The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

*Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX meets FSPilot in a debate on religion*..i wonder if theyll cancel each other out

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX -

Quote[/b] ] "A simple assertion with nothing to back it up isn't a good answer."

Isnt a good answer for you. 'Insufficent data' isnt a good answer for many people to the religious and philosophical questions they are asking. Does life have meaning, and what is it that might give it meaning?

Who are we? Where have we come from? Where are we going?

'Insufficent data'

Science is not the source of all answers for which a need is felt in peoples lives and rationality is not the source of all wisdom and understanding for everyone everywhere...

...But then again perhaps you are right, Art is a 'waste' of resources and time just as much as religion. Lets scrap art, it contains no relevant new data and answers no questions just creates new ones. And only idiots waste time and money admiring 'beauty' in things. This weakness in the mind can now be explained scientifically and is not important to human functioning.

And Pleasure! Pleasure might feel good buts its been very divisive and blinding to humans these past decades. We now know scientifically that there are simple (for instance chemical) explanations for these feelings of 'pleasure' which have stunted human beings minds so badly. Why should people continue to allow themselves to be overwhelmed by these harmful and dangerous feelings that add nothing to our rational comprehension of the world? We must research ways to cure people of pleasure.

Yes comrades, repeat after me, the future is bright! No more pleasure! No more irrational opinions (no more liking blue)! No more stupid useless people.

Sufficient data does not yet exist.Long live Sufficient Data!

[Major Fubar 0]

...But then again perhaps you are right, Art is a 'waste' of resources and time just as much as religion. Lets scrap art, it contains no relevant new data and answers no questions just creates new ones. And only idiots waste time and money admiring 'beauty' in things. This weakness in the mind can now be explained scientifically and is not important to human functioning.

And Pleasure! Pleasure might feel good buts its been very divisive and blinding to humans these past decades. We now know scientifically that there are simple (for instance chemical) explanations for these feelings of 'pleasure' which have stunted human beings minds so badly. Why should people continue to allow themselves to be overwhelmed by these harmful and dangerous feelings that add nothing to our rational comprehension of the world? We must research ways to cure people of pleasure.

Yes comrades, repeat after me, the future is bright! No more pleasure! No more irrational opinions (no more liking blue)! No more stupid useless people.

Welcome to planet Vulcan:

Perhaps that's what the Baron is driving at, we should all be devoid of emotions and be driven by pure logic.

The simple fact is that many (most?) people have needs that scientific fact cannot fulfill...and unless we are become a race of robots (or Vulcans), that is unlikely to change.

It is interesting to note that (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong) every known society, from ancient Egyt, Rome, Aztecs, American Indians, Celts, Aboriginals and the rest ALL have some sort of religion or spriritual beliefs...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yes but Major Fubar you are missing the point. All those people were stupid and their useless opinions have added absolutly nothing to the human race.

Anyway i dont necessarily disagree with you Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX on Hitler..I never actually claimed he was an atheist in my previous mentioning of him but it is in fact still possible. Hitler was not beyond using the appeal of religion in a rather Machiavellian way (would you believe it!). He used biblical language ideas and references in many speeches and claimed he was acting on gods behalf on multiple occasions but does that prove he was expressing his true beliefs (remember this is adolph hitler we're talking about)? I dont think so. He was not always friendly to the church and is quoted as saying that Nazism and christianity cannot coexist (or similar). I would say Hitler warped both religion and science to his own purposes and ambitions. My point was valid.

[Tovarish 0]

Wow, hard to believe how quickly this thread has ballooned in a couple of days and how much of it can be summed up simply as

"If you don't see it from my perspective you're an idiot"

"No, if you don't see it from mine you are!"

Really, what's the point? What do any of you gain by turning another to your point of view? (which is in this case next to infinitely impossible - I'm assuming we don't have a Jehova's witness amongst us, in which case I would understand), and it surprizes me that the most vocal person in this argument is an atheist...

Really, Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX, what do you have to gain? I'm an atheist and sometimes I envy some of my friends for their ability to have faith in a God. If they have something so comforting why try to deprive them of it? I have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and heck even a couple of Wiccans. I accept their views as long as they accept my inability to share them. That way we're all honky dory, I'll at least have them as friends until they go on to their afterlife.

And you truly can't blame the world's problems on religion - human nature would still be as fucked as ever. Eliminate religion and there would still be greed, cruelty, jealousy, prejudice, ect.

[Harnu 0]

Well said Tovarish.

