Religion: If You Don't Believe In It Why Does It Bother You?
フォーラム » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Religion: If you don't believe in it why does it bother you?
Religion: If you don't believe in it why does it bother you?
Can't help but completely agree with her.
Asura.Karianna said:
This is getting so old. I think chance being our creator makes no sense. You say the opposite. Let's say we're both illogical and call it a day.
One of us is being illogical here.
Speaking of logic or lack thereof this about sums it up
Ayn Rand
This woman had balls... though she was certain there is no god, and that's kind of impossible to prove indeed... she made a good point by saying it's irrational trying to prove a negative. A little bit like saying "You can't prove that I'm not God therefore I am" ... you gotta love religious logic
thanks for sharing, I didn't know her ^^
This woman had balls... though she was certain there is no god, and that's kind of impossible to prove indeed... she made a good point by saying it's irrational trying to prove a negative. A little bit like saying "You can't prove that I'm not God therefore I am" ... you gotta love religious logic
thanks for sharing, I didn't know her ^^
Wow, i figured this thread would be dead by now, lol.
But yeah, the odds aren't exactly in favor of creation. The fact that people try to turn creation into a science (Intelligent Design) is even more disappointing.
Of course, evolution isn't exactly 100% fact either. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution. Those of us in academia should know what a theory is.
All this is spawned by the human desire to know who we are and where we came from. Along with scientist doing their job; describe, explain, and predict phenomena.
THE ONLY FACT IS, PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW. That's the only 100% fact in the discussion of Creationism and The Theory of Evolution.
(I personally believe that evolution has some merit. I just believe it took place on a MUCH smaller scale than is believed. That is my opinion.)
But yeah, the odds aren't exactly in favor of creation. The fact that people try to turn creation into a science (Intelligent Design) is even more disappointing.
Of course, evolution isn't exactly 100% fact either. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution. Those of us in academia should know what a theory is.
All this is spawned by the human desire to know who we are and where we came from. Along with scientist doing their job; describe, explain, and predict phenomena.
THE ONLY FACT IS, PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW. That's the only 100% fact in the discussion of Creationism and The Theory of Evolution.
(I personally believe that evolution has some merit. I just believe it took place on a MUCH smaller scale than is believed. That is my opinion.)
Ramuh.Dasva said:
Speaking of logic or lack thereof this about sums it up
What's funny is the guy in the first minute of that video used that exact same irrational argument trying to save face.
Sylph.Maruraba said:
we evolved to adapt to life IN the universe
So it just so happens that the constituents of life exist? And they just so happened to gather in a sustainable environment to form intelligent life? I'm not arguing about your amino acids or proteins, they do what they are programmed to do. I'm not even arguing against evolution. Although, as stated before, the case for human macro-evolution has no solid foundation.
You make the case that we have evolved to adapt to life in the Universe. It's not our existence that has evolved, it's the things that our existence is composed of. Proteins are easily denatured in environments of differing pH levels, not to mention heat and gravity fluctuations. Yet here we find ourselves in an environment sustained for 6 billion years in which we have been able to live with the elements necessary for life.
Sylph.Maruraba said:
A single anonymous fossil or a new discovery of species popping into existence in a puff of pink magical smoke would toss the whole theory out.
Yet you assume that amino acids just exist because that's what they do. Or the Universe itself for that matter.
The fact is (of course, what we 'know' in the present day) is that the Universe is composed of a finite amount of substances. Scientists know the conditions that these substances need in order to form life, and it just so happens that these conditions are few and far between. Everytime NASA discovers a new 'Earth-like planet' there's always something hindering the process of life (not in the habitable zone, mass too high or too low affecting the gravitational pull, and so on). Although the planets we have mapped are relatively nearby considering the size (at least as far as we can see), the same conditions apply because the elements of life are the same. And if you're going to argue that there are more elements, scientists have a pretty good grasp on what the Universe is composed of by way of spectroscopy.
