Re: Do you value religious dogma over scientific evidence?

by Guest Mon 15 Nov 2010, 22:36

DJ_Smerk wrote:I'm a moron.

Deal with it.

Fixed.

But in all seriousness there isn't anything wrong with agnosticism Wink

.

by DJ_Smerk Mon 15 Nov 2010, 22:43

I might be a moron, but atleast I'm not a naive moron....

...oh wait.

by horace Mon 15 Nov 2010, 22:44

DJ_Smerk wrote:I like 21.

I thought that was your age!!...keep forgetting they still keep making people as young as you Very Happy

by horace Mon 15 Nov 2010, 22:47

vilkrang wrote:
DJ_Smerk wrote:I'm a moron.

Deal with it.
Fixed.

But in all seriousness there isn't anything wrong with agnosticism .

what is there to be doubtful about??...except the improbability of Oz's NSP or whether merlin and taips are the same person or the whether Zimmy's white robes are made of cotton or linen

by DJ_Smerk Mon 15 Nov 2010, 23:00

I've come along way since I started forumming. I've matured like a very poor South African wine.

by Growler Mon 15 Nov 2010, 23:50

furriner wrote:Just wanted to add without going down the same lines of debate as before - IIRC, Growler's position is reasonably well known - I should not have used the term 'imaginary friend'. That was disrespectful to someone who believes.

Furriner, no offense was taken, but thank you all the same.

by PeterCS Tue 16 Nov 2010, 00:32

JKLever wrote:Deep, maaaaan.

by Guest Wed 17 Nov 2010, 19:17

furriner wrote:Just wanted to add without going down the same lines of debate as before - IIRC, Growler's position is reasonably well known - I should not have used the term 'imaginary friend'. That was disrespectful to someone who believes.

This might actually be classed as religious hatred here...

I don't have a problem with people who believe in god, although I think they are almost certainly wrong. The current level of scientific understanding still does not preclude the possibility, but there is very little that god could actually have done given that most phenomena are explained.

I do have a problem with people who follow religion, and people who ignore science.

by Guest Wed 17 Nov 2010, 19:19

Growler wrote:also true, if you choose to

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all "anti-science" - but while they can answer the question "how"? , they can't answer "why"?

To me, faith (I prefer to use the term rather than religion) can.

Maybe there is no "why". Maybe it just is.

by Chivalry Augustus Wed 17 Nov 2010, 20:34

No, no, no, NO.

We've had this discussion before and it's obvious that there is no moral high ground. Being diametrically opposed to a silly point of view does not mean that you're somehow more intelligent - see furriner as a prime example of how silliness and wanton smugness, based around a highly debatable position as an antagonist, makes you look like a total penis in as much as a stupid god worshipper looks like a penis.

The point here is that religion is corrupt and that religious dogma is silly. In terms of the god question we have to start all over again from the base that science provides, unfortunately some people now use science as their god, even though, when somebody says "most phenomena are explained", what they actually mean is that we are now at a point in our level of understanding where we can say that we have an intimate knowledge as regards 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe, and we have theory about another 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe, whereas the rest is still completely above and beyond us. In reality, we will never know how the universe was made, we will never know the true scope and real nature of the universe, and thus we can never attain anything more than a child's comprehension of what we are, where we are, and most of all why we are.

That is why it is good to ask ourselves 'the questions' and not pretend that our lives are somehow meaningful and that we know something about anything. Because we don't, and we never will. In fact, the most smug of us owe what smugness we possess to minds infathomably greater than ours, and even then we cannot even comprehend what they are talking about - we just regurgitate their ideas to bewilder and belittle smaller minds than our own, thus making ourselves seem somehow informed and aware of our surroundings.