Personally, I believe we'll find out who is wrong and who is right when we die.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I tried really hard to believe in God, because it's a lot easier than having to deal with the fact that there is no omniscient, omnipotent being who loves me, watches out for me, or anyone else for that matter. But it does have some bright spots- I don't have to worry about Hell (just nothingness, which can't be all that bad since I won't be around to deal with it anyway), and it sheds new light on human history when you consider the possibility that a large portion of Earth's population, at any given moment, is under the influence of a massive, collective illusion. Definitely gives one a new perspective on world events

[Major Fubar 0]

Just curious - do you think if nobody belived in an afterlife (Heaven/Hell/Valhalla whatever) or in karma, would there be more violent crimes - in particular, murders?

Do you think if the possibility of going to hell for killing someone were removed, more people would be willing to kill others for revenge, convenience etc. I know jail time is a big disinsentive, but if a person truly believes they would never get caught for a murder, could the idea of an afterlife be a factor in stopping them from committing it? Or do you believe that people have enough morals so that they wouldn't commit murder simply for the fact is the wrong thing to do?

From personal experience, there have been one or two people I would have seriously considered killing if I thought I could get away with it, but I don't know if it was the thought of supernatural repurcussions or just my moral compass that kept me from offing them...maybe there isn't really a difference.

Anyway, just interested to see what you guys thought of this question...

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have read it. It provided a sum total of zero answers. As have thousands of other people. In fact, apparently what makes most people stop being so religious is actually reading the bible.

Then you didn't read it, you went through it looking for reasons to not believe it. Read it with an open mind.

Quote[/b] ]Well, your bible says I would actually go to hell, and a lot of christian sects agree with that. Again, more things that are interpreted VERY differently by different groups.

What's your point? I told you what I believe.

Quote[/b] ]Are you not reading this? Could I be any clearer?

Quote[/b] ]matter of fact, all religions claim the others are wrong, how can you tell which is right? Most people simply go with the religion they were brought up with.

HOW can that be a guide to what is right?

There is no "right" and "wrong". You can't just put a label on everything. What you believe is what you believe. You won't know it's right until you're dead.

Quote[/b] ]Yes. Very ambiguous.

Quote[/b] ]It is precisely because I *HAVE* read the bible that I would not like god, should he exist. Its a case story of a murdering, babykilling, psychopathic, xenophobic (favoured race, remember), sexist, carnivorous evil evil evil entity.

Then like I've said, you've only read the Bible to pick out the reasons you don't like God. Read the Bible with an open mind and you'll see he's not some "murdering, babykilling, psychopathic, xenophobic (favoured race, remember), sexist, carnivorous evil evil evil entity".

Your problem is that you're not looking for a reason to believe, you're looking for reasons not to believe. You don't see the sin and perversion in almost every person in Sodom and Gommorah, you just see God destroying it. You don't see the love and grace God gives us, you just see small errors between to human accounts of a story.

[denoir 0]

FSPilot vs. Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX. . Children, take notes!

Harnu:

Quote[/b] ]Deciding with color is 'better' is argumentative opinion.  There is no right or wrong answer for that matter.  It's not a limit of logic, it's a different subject.

No, this example has nothing to do with logic, but the impossibility for science to process problems with insufficient data. In this case "better" is not defined. Religion on the other hand does not have that problem as it accepts just about anything without any requirements.

There's an old Sherlock Holmes quote that says:

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

The simple fact is that science has its own domain. The things outside it can't be answered and other theories are applicable.

Quote[/b] ]0/0 isn't a limit of mathematics.  According to mathematics, it's impossible/no answer.  It's not a limit to mathematics, it's how it works.

It's not impossible but "undefined" according to mathematics. That means that mathematics can't answer it. If your system cannot by design answer certain questions, then it can't either be used to assess the validity of other systems that deal with the question.

Quote[/b] ]"This statement is false."  is a paradox.  It's not outside logic and reasoning.  It's a paradox, which is explained through logic and reasoning.  There is no possible end or it's contradictory to itself.

"This statement is false" is a paradox and by the rules of logic admit that it can't deal with it. So determining the solution to the problem "Determine the truth of the following statement :

"This statement is false."" is not possible by the rules of logic. Again, it's a boundary value for the realm of logic. It does not mean that logic is an incorrect system, only that just as any other system has its boundaries. Outside these boundaries, you have to apply another system to get answers.

The mistake that Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX is making is the same as many religious people do: They don't accept the boundaries of their system. Science can crush religion when religion invades its domain and tries to explain physical phenomena (like "Earth is the center of the universe" etc). It's outside its domain and its arguments can be easily disproved and dismissed. The same goes for science when it embarks into the realm of religion. For example an attempt to explain morality through mathematics is no less futile than explaining the natural laws through religion.

