AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
God or no god, I still have to get up every morning, have breakfast, go to class, go to work, study, eat more, and sleep.
It's fun to debate around in circles, but ultimately, the answer matters not. If a god or gods exist, life still goes on. If a god or gods don't exist, life still goes on.
Oh, oh, I have a new one: Trolley, tracks, etc. On one track is one fat guy and Jesus, on the other is a clown, five and one and one eighth Adolf Hitlers(Think Mini Me from Austin Powers). WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE?
Last edited by Sanosuke23; 02-10-2011 at 01:26 PM. Reason: Balance issues on the Hitlers.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
Cake!
Very interesting read... Now i'm an atheist and I still found that interesting and got a laugh out of it. But to me it seems like your trying to say that if you don't believe in god and don't have him in your life your evil. I don't believe in god, in fact I think anyone who does is absurd and childish. I think of myself more mature than to believe in an imaginary creature, that's like saying you believe in santa clause or the easter bunny. But back to my if you don't have god you evil speech, I don't have god in my life. And 99% of my friends do not have god in their life. None of us are "evil" people. If we saw a man/woman that was hurt we would help him. We would do any "good" thing that a christian (or other affiliated religions) would do. And to say that if you don't have god is evil, to me I feel it very judgemental and immature. Then again these are all thoughts from my own personal bias. I could be completley wrong, and god could exist. Everyone likes to believe in something greater, I mean were on an anime forum. Im willing to bet most, if not all, people who watch anime wish there life could be like an anime. Or something great would happen like it does in anime. They believe, hope, even have faith in that. But were all just humans, were on a mighty high pedistool. We think we have to have all the answers, and religion is just another way to trick ourselves into knowing that we have all the answers.
You insult those who are religious and then compare god(s) to holiday figures. God and holiday characters are completely different. Holiday characters can be shown not to exist, they are lies humans knew they were creating. However, not even scientists know the true origin of the universe. Who are you to say that there was not any higher being that set the universe in motion? Who are you to say that the fact that there is no god is reality? You say you don't believe in god, then you promote your own ego by claiming to be mature. With that being said, I am an Agnostic, I am willing to believe that it is possible that some higher power had a hand in this universe's creation, however, I'm not willing to admit that it is a god. I'm wondering why you bash religious people and promote atheism as truth yet you do not provide anyone with any reason to side with you? As a matter of fact, any religious person that may have changed their mind may not now since all you did was insult them.
On the last couple of sentences you posted... You say that they have faith and believe in their religion, but because of that faith they can't actually KNOW anything. They assume they have the answers and have faith that those answers are the right ones. I do know some extreme people who will tell me that they know for a fact that their religion is correct, but in all honesty most people say they know the right answers but say they base it on faith, which means that they knowingly admit that they don't know anything with certainty. It's basically placing a bet on what the right answers actually are.
Last edited by Kusuke; 02-10-2011 at 05:13 PM.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
Before I say anything else I'd like to point out that I am in no way trying to start an arguement and I am not meaning to sound hateful.
I am going to respond to what you said with a quote from Bill Maher.
"Anyone who tells you that they know, they just know what
happens when you die, I promise you, you dont. How can I be so
sure? Because I dont know and you do not possess mental powers
that I do not."
And the reason I am "hating" on religion is because like I said it is childish. You said yourself about how I can't compare god to holiday characters and I quote "they are lies humans knew they were creating" Humans wrote the bible and humans lie. When are we going to grow up and face the fact that we don't have all the facts. Although there are many other religions I am using christianity because it's the big religion in America. Christians honestly believe that there savior jesus christ was bron to a virgin. They believed he walked on water and came back from the dead. It seems to me these are all things you hear in fairytales. What intellegient human being could believe in such a thing. I would never believe that we could truly give everything for those kind of beliefs. But sadly people do, millions of people do. If you please would take some of your time to watch this video I would appreciate it. It shows the stupidity of the human race and the people who govern us.
"It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything"
First, about that Bill Maher quote. I said at the end that they knowingly accept that they don't know for sure... So he was just stating an already well established fact.