Humanity is dependent upon a small percentage of individuals making giant leaps to attain what small measure of comprehension it has. Only those geniuses, working for a million years, could ever hope to uncover 1% of the true meaning and processes that determine what happens in this beautiful universe. But it is using their base understanding of what is going on 'out there' that we should try and build our religions and spiritual experiences of the future. There are genuine states of mind that are worth exploring, and there is a bona fide need for certain religious values in our society. That does not mean we have to believe in god, we just have to start all over again and try and logically rebuild our spirituality from the solid base that we have steadily built up instead of worshipping thousand year old gods that were built out of sticks, manure and the rubbish thrown out by one moron after another. It shows how moronic our race is that we can believe such fairytales and worship their characters, somehow believing that if there was a god, it would manifest itself in such a petty form.

Reality - it's all bull crap, whether you're a muslim, christian, sikh, what-the-frak-ever. There may be a god but I can say with complete certainty that your pathetic ideas of god do not exist.

Anyway, rant over.

by Winkle Spinner Wed 17 Nov 2010, 21:00

I don't think questions like 'how' or 'why' really make sense in the context of the universe. They're intrinsically human, bound into our experiences and frames of reference. In a very real sense, the universe is completely in our heads. By just a few factors of scale everything is completely different and bizarre. To misquote, talking about the universe is like dancing about architecture.

I can't remember who said it (I have a feeling is may have been Pratchett) but we are grappling with questions about the nature of reality in a language evolved for telling each other where the best fruit is. We're not equipped for it! It's remarkable we've done as well as we have.

Having said all that, I definitely consider myself as 'spiritual', insofar as that word means anything. Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans. All religions (except maybe scientology and sinister cults of that ilk) were founded on sound mystical ground, so to speak, regardless of what they may or may not have become. The processes that drive the universe are the VERY SAME PROCESSES that drive our understanding of it. When the universe asks you what you are compared to it, smile back up at it and say merely 'I am you!'

Atonement.
At-one-ment.

by LeFromage Thu 18 Nov 2010, 00:24

"Sound mystical ground".

If ever there were an oxymoron.

Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s from his own writings, which he wrote in 16th century English to give it a tinge of "authenticity". He was a fraudster, improsioned twice, and Mormonism is the definition of a cult.

Yet nearly 200 years on, it has gained some sort of credibility as a mainstream belief system merely by virtue of just sticking around - of people continuing to peddle the mythology.

You may dismiss Scientology now, but in 200 years, if it's still going, it'll be a far more accepted way of thinking.

This is how religion works. They're all the same.

by PeterCS Thu 18 Nov 2010, 00:27

I wonder what Fromage thinks.

by Winkle Spinner Thu 18 Nov 2010, 00:53

Dello wrote:"Sound mystical ground".

If ever there were an oxymoron.

Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s from his own writings, which he wrote in 16th century English to give it a tinge of "authenticity". He was a fraudster, improsioned twice, and Mormonism is the definition of a cult.

Yet nearly 200 years on, it has gained some sort of credibility as a mainstream belief system merely by virtue of just sticking around - of people continuing to peddle the mythology.

You may dismiss Scientology now, but in 200 years, if it's still going, it'll be a far more accepted way of thinking.

This is how religion works. They're all the same.

I don't buy that. Everyone knows Mormonism is a joke. I do think the current, mass-market faces of all major world religions can pretty disturbing, occasionally bordering on reprehensible, but you can't deny that (most) of the actual teachings of these religions, ie, try not to be a complete tool all your life (someone told me recently that there's a bit in the Qur'an about using only kind words to the infidel, isn't that pretty peachy?) are something worth aspiring to. Being anti-religious as seems to be the vogue these days isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Bad blood and disharmony should be avoided at all costs.

by LeFromage Thu 18 Nov 2010, 01:05

Who needs to be "taught" - upon the threat of eternal damnation - to be a decent person?

Only sociopaths, psychopaths and the developmentally retarded.

by Winkle Spinner Thu 18 Nov 2010, 01:38

The 'threat of eternal damnation' thing is really a relatively recent invention. And I'm sure we all needed to be taught how to be a decent person, my parents and the society I found myself did a pretty good job on me I think. No one is born knowing anything about moral relativism.