Sylph.Maruraba said:
If you take all the stuff that's in a human body individually and put it in a big blender, you wouldn't expect to pour out a human being, but that's the same as assuming protein chains formed all at once.
If you put everything in the Universe together in a blender and blended it up you wouldn't expect to pour out a life-sustaining environment, but that's the same as assuming it happened by chance.
Freaking Ayn Rand.
If you've got a scientific hypothesis you're going to test, you neither assume truth nor falsity to the hypothesis until it has been tested. It may be reasonable to expect a certain outcome or provide logical evidence for why either truth or falsity should be assumed for practical purposes, but without the empirical evidence of the study, you can't assign a truth value to that hypothesis, not even a negative.
If you've got a scientific hypothesis you're going to test, you neither assume truth nor falsity to the hypothesis until it has been tested. It may be reasonable to expect a certain outcome or provide logical evidence for why either truth or falsity should be assumed for practical purposes, but without the empirical evidence of the study, you can't assign a truth value to that hypothesis, not even a negative.
Leviathan.Narrubia said:
Freaking Ayn Rand.
If you've got a scientific hypothesis you're going to test, you neither assume truth nor falsity to the hypothesis until it has been tested. It may be reasonable to expect a certain outcome or provide logical evidence for why either truth or falsity should be assumed for practical purposes, but without the empirical evidence of the study, you can't assign a truth value to that hypothesis, not even a negative.
If you've got a scientific hypothesis you're going to test, you neither assume truth nor falsity to the hypothesis until it has been tested. It may be reasonable to expect a certain outcome or provide logical evidence for why either truth or falsity should be assumed for practical purposes, but without the empirical evidence of the study, you can't assign a truth value to that hypothesis, not even a negative.
If a theory (existence of God) has no factual support or circumstantial evidence to support its case it's not irrational or illogical to falsify it until proven otherwise.
As said before, just because it's unproven doesn't automatically make it true, nor false for that matter. However, if one had to choose between the two, to say it would be false would make a lot more sense.
Again normal logic assumes things exist until there is some kind of proof of any kind.
We don't go around saying clearly the Elvis that died was a clone made by aliens that are so far beyond us we can't sense them and that the real Elvis is still alive somewhere because we can't prove otherwise.
We don't assume pokemon are real because no one has found one (ironic because once you do you prove them real)
We don't go around saying clearly the Elvis that died was a clone made by aliens that are so far beyond us we can't sense them and that the real Elvis is still alive somewhere because we can't prove otherwise.
We don't assume pokemon are real because no one has found one (ironic because once you do you prove them real)
Shiva.Weewoo said:
If a theory (existence of God) has no factual support or circumstantial evidence to support its case it's not irrational or illogical to falsify it until proven otherwise.
But placing a truth value assumes knowledge, which is completely absent.
If results for something were inconclusive, you wouldn't immediately support it would you? There's a reason for "reasonable doubt" in juries.
I find it funny how in Judaism, the "devil" is God's most loyal angel. In Catholicism and Christianity, the devil is out to smite God.. Judaism was here before Catholicism and Christianity.
Second thing, according to Judaism, you aren't really sentenced to hell, but rather the purgatory, with a maximum sentence of one year. In Catholicism however, you spend an eternity there suffering in a fiery pit of hell.
._.
Edit: Just trying to point out some interesting facts. D:
Second thing, according to Judaism, you aren't really sentenced to hell, but rather the purgatory, with a maximum sentence of one year. In Catholicism however, you spend an eternity there suffering in a fiery pit of hell.
._.
Edit: Just trying to point out some interesting facts. D:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
If results for something were inconclusive, you wouldn't immediately support it would you? There's a reason for "reasonable doubt" in juries.
But in regards to the inconclusive evidence, I've simplified the scientific procedure by removing fallibility just for argument's sake. Technically, all studies are inconclusive, but there is a set line of confidence that separates the null hypothesis from the alternative hypothesis (and of course, it leans heavily to the side of assigning a negative truth statement: you statistically need 95% confidence to assign truth, and even higher in medical science.)
