer "how was god created", their answer being "he wasn't!". The same answer is given for this theory -- or at best, "we don't know" which might as well be the same thing.

The theory is outside our ability to test, observe its traces or even falsify (with current techniques), and I do have a problem with such a profound question (how did this all begin?) being answered so generically and philosophically. Of course, at the moment it's the only type of answer science can give. I purposefully draw parallels between this and the idea of a supernatural entity because neither can be modeled with evidences and both require faith.

Posted by MutantMandias
Of course, maybe we are just getting all Ptolemaic about science. He was able to keep coming up with more complicated explanations for reported observations which would contradict his theory of nested spheres: nudging the sphere's centers or rotation, adding spheres between spheres, etc. But his theories never really predicted things that hadn't previously been observed, which current theoretical physicists are able to do from time to time.


An interesting point, and interesting question. I have a hell of a lot of confidence in our latest and best models after the beginning of time-space. I look askance at the few theorists who almost guiltily offer vague descriptions of what happened before. I really wish we had the techniques necessary to build a true model of this "before" grounded in science instead of philosophy.

I'm not saying I know one way or the other. I think an entity is as likely as a non-entity at this point, because each seem to exist outside the rules we've developed.

[last edit 1/16/2013 5:08 PM by Aleksandar - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 34 on 1/16/2013 5:09 PM >

Posted by Roland
I don't think Aleksander is trying to convince anyone that god exists


thanks, this is exactly right. i think it takes equal amounts of faith to believe in an entity, and to not believe in one.


Reply with Quote


post by MutantMandias   |  | Perverse and Often Baffling

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 35 on 1/16/2013 5:33 PM >

Einstein made assumptions based on not a whole lot more than his feelings, but the theories that sprang out of it were workable and lead to models than were able to predict observations that were not even conceivable for decades. Belief in god doesn't do that.


Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 36 on 1/16/2013 9:00 PM >

Posted by MutantMandias
Einstein made assumptions based on not a whole lot more than his feelings, but the theories that sprang out of it were workable and lead to models than were able to predict observations that were not even conceivable for decades. Belief in god doesn't do that.


I know what you mean here, but I can't fully agree as I feel the comparison isn't valid.

Einstein developed theories that dealt with the working universe around us, and involved testing, observation, and falsifiable models. That early on he relied on a healthy dose of intuition has no bearing on the best and most recent quantum theories about the genesis of the universe -- theories that do not and cannot involve testing, observation, or falsifiable models.

The "answer to the question of beginnings" currently put forth by some prominent theorists does not involve phenomena we can study empirically, unlike Einstein, and so their theories about the beginning are taken on faith and are largely philosophical.

Hawking when he describes his own positivist outlook on the universe concedes that it is not all science but also philosophy, and that this philosophy plugs gaps that science cannot.

Einstein did not characterize himself as an atheist, and was angered when atheists used his theories, published works or speeches to support their agenda. He frequently spoke of recognizing his own intellectual limitations, and the limitations of the human organism, and the arrogance of ruling out categorically phenomena that exist outside our current ability to study. He was hard to pin down on his beliefs, but I think can best be described as an agnostic.

The only important question to me as concerns the existence or non-existence of a supernatural creative entity, is "how did this all come to be". If evidences for or against such an entity ever surface, they will surface here. It is profoundly important to one day be able to understand how this all happened, if we are to understand our own place in things.

Some theorists suggest a philosophical model whereby a supernatural quantum state rich in creative information could generate this universe. Some theologians suggest a supernatural creative entity doing the same. These theories are not as far apart as you suggest.


Reply with Quote


post by MutantMandias   |  | Perverse and Often Baffling

Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 37 on 1/16/2013 10:14 PM >

Posted by Aleksandar
If evidences for or against such an entity ever surface, they will surface here.


On UER? Holy shit!


Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 38 on 1/16/2013 10:23 PM >

Posted by MutantMandias
On UER? Holy shit!


hahah nice.

i lol'd




Reply with Quote


post by Aleksandar   |  | 
Re: EVIL Church doing gay weddings!
<Reply # 39 on 1/16/2013 10:45 PM >

Posted by splumer
I believe something that might seem counter-intuitive because the person presenting it to me has provided evidence, and the evidence - and thus the theory - seems plausible


That is really amazing that you have seen evidence supporting Krauss' ideas about "before". I think even Krauss will be amazed, since no such evidences yet exist.

Posted by splumer
May I see some evidence of this entity?


Absolutely, as soon as you display the evidences for your belief in an outside-time, outside-space, mass-less, energy-less, information-dense and fundamentally creative quantum state.

Posted by splumer
Again, no evidence, so I don't accept your hypothesis. Like Rousseau said "It is hard to prevent oneself from believing what one so keenly desires."


Sweet. You must not believe your own hypothesis either. But hey, Rousseau is talking about you too buddy.


Reply with Quote



Reply
< (1)[2](3)>


This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private.



58 ms gen time