[FSPilot 0]

FSPilot vs. Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX. . Children, take notes!

You're going to have to call in peace keepers I'll bet.

[ran 0]

FSPilot vs. Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX. . Children, take notes!

You're going to have to call in peace keepers I'll bet.  

hmm , firemen i'd say

[Tamme 0]

.

You insulted me repeatedly over the course of your post.

I guess I overreacted. Insulting others is not what I call civilized and I apologize if I did insult you. You obviously will not come to terms with my beliefs, I won't force it.

There is one thing that I wan't to make clear. I have the feeling that you think I don't believe in science. Is that so?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

This is a ridiculous statement based on personal bias...do you have any data to prove that on average religious people are less intelligent than atheists? Just because a person has a belief you do not agree with does not make them less intelligent - in your opinion, they are more "gullible", but that does not direct reflect on intelligence per se, more on character.

There are loads of studies showing that the more educated people are (and hence the higher IQ) the less likely they are to be religious. You've got that the wrong way round, a little. The more intelligent, the less likely to believe religion's lies.

[FSPilot 0]

This guy's bias should be obvious to everyone by now.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Isnt a good answer for you.

Its the only honest answer. 'GAWD DID IT' is not an answer, not to mention the myriad of other questions it causes.

Quote[/b] ]

'Insufficent data' isnt a good answer for many people to the religious and philosophical questions they are asking.

Tough. Aww, they don't like it. I don't care, and that doesn't make 'gawd did it' true. Making up answers might make people happy but its ultimately bad for them, and society. Philosophy is great in this respect; it gives people things to think about without the crushing negativity and lies of religion.

Quote[/b] ]

Does life have meaning, and what is it that might give it meaning?

Who are we?

Homo sapiens sapiens.

Quote[/b] ]

Where have we come from?

The great rift valley, Africa.

Quote[/b] ]

Where are we going?

Anywhere we can.

Quote[/b] ]

Science is not the source of all answers for which a need is felt in peoples lives and rationality is not the source of all wisdom and understanding for everyone everywhere...

Name something that is wise and is understood that cannot be discovered or proved rationally. Emotions? Nope, got explanations for them. Something that exists, I mean, not something someone made up.

Quote[/b] ]...But then again perhaps you are right, Art is a 'waste' of resources and time just as much as religion.

No it isn't. Sources? Evidence?

Quote[/b] ]

This weakness in the mind can now be explained scientifically and is not important to human functioning.

Its not a weakness, and is important to human functioning.

Straw men (misrepresenting anothers position) is not a good way to argue. Emotions are part of what makes us human. They are great at lots of things, but absolutely useless at determining facts, courses of action, etc by themselves.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just curious - do you think if nobody belived in an afterlife (Heaven/Hell/Valhalla whatever) or in karma, would there be more violent crimes - in particular, murders?

No, I think there would be less. In particular, you wouldnt get things like people flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers or strapping dynamite to themselves, but in general as well.

IMO anyone who needs a sky fairy to tell them its wrong to kill needs locking up. They should be able to tell that on their own. (Which everyone except psychopaths and brainwashed can, religious or not)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

There is one thing that I wan't to make clear. I have the feeling that you think I don't believe in science. Is that so?

Anyone who 'believes in' Science doesn't understand it. You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand how it works, trust it maybe, but not believe in it.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Ok, you know what?

I'd be perfectly happy to leave the religious to get on with and believe in whatever they like as long as

1) They stop brainwashing/ indoctrinating children before they get a chance to decide what they believe, or dont believe, for themselves.

2) They stop trying to interfere in politics (EG the pope requesting American voters to vote a certain way on topics.)

3) They cease interfering in scientific 'areas' - as Denoir said, they have no grounds there. This ranges from complaining about new technologies with misconceptions of what it entails to demanding in on debates where they have, again, no knowledge or qualification. EG a televised debate on GM crops - There were experts on both sides in various fields, from plant experts to seed designers. But also present were religious 'leaders,' who did nothing but put forth emotional arguements based on what their misunderstanding of the subject was. And of course, there were more of them than scientists, because there just had to be one of every denomination. No more of that, please.

4) No more teaching young earth creationism as fact. Even the Papacy has given up on this load of nonsense. Teach it like every other creation myth if you must.

5) No more enforced prayer in state run schools, at least.

6) No more preying on the weak and mentally ill; alcoholics, drug abusers - stop using charity as an excuse to brainwash people.

7) If religious people get to stand around in high streets handing out propoganda, singing songs and screaming at people; so does every other group. Gays, Satanists, NAMBLA, you name it. Or they can stop harassing people and wait for those who want to, to come to them.