But if a study is really inconclusive, than you don't assign any truth value, you re-design the study or make a new one to test the hypothesis. Even if it's not completely inconclusive, you still want test the hypothesis multiple times and in multiple ways to get your statistical confidence as high as possible.
Anyways I'm not sure what point you're making - hopefully I addressed it.
Sylph.Maruraba said:
Hell no, I explained my point of view with reasons and facts, I'm not being illogical. If you want to believe that there's a supreme being or a creator, that's totally fine, but you indicated that the complexity of the universe is in favor of a creator when it isn't. On top of that, you indicated that atheists are just deluding themselves and have psychological problems. In fact, since you called me illogical, you're still saying that despite all that I've said without any particular reason why and now you want to just walk away and leave it at that when you've got nothing to stand on.
One of us is being illogical here.
One of us is being illogical here.
Asura.Karianna said:
Sylph.Maruraba said:
Hell no, I explained my point of view with reasons and facts, I'm not being illogical. If you want to believe that there's a supreme being or a creator, that's totally fine, but you indicated that the complexity of the universe is in favor of a creator when it isn't. On top of that, you indicated that atheists are just deluding themselves and have psychological problems. In fact, since you called me illogical, you're still saying that despite all that I've said without any particular reason why and now you want to just walk away and leave it at that when you've got nothing to stand on.
One of us is being illogical here.
One of us is being illogical here.
Or you just don't like what you hear and make an excuse to get out of a debate you're losing by calling the other person illogical. S'what it looks like to me anyways.
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Or you just don't like what you hear and make an excuse to get out of a debate you're losing by calling the other person illogical. S'what it looks like to me anyways.
Quote:
Yet you assume that amino acids just exist because that's what they do. Or the Universe itself for that matter.
Amino acids are not only found on Earth, and there is evidence for cosmic influence on early Earth amino acids that had a strong effect on what isomers are currently dominant.
There are strong hypothesis on how early cells could come to be on primordial Earth, some of which have been tested in lab. The development of life through random chance and its evolution is, in my opinion, a far more beautiful thing than the idea that it was just created by some outer all-intelligent being. To say everything was simply thrown together by a divinity ignores how amazing our existence truly is.
Don't get me started on Ayn Rand. I was a hardcore fan of hers for about three years as a teenager. Then I grew up.
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I hate the when people try to force there beliefes apon others, and it goes for those who do believe, and those who don't believe.
I personally don't belivie in a higher power, but does it make it right to tell those who believe that their is no "god" or "higher power". No.
I believe what may come will come.
I personally don't belivie in a higher power, but does it make it right to tell those who believe that their is no "god" or "higher power". No.
I believe what may come will come.
[+]
Cerberus.Kiori said:
I hate the when people try to force there beliefes apon others, and it goes for those who do believe, and those who don't believe.
I personally don't belivie in a higher power, but does it make it right to tell those who believe that their is no "god" or "higher power". No.
I believe what may come will come.
I personally don't belivie in a higher power, but does it make it right to tell those who believe that their is no "god" or "higher power". No.
I believe what may come will come.
More like a reasonable disposition more so than logic, but yes, that is the best stand to take IMO.
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure the point of an editorial review is to be severely biased.
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure the point of an editorial review is to be severely biased.
Aye, I can understand their reasoning in finding her works hard to digest and rough around the edges. No wonder it was so appealing to teenagers. Back then you can't help but see her line of reason and thinking "*** YEAH!" but as one ages it turns into more of a "Oh please..."
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure the point of an editorial review is to be severely biased.
Aye, I can understand their reasoning in finding her works hard to digest and rough around the edges. No wonder it was so appealing to teenagers. Back then you can't help but see her line of reason and thinking "*** YEAH!" but as one ages it turns into more of a "Oh please..."