I could argue this a lot better if I could think straight, but it's not really the main idea I wanted to convey. You can say it's retarded all you like, but what good is that doing? Is the man who, because of a sincere belief, doesn't use condoms and or thinks women should cover their faces, going to change his ways cause you said he was a retard? Is thinking in that way doing any good at all? He's just as certain he's got it right as you are, and so now we have a schism and nothing good ever comes from those.

I think I'll post on this subject a lot more cogently tomorrow when I'm not so knackered, but, a bit of humility wouldn't go amiss. Being convinced you're right is an easy trap to fall into, goodness knows I'm guilty of it, but vicious blanket attacks on religion are unedifying, smack of insecurity and are, which is what I wanted to be the real crux of this idea, entirely counterproductive.

by horace Thu 18 Nov 2010, 02:33

widespread public interrogation of religion and the logic (or otherwise) thereof is a relatively new phenomena...interesting and to be encouraged...public interrogation and deconstruction does not pose a schism...religions have proved past masters of that over the millenia

by Winkle Spinner Thu 18 Nov 2010, 02:43

You're absolutely right Horace, but I just wish it could be done with less sneering and mutual bitterness and anger.

by Guest Thu 18 Nov 2010, 22:06

Religion does promote civil values and does have some morality right. It may well comfort and unite people. This doesn't make it true.

Holy books also contain many events that would be considered atrocities today as well as the positive morality. So how do we know which parts are worth following and which are not? Obviously morality was not defined by religion.

by Lara Lara Laughs Thu 18 Nov 2010, 22:33

Chivalry Augustus wrote:No, no, no, NO.

We've had this discussion before and it's obvious that there is no moral high ground. Being diametrically opposed to a silly point of view does not mean that you're somehow more intelligent - see furriner as a prime example of how silliness and wanton smugness, based around a highly debatable position as an antagonist, makes you look like a total penis in as much as a stupid god worshipper looks like a penis.

The point here is that religion is corrupt and that religious dogma is silly. In terms of the god question we have to start all over again from the base that science provides, unfortunately some people now use science as their god, even though, when somebody says "most phenomena are explained", what they actually mean is that we are now at a point in our level of understanding where we can say that we have an intimate knowledge as regards 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe, and we have theory about another 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe, whereas the rest is still completely above and beyond us. In reality, we will never know how the universe was made, we will never know the true scope and real nature of the universe, and thus we can never attain anything more than a child's comprehension of what we are, where we are, and most of all why we are.

That is why it is good to ask ourselves 'the questions' and not pretend that our lives are somehow meaningful and that we know something about anything. Because we don't, and we never will. In fact, the most smug of us owe what smugness we possess to minds infathomably greater than ours, and even then we cannot even comprehend what they are talking about - we just regurgitate their ideas to bewilder and belittle smaller minds than our own, thus making ourselves seem somehow informed and aware of our surroundings.

Humanity is dependent upon a small percentage of individuals making giant leaps to attain what small measure of comprehension it has. Only those geniuses, working for a million years, could ever hope to uncover 1% of the true meaning and processes that determine what happens in this beautiful universe. But it is using their base understanding of what is going on 'out there' that we should try and build our religions and spiritual experiences of the future. There are genuine states of mind that are worth exploring, and there is a bona fide need for certain religious values in our society. That does not mean we have to believe in god, we just have to start all over again and try and logically rebuild our spirituality from the solid base that we have steadily built up instead of worshipping thousand year old gods that were built out of sticks, manure and the rubbish thrown out by one moron after another. It shows how moronic our race is that we can believe such fairytales and worship their characters, somehow believing that if there was a god, it would manifest itself in such a petty form.

Reality - it's all bull crap, whether you're a muslim, christian, sikh, what-the-frak-ever. There may be a god but I can say with complete certainty that your pathetic ideas of god do not exist.

Anyway, rant over.

Yeah! Go existential nihilism! Self harming rawks!

And go hypocrisy! "We know nothing", in and of itself is a belief that can't be proved. If we know nothing then several of the assertions in this text are to be dismissed. Based on this, surely the only mode of thought that makes sense is a belief in pure and unsullied relativism.