General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Kaizen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicedoranges View Post
No, lol. If I claimed there was an alligator swimming around Saturn's rings, I couldn't force you to disprove it.

Shit! there's an alligator swimming around Saturn's rings?
Old 10-03-2007, 12:43 AM Kaizen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#181  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
-Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Thats quite scary. Imagining the future of the earth under the mass rule of people who believe this would just lead it to, quite literally, the apocalypse. Perfection when theres nothing left to take away? So lets get rid of everything! That is quite literally the Christian view of the apocalypse, the end time, when humanity has reached it's goal, we're all dead. However, there is an opposing spiritual belief that the apocalypse merely represents the death of Christianity, not the people, that at the apocalypse everyone will walk in heaven on earth without necessity for dogma.

So as to avoid underlying Christian motifs, I have to say, that is just absolutely stupid and irrational. How about, perfection is achieved when you feel perfect? We don't need to keep stripping away things purely for your hopeful delusion that once it's all stripped away it will be 'perfect'. Lets see some evidence that perfection is when theres nothing left to take away, that at that point everyone will be unconditionally happy. Really your making no less of a non-factual assertive claim in this than a Christian perpetuating the prophecies of the bible. Take your delusion and shove it up your ass. I know when it is perfect for me because at that point I feel perfect.

Yes, I am aware you probably intended that comment to apply to scientific theory and evidence. But unfortunately, scientific theory and evidence seems to dictating things more than just what happens in laboratories and men in white coats. It's becoming the basis for what essentially operates like a religion at a psychological level. People are throwing out the few hints they get to that path of unconditional happiness because democratic truth of science supposing them absurd. Causing them to completely miss and lose touch with what perfection really is. Really, they are going to keep digging, throwing out, demolishing until they find there 'non-existent' perfection in what you deem the 'light of rationality'. Rationality is no less a dogma than the 10 commandments. The product of having no dogma is following what institutionally feels the best, what feels perfect with absolutely no conscious thought process.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 10-03-2007, 03:31 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#182  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Ry_goody

Please keep taking enough drugs to sterilize yourself.
__________________
.
Old 10-03-2007, 06:58 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#183  

Ralph
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
Thats quite scary. Imagining the future of the earth under the mass rule of people who believe this would just lead it to, quite literally, the apocalypse. Perfection when theres nothing left to take away? So lets get rid of everything! That is quite literally the Christian view of the apocalypse, the end time, when humanity has reached it's goal, we're all dead. However, there is an opposing spiritual belief that the apocalypse merely represents the death of Christianity, not the people, that at the apocalypse everyone will walk in heaven on earth without necessity for dogma.

So as to avoid underlying Christian motifs, I have to say, that is just absolutely stupid and irrational. How about, perfection is achieved when you feel perfect? We don't need to keep stripping away things purely for your hopeful delusion that once it's all stripped away it will be 'perfect'. Lets see some evidence that perfection is when theres nothing left to take away, that at that point everyone will be unconditionally happy. Really your making no less of a non-factual assertive claim in this than a Christian perpetuating the prophecies of the bible. Take your delusion and shove it up your ass. I know when it is perfect for me because at that point I feel perfect.

Way to miss the point entirely... it's obviously not referring to the disregard of EVERYTHING in order to achiever perfection, but rather removing all things which are unnecessary and don't directly contribute to whatever your view of "perfection" may be. It really has no religious or scientific implications on it's own and can be applied to any definition of perfection no matter whose it may be or on what basis it's founded.