My American Literature teacher made me read Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged this past semester. It was awful, I absolutely hated it. She does have interesting views on religion, which is why I posted the video, but as far as I'm concerned she was nuts. I had to do an in-class wiki page for the class website about her religious views, and the only thing that she's said that I haven't heard said by every other atheist and their hamster is her 'ordered universe' argument. But yeah, if you ever get a chance to read Atlas Shrugged, DON'T DO IT!
Cerberus.Kiori said:
does it make it right to tell those who believe that their is no "god" or "higher power". No.
Does it make it wrong to tell a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist at some point during his life? What happens if nobody tells anyone and 1000 years later everyone ends up believing it was true? Sure, the child will be sad, maybe even mad that he was lied to, but it's still the right thing to do, out of respect. It might even make him lose self esteem and confidence in his intelligence, but later may allow him to understand that he should develop it by questioning his beliefs.
In fact, there is no absolute proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. It's just that we, rational people (people who chose not to believe in something supernatural), think it's pointless to believe in a being whose existence OR nonexistence cannot be proved. Religious traditions affect our everyday life and we want to get our lives rid of them. If religion is not allowed to be questioned, there's obviously going to be an issue with many.
How could it be so important to believe in God while God supposedly gave us rational thinking, but didn't give us one single rational evidence of his existence? Showing up from time to time, instead of whispering to a fricken prophet would help, for example. Why would a God who gave us intelligence insist on forcing us to guess his existence through riddles (or believing someone else who might as well be lying) is beyond me.
We should be talking about questions that aren't out of our reach. For example, whether or not faith is good. Whether or not organized religion is destructive. Whether or not worshiping a greater being is necessary to human kind. The rest, all the big questions about what comes after death and where we come from, we don't know exactly and we have to admit it humbly, atheists included, instead of developing this arrogant certainty which is the hallmark of religion.
[+]
Odin.Liela said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure the point of an editorial review is to be severely biased.
Aye, I can understand their reasoning in finding her works hard to digest and rough around the edges. No wonder it was so appealing to teenagers. Back then you can't help but see her line of reason and thinking "*** YEAH!" but as one ages it turns into more of a "Oh please..."
My American Literature teacher made me read Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged this past semester. It was awful, I absolutely hated it. She does have interesting views on religion, which is why I posted the video, but as far as I'm concerned she was nuts. I had to do an in-class wiki page for the class website about her religious views, and the only thing that she's said that I haven't heard said by every other atheist and their hamster is her 'ordered universe' argument. But yeah, if you ever get a chance to read Atlas Shrugged, DON'T DO IT!
I'll take my own word for it instead of someone else's. The only time reviews matter is when it's on the subject of a piece of machinery that functions as it should or doesn't.
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Odin.Liela said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Haven't read her books, but that article looked severely biased and misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure the point of an editorial review is to be severely biased.
Aye, I can understand their reasoning in finding her works hard to digest and rough around the edges. No wonder it was so appealing to teenagers. Back then you can't help but see her line of reason and thinking "*** YEAH!" but as one ages it turns into more of a "Oh please..."
My American Literature teacher made me read Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged this past semester. It was awful, I absolutely hated it. She does have interesting views on religion, which is why I posted the video, but as far as I'm concerned she was nuts. I had to do an in-class wiki page for the class website about her religious views, and the only thing that she's said that I haven't heard said by every other atheist and their hamster is her 'ordered universe' argument. But yeah, if you ever get a chance to read Atlas Shrugged, DON'T DO IT!
I'll take my own word for it instead of someone else's. The only time reviews matter is when it's on the subject of a piece of machinery that functions as it should or doesn't.
I'd lend you the book just to get rid of it, if you'd promise not to give it back. xD It's good for an alternative view of how politics should (or should not) affect business, and a lot of people in the class really did like it very much, so taking your own word for it instead of mine is good. But anyways, didn't mean to derail this down to the political opinions of Ayn Rand, sorries and back to beating the dead horse that is called religious discussion.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.