You said yourself that you could be wrong and god could exist, but then you say that it's absurd and childish to believe that god does exist. That is not very good logic. You can't say that you might be wrong and then accuse the other side of being childish for assuming their side is right.
Let's ignore the fact that you're talking about religion here and just look at it logically. You say your side is right, but that you could be wrong. You also say that the other side is absurd. The other side says they're right, but that they only think so because of faith in things were previously assumed to be true by other people. Oh, but look at this, you say your side is right, but you are also basing your side on assumptions that you and other people have made, and you must have faith in your assumptions or else you wouldn't use them. Since the truth has not been found, there is no difference, logically, between your side and theirs. You just think that what they're doing is stupid, it's not about you being right in your post, it's about them being wrong. That's the wrong way to look at it.
Now, let's go back to religion for a second. Before you tell me that you don't have faith because faith is present only when there is no proof, you have no proof to offer me that shows definitively that there is no higher being. You are confident that your side is correct based on the scientific proof you've seen that insists that god doesn't exist, however science and math (and even logic in general) are based off of a fixed set of assumptions, meaning that since you can't prove to me that a higher being exists and you are using proofs that people created, you are in essence having faith in science's ultimate assumption that god (or even a higher being) doesn't exist. I will admit, however that scientific proof is definitely leagues apart from something like the bible, but it doesn't change the end result.
Last edited by Kusuke; 02-10-2011 at 05:42 PM.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
Well I must say I have been defeated in this debate, I know when I have lost. You are correct I disproved myself completely and I have nothing else to say that would change anything. Thanks for the logically disproving my point, I really mean that. I can't tell you how many times I attempt to have a debate and the opposing party simply repeats the same statement over and over and uses lots of vulgarities like it will help them out in some way. It was fun
"It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything"
Don't say you've been defeated. You just need to focus on emphasizing your side. If you truly believe that science is correct, then defend it. Don't necessarily care so much about what people choose.
Just remember, religion came first. Science eventually evolved enough to question religion well after religion had been ingrained socially into almost the entire world. It's not so weird that we would be the minority, right? At least, for now. Who knows how time will change society.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
I must say when I wrote that god could be real I was hesitant in writing that, but I realize humans make mistakes and do stupid things. Although I do not believe in any god I do believe that like I said, as a human i can make mistakes and do stupid things. Maybe one day Ill reach some kind of "Enlightenment" and realize there is a god. As for now In my life with all the knowledge and reason I have collected, I don't see that happening. And I don't hate someone for being religious, or try to hate on relgion. It's just that the concept of religion and believing in god is so profound that It frustrates me. I just don't get it. I have experienced enough pain and joy in my life to know that it is brought upon by humans. The only logical explanation I have come up with is that people all feel the same as me. They just channel it differently. Some people may channel it through religion, others through science, karma, meditation, reaching nirvana. All just examples, but just different ways of explaining things to oneself. And I also realize that people who are religous probably feel the same way about me. They don't understand how I couldn't believe in god. I'd like to end this comment saying that, well Im only 17 years old. I got a lot to learn. Im going into the marine corp in a year, and that most likely will change me. I will get to see how the world really works. And also I dont believe I contradicted myself at all in this comment, I have a tendancy of doing that haha. Oh crap I lied, one more thing, I hope you don't mind if I add you as a friend I really enjoyed this convo
"It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything"
Well, it is a rather childish belief in all honesty, even if they could be right. For example, perhaps we've all been wrong about the Santa Claus debate and there really is a fat man who flies around on reindeer delivering presents to all the good children every year. It's still childish to believe so.
Well sure, it requires a small amount of faith to be an atheist, but only about as much faith as it takes to deny an assertion like: "I have an invisible, intangible elephant living up my nose." There's no way to disprove it, is there? So while it's intellectually dishonest to claim that there is no possibility of the existence of a god, it would be equally dishonest to claim that the idea of the existence of a god has merit.Let's ignore the fact that you're talking about religion here and just look at it logically. You say your side is right, but that you could be wrong. You also say that the other side is absurd. The other side says they're right, but that they only think so because of faith in things were previously assumed to be true by other people. Oh, but look at this, you say your side is right, but you are also basing your side on assumptions that you and other people have made, and you must have faith in your assumptions or else you wouldn't use them. Since the truth has not been found, there is no difference, logically, between your side and theirs. You just think that what they're doing is stupid, it's not about you being right in your post, it's about them being wrong. That's the wrong way to look at it.