Quote:
Yes, I am aware you probably intended that comment to apply to scientific theory and evidence. But unfortunately, scientific theory and evidence seems to dictating things more than just what happens in laboratories and men in white coats. It's becoming the basis for what essentially operates like a religion at a psychological level. People are throwing out the few hints they get to that path of unconditional happiness because democratic truth of science supposing them absurd. Causing them to completely miss and lose touch with what perfection really is. Really, they are going to keep digging, throwing out, demolishing until they find there 'non-existent' perfection in what you deem the 'light of rationality'. Rationality is no less a dogma than the 10 commandments. The product of having no dogma is following what institutionally feels the best, what feels perfect with absolutely no conscious thought process.
If by "democratic truth" you mean empirical truth and by "supposing them absurd" you mean proving them absurd, then you are correct. How is rationality a dogma when humans are instinctively rational beings and rationality itself is derived from eternal principles observed in the world around us? No matter what religious or scientific view you support you cannot deny rationality as a basic necessity of our entire society, whether it be rationality on a mathematical and quantifiable level or rationality imparted to us by some greater being - because what god would ever wish to deceive his creation?
Old 10-03-2007, 06:58 AM Ralph is offline  
Reply With Quote
#184  

mofugger
I'm married to a gay man
 
mofugger's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
Atheists can prove that the evidence provided by ignorant religious dolts is , but it's impossible to "disprove" the existence of anything... ESPECIALLY something that's completely vague and ambiguous in the first place (i.e. god) - and I use quotations around disprove because no legitimate proof of any god's existence has ever been found, so there really isn't anything to disprove, think of it more as educating the ignorant.

There is also no legitemate proof that disprove the existence of a god either. The fact that it CAN'T be proven either way is why I say the the person making the claims bears the burden.
__________________
Zombie Outbreak Response Team: Urban Division
Old 10-03-2007, 11:23 AM mofugger is offline  
Reply With Quote
#185  

Ralph
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugger View Post
There is also no legitemate proof that disprove the existence of a god either. The fact that it CAN'T be proven either way is why I say the the person making the claims bears the burden.

What the hell do you want... a note signed by "God" saying "I was here for a little while but I didn't actually do anything and now I'm gone forever"???

Lack of proof against a claim cannot be cited as evidence supporting the claim. You're just adding to the logical contradiction but now it's more in the form of circular logic.
Old 10-03-2007, 01:01 PM Ralph is offline  
Reply With Quote
#186  

mofugger
I'm married to a gay man
 
mofugger's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
Lack of proof against a claim cannot be cited as evidence supporting the claim.

Exactly...so what the fuck is all the bickering about?
__________________
Zombie Outbreak Response Team: Urban Division
Old 10-03-2007, 05:24 PM mofugger is offline  
Reply With Quote
#187  

Ralph
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugger View Post
Exactly...so what the fuck is all the bickering about?

omfg I knew I never should have responded to you in the first place.

Anyone who claims a god or god's do not exist bears no burden of proof whatsoever, period.
Old 10-03-2007, 05:31 PM Ralph is offline  
Reply With Quote
#188  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Quote:
The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
__________________
.
Old 10-03-2007, 08:37 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#189  

Free_Willy
 
Free_Willy's Avatar
 
Um. As am argument against Athiesm... I submit Communism.

Where people get confused I think, is the difference between ORGANISED religion and government and INDIVIDUAL spirituality.

One is dangerous, the other is a natural and unalienable right.


"Let the last king be strangled with the entrails of the last priest!" - Thomas Jefferson.
__________________
"It's a jungle here--right now we're advising our clients to put all they can into canned goods and shotguns!"

--- Brain Gremlin in the movie Gremlins II: The New Batch.

Discordian Resistance Front, Co. A, Semi-Conscious Liberation Army.
Old 10-03-2007, 08:43 PM Free_Willy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#190  

SnakeIRye
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
omfg I knew I never should have responded to you in the first place.

Anyone who claims a god or god's do not exist bears no burden of proof whatsoever, period.