8) Stop putting religious themed crap on official currency, institutions, laws, etc. 'In God We Trust' in the US, for example.

If they do all these things, fine, I'd be happy to let them believe whatever they like.

[denoir 0]

Absolutely, I agree with all those things.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hooray!

Finally we agree. I think the division came from my view that they won't stop doing these things. I should have said this first, would have saved us a lot of arguement.

[FSPilot 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Quote[/b] ]1) They stop brainwashing/ indoctrinating children before they get a chance to decide what they believe, or dont believe, for themselves.

double standard alert!  Why should we stop?  So you can brainwash them with BS theories in middle school biology class?

Quote[/b] ]2) They stop trying to interfere in politics (EG the pope requesting American voters to vote a certain way on topics.)

This is stupid.  People have every right to vote for what they believe in.  God forbid the leaders stop leading people.

Quote[/b] ]3) They cease interfering in scientific 'areas' - as Denoir said, they have no grounds there.  This ranges from complaining about new technologies with misconceptions of what it entails to demanding in on debates where they have, again, no knowledge or qualification.  EG a televised debate on GM crops - There were experts on both sides in various fields, from plant experts to seed designers.  But also present were religious 'leaders,'  who did nothing but put forth emotional arguements based on what their misunderstanding of the subject was.  And of course, there were more of them than scientists, because there just had to be one of every denomination.  No more of that, please.

Double standard alert!  By your logic I could ask that you keep your nose out of religious debates which you seem to know nothing about.

Quote[/b] ]4)  No more teaching young earth creationism as fact.  Even the Papacy has given up on this load of nonsense.  Teach it like every other creation myth if you must.

Double standard alert!  Evolution is still taught as a fact in schools even though it's more of a "myth" than people claim creationism is.

Quote[/b] ]5) No more enforced prayer in state run schools, at least.

Double standard alert!  There are enforced "no prayer" rules in schools these days, as well as religious t-shirts and Bibles being banned.

Besides, there are no "enforced prayers" in state run schools.  If they're reported they're put to a stop.

Quote[/b] ]6) No more preying on the weak and mentally ill; alcoholics, drug abusers - stop using charity as an excuse to brainwash people.

Yeah, we maliciously hunt them down and... help them.

Quote[/b] ]7) If religious people get to stand around in high streets handing out propoganda, singing songs and screaming at people; so does every other group.  Gays, Satanists, NAMBLA, you name it.  Or they can stop harassing people and wait for those who want to, to come to them.

Every other group can.  And we also have the right to "harass" them.  Then again, they have the right to "harass" us, within reason of course.

Quote[/b] ]8) Stop putting religious themed crap on official currency, institutions, laws, etc.  'In God We Trust' in the US, for example.

What would you prefer?  "In Darwin We Trust?"

Religion is a large part in the United States' history, it's stupid to try to get rid of religion in our history because you don't believe it.  Quit trying to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. The large minority of Americans believe in God. So don't try to pretend this is some upper class minority forcing God on everyone.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

That post is silly enough not to need me to bother. If anyone (must..not... insert.. disparaging..remark..about...people...) has any questions about it, ask me.

[Major Fubar 0]

Actually Baron, I agree with most of your above post too. Religion shouldn't be forced down others throats...but neither should atheism.

Everyone on earth should have a choice to choose what they believe in, so long as it causes no direct harm to others. I think it was Aleister Crowley who said "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"...

BTW, NAMBLA should NOT be able to spread their propoganda, and I would hardly put them in the same group as gays or Satanists. NAMBLA promotes paedophilia, and no amount of freedom of speech should allow that message to be spread (I think South Park did an episode about that actually).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually Baron, I agree with most of your above post too. Religion shouldn't be forced down others throats...but neither should atheism.

Correct.

Quote[/b] ]

Everyone on earth should have a choice to choose what they believe in, so long as it causes no direct harm to others. I think it was Aleister Crowley who said "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"...

As long as it causes no harm to others, yes.

Quote[/b] ]

BTW, NAMBLA should NOT be able to spread their propoganda, and I would hardly put them in the same group as gays or Satanists. NAMBLA promotes paedophilia, and no amount of freedom of speech should allow that message to be spread (I think South Park did an episode about that actually).

I am aware of what NAMBLA means, thats why I used it. I don't think they should be able to spread propoganda, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to spread propoganda.

[bn880 5]

I am aware of what NAMBLA means, thats why I used it. I don't think they should be able to spread propoganda, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to spread propoganda.

Oh yeah, except almost everyone can spread some propaganda of their own. Isn't that a normal human need.