To the Anti-Religious

[monta]

I meant in this topic specifically, it's off-topic. Or if is on topic, the poster should explain how it is on topic, not just post a link without an explanation.

Otherwise I love those topics!

I read it as a rebuttal of the idea that only theists believe things without concrete evidence.

Perhaps DS will elaborate.

 

[Commoner]

I read it as a rebuttal of the idea that only theists believe things without concrete evidence.

Perhaps DS will elaborate.

Hopefully he will.

 

[DarkSun]

I think we've got a bit of a problem if we are going to now start debating quantum mechanics in a religious education forum.

Maybe you should explain how you see EPR being connected to the topic at hand? What are you trying to point out exacty?

EPR only presents a problem on a quantum level (even that only maybe) - but you're not trying to suggest (I hope) that it applies to our perception of reality.That's more that a bit of a stretch.

My first reference was to String Theory, which is a purely mathematical model that aims to describe reality with one single, universal theory. However, it has no empirical evidence to support it. And as such, it is possible that we might disprove it, or prove it, given we find the correct method to do so one day.

I brought up the EPR thought experiment as an example of how the models we use to describe the reality around us can be invalidated completely.

How does this relate to the topic at hand? Well. Just saying that on some level, the statement "God does not exist", like its converse, may be proven or disproven given we find the right method. Although, like String Theory, I severely doubt there ever will be a "right method", because what we're talking about is so abstract it's not funny.

Just saying.

 

[Commoner]

My first reference was to String Theory, which is a purely mathematical model that aims to describe reality with one single, universal theory. However, it has no empirical evidence to support it. And as such, it is possible that we might disprove it, or prove it, given we find the correct method to do so one day.

Mathemathical models are contingent on prior assumptions - those assumptions can be examined. The model itself is probably not falsifiable in and of itself.

I brought up the EPR thought experiment as an example of how the models we use to describe the reality around us can be invalidated completely.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Not that I disagree in principle.

 

[DarkSun]

An assumption based on what? A particle 10^-40m in size? How would we EVER go about proving that such a thing exists?

Also... you don't see how I came to the conclusion that a photon shouldn't be able to rotate itself through two polarised screens, ninety degrees apart? Really?

 

[DarkSun]

I read it as a rebuttal of the idea that only theists believe things without concrete evidence.

Perhaps DS will elaborate.

And you were right.

Anyway, I should really try harder to avoid posting in this thread.

 

[Commoner]

An assumption based on what? A particle 10^-40m in size? How would we EVER go about proving that such a thing exists?

Are you refering to a particular theory? I've never heard of a particle 10^(-40) m in "size", which "size" are you talking about?

Also... you don't see how I came to the conclusion that a photon shouldn't be able to rotate itself through two polarised screens, ninety degrees apart? Really?

Which model was invalidated completely by EPR? Are you now trying to say that the EPR paradox invalidates quantum mechanics as a whole? The concepts of EPR are only applicable at the quantum level, so how does this affect "every model"? And what does this have to do with god?


I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I really don't see the connection with your previous line of arguments.

 

[DarkSun]

Are you refering to a particular theory? I've never heard of a particle 10^(-40) m in "size", which "size" are you talking about?

10^-40m was an exageration. You're right, "as far as we know", these particles are point-like. I was just trying to get across that these particles are so miniscule that it would be virtually impossible to detect them. And then you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle too, which isn't altogether too encouraging.

Which model was invalidated completely by EPR? Are you now trying to say that the EPR paradox invalidates quantum mechanics as a whole? The concepts of EPR are only applicable at the quantum level, so how does this