Well that's because when there's a positive assertion, such as "There is a god," the burden of proof lies on the person making that assertion. Because you cannot prove that there is a god, the logical position is that there is in all probability not a god. If no evidence is present for a positive claim, one does not even need to present evidence to contradict it in order to further a negative claim.Now, let's go back to religion for a second. Before you tell me that you don't have faith because faith is present only when there is no proof, you have no proof to offer me that shows definitively that there is no higher being.
Well if you apply Occam's razor to god and science, you'll find that Science makes far fewer assumptions.You are confident that your side is correct based on the scientific proof you've seen that insists that god doesn't exist, however science and math (and even logic in general) are based off of a fixed set of assumptions, meaning that since you can't prove to me that a higher being exists and you are using proofs that people created, you are in essence having faith in science's ultimate assumption that god (or even a higher being) doesn't exist.
Um... yeah it does. =/I will admit, however that scientific proof is definitely leagues apart from something like the bible, but it doesn't change the end result.
I wasn't trying to apply adjectives, nor was I judging the merit of either one. I'm just saying that both make an assumption that neither can prove. I agree with the burden of proof thing, but I'm saying that even though one side may be more convincing than the other it does not establish a proof on either side. I never said you should believe in god because science can't prove god doesn't exist (Or I would have committed a logical fallacy), I simply said that neither side has a proof (Which is not an invalid statement).
As for Occam's razor, you're right science's explanation would say that there aren't any compelling arguments to believe in god and thus believing that he doesn't exist would be the better option. It's only a decision making tool. I even said that I prefer science to religion anyway...
Oh yeah, even though science is more compelling than the bible... How does that change the result that neither side has a proof of the true origin of the universe (If it has one at all)?
Last edited by Kusuke; 02-10-2011 at 07:01 PM.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
And the debate continues!!!
"It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything"
Ah, but there is always solid logic.
Let us consider Reductio ad Absurdum
Over the entire course of human scientific progression, we have, time and time again explained phenomena (ALL of which would have previously been believed to be the result of God's will), yet, through refinement of our understanding, we have come to understand that these phenomena are not the result of a "higher power" but are very much real and completely explainable forces.
When we would have believed long ago that everything was held to the earth by God's will (because we didn't understand gravity) people would have said that "this unexplainable phenomena is beyond our understanding and therefore must only be explainable by a being with greater power and wisdom than we could ever begin to grasp". Well.. nowadays, it's pretty obvious that the reason things fall towards the earth is gravity, and we have empirical scientific evidence to prove that.
This trend of closing the God in the gaps only continues with no interruption. Something is unexplainable> people presume it's God's doing> Science comes along> God is then proven to be redundant cause since the system acts on it's own. This is a consistency that has proven it's self without faulting.
Even the BIG BANG it's self may just prove to be some completely explainable phenomena, just the same as gravity; without a God because there is no NEED for a God because the system operates autonomously; making "god" redundant.
The ONLY reason that I should have any reason to think otherwise, would be if the universe was somehow inconsistent. but that's a pretty difficult concept to accept, and even far more difficult to go about proving, since an inconsistent universe would be too unstable to exist.
Last edited by Skylar1; 02-10-2011 at 08:39 PM.
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
First off, this is AWESOME. Just one thing about your argument. As of right now there is a flaw in science. Science (especially science that is considered modern) can tell you HOW something works, but ultimately science cannot tell you definitively WHY something works the way it does. I suppose it is just a matter of time though.