Though I'm with you here, I disagree on that. If somebody says they are 100% sure "god"(I use quotes for the wishy-washy-can't-defineme-can'tfindme god) does not exist, there is a burden of proof on that. Of course the god-believers have the burden most of the time, because atheism is a default position. It begins when a claim is made either way. However, the probability of a god existing(especially yaweh, who almost certainly does not exist) is so unlikely that the 100% god-does-not-exist crowd makes a very small jump, in terms of disproving a negative, compared to the ga-ga-for-god crowd.
__________________
Remember kids: Don't do school, stay in milk and drink your drugs!
Darth Snake, Evil Jedi Motherfucker Overlord of the Executor
Old 10-03-2007, 08:55 PM SnakeIRye is offline  
Reply With Quote
#191  

SnakeIRye
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free_Willy View Post
"Let the last king be strangled with the entrails of the last priest!" - Thomas Jefferson.

What? He said that? Link me up, I want some confirmation on this.
__________________
Remember kids: Don't do school, stay in milk and drink your drugs!
Darth Snake, Evil Jedi Motherfucker Overlord of the Executor
Old 10-03-2007, 09:00 PM SnakeIRye is offline  
Reply With Quote
#192  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeIRye View Post
What? He said that? Link me up, I want some confirmation on this.

He is misquoting, or so it seems.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
Quote:
"Les Éleuthéromanes", in Poésies Diverses (1875); This derives from the prior statement widely attributed (apparently inaccurately) to Jean Meslier: "I would like — and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the guts of the last priest". (It is often claimed the passage appears in Meslier's Testament (1725) but it only appears in abstracts of the work written by others. See the Wikipedia article Jean Meslier for details.) "Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest." was attributed to Diderot by Jean-François de La Harpe in Cours de Littérature Ancienne et Moderne (1840) and attributions of similar statements to Diderot also occur in various forms (ie: "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.")
Edit:
http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/mai...-beliefs-cont/
Quote:
Two final points. The common conviction that bound together most of the Founders was the belief in the complete separation of church and state. As products of the Enlightenment, they shared Diderot’s vision of a heavenly city on earth where the last priest would be strangled with the entrails of the last king. This was a radical doctrine at the time, and even now in Iraq we can see that it is an idea yet to be regarded as, shall we say, self-evident. Let me acknowledge that it was easier to implement in the United States than elsewhere, because the vast majority of the populace were practicing Christians of various denominations that shared core values, and also because there was a century-old tradition of religious toleration generated by the multiplicity of sects. That said, it seems to me that the central legacy of the Founding Fathers was a “hands off” policy towards any specific religious doctrine. No faith was to be favored.
__________________
.

Last edited by Renork; 10-03-2007 at 09:09 PM..
Old 10-03-2007, 09:05 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#193  

Free_Willy
 
Free_Willy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeIRye View Post
What? He said that? Link me up, I want some confirmation on this.

I misquoted, it was Diderot - scroll down to Clergy http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/greatest.php , thomas jefferson had quoted diderot while speaking.
__________________
"It's a jungle here--right now we're advising our clients to put all they can into canned goods and shotguns!"

--- Brain Gremlin in the movie Gremlins II: The New Batch.

Discordian Resistance Front, Co. A, Semi-Conscious Liberation Army.
Old 10-03-2007, 09:39 PM Free_Willy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#194  

Ralph
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeIRye View Post
Though I'm with you here, I disagree on that. If somebody says they are 100% sure "god"(I use quotes for the wishy-washy-can't-defineme-can'tfindme god) does not exist, there is a burden of proof on that. Of course the god-believers have the burden most of the time, because atheism is a default position. It begins when a claim is made either way. However, the probability of a god existing(especially yaweh, who almost certainly does not exist) is so unlikely that the 100% god-does-not-exist crowd makes a very small jump, in terms of disproving a negative, compared to the ga-ga-for-god crowd.

Eh, read Renork's quote of Carl Sagan above and you may see it differently... there's no fundamental difference between something that can't be disproved and something that doesn't actually exist.

If the 100% certain atheists are correct it would literally be impossible for them to convince the religious folk unless you place the burden of proof solely on those claiming the existence of some sort of god.
Old 10-03-2007, 11:05 PM Ralph is offline  
Reply With Quote
#195  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.