However, I'm only concerned about the origins of the universe. As I said in the programming example, the AI in the program would probably be able to figure out the program (For us, it's science understanding HOW the universe works), but would most likely never be able to find out who the programmer was (In this case, we must recognize that there IS a programmer). Consider the case that the programmer created the program and set all the parameters for the beginning and then left it alone to execute. So that when even though some AI may claim that the program was kept functioning by the programmer, in reality the programmer hadn't even observed the program's first moments of execution much less it's entire progression up to that point. This doesn't mean that there IS a creator of the universe, it just means that if there is a higher being, the higher being is almost certainly not involved with the universe.
Last edited by Kusuke; 02-10-2011 at 09:04 PM.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
Why is asking for purpose, which is a flawed thing to ask, as it implies fate, which requires an architect.
This is scenario is indistinguishable from an universe that isn't a computer simulation, so pondering the existence of the programmer is meaningless.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
Why seek a conscious reasoning behind the laws and mechanics of the universe? Even if you were to happen upon the "why"; either you would be at a complete loss or your mind would seek out a means by which to interpret, comprehend, and understand it. It doesn't mean the conclusion you would reach would be anything close to the 'original purpose', or whatever you might wish to call it.
My thanks to Xey Oiz for the awesome new set.
"Screw being normal and be awesome instead!"
Then I'll give you an example where it IS important. It's a modern discovery that derives from Quantum Mechanics. Let's say I take a kickball and roll it up a hill. If I don't give the ball enough energy to move up the hill without rolling back down then it will NEVER make it over the hill until I give it enough energy to do so. So, let's say I never give the kick ball enough energy ever, then it would be safe to say that the hill is then a BARRIER that the ball can never cross because it will never have enough energy. Since I used Newtonian physics (the physics of Newton's day) it is called a CLASSIC case. So, this is a classic case. Let's try to scale this down then, to the atomic scale and see if they behave similarly. If we consider the electron classically (that is, it is a solid particle), then an ELECTRIC barrier would be equivalent to the "hill" that the kickball had, which in this case is another electron with an electric field. In this case, we send an electron just slightly above the other electron. If the energy we gave the electron was not high enough to overcome the potential energy of the other electron, then classically the electron should NEVER be able to pass the other electron, the electron we sent will be repelled by the Coulomb Force (remember that like charges repel each other). However, when we do this experiment for real, we find that some electrons will pass through to the other side anyway, even though it would not have been possible in a classical sense. One theory on how this is possible is that the uncertainty principle may fool us into thinking the moving electron has less energy than it actually does, thus appearing to pass through a barrier that it should not have been able to. Even so, this process can only be calculated in probabilities. Meaning we have no idea when it will happen, but we can tell you how likely it is that it will.
One certain example is in the Sun, the temperature of the Sun is not hot enough to combine two protons, however, in a certain number of collisions they bypass the barrier anyway. This actually is the reason why the Sun shines.
Long story short, if we don't understand WHY the Uncertainty Principle applies at the atomic scale, we will never be able to completely define anything at the atomic level. That means that we will never know more than just a likelihood that a quantum phenomenon will happen, or maybe even a percentage of a certain number of cases where it will happen. Knowing why physical phenomenon occur is pivotal to understanding the universe. If we only know HOW we can tell you how it works at the surface, or how it is observed.
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
How many of these same threads have to exist before the universe implodes?
I'm sure you know this much better than I, but if you want to get to the underlying "why" of the Uncertainty Principle or even the "whys" of why anything occurs at the atomic level, then you need to break down matter until you get to the fundamental building block of life which makes everything the way it is.
So, let's say you do this and you comprehend the "why" that makes everything the way it is. What would you do with that knowledge?
My thanks to Xey Oiz for the awesome new set.
"Screw being normal and be awesome instead!"
It's not that there is some ultimate thing we can do that we can only do if we knew why the universe behaves the way it does. It is just that we cannot completely understand the universe without knowing WHY it behaves the way it does, as opposed to just how. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, so how can we ignore such understanding?
When faced with an existence so great, one becomes blind to everything and experiences only fear...
人は平等ではない。不平等は悪ではない。平等は悪だ。そう、人は差別されるためにある。だからこそ人は争い 、競い合い、そこに進歩が生まれる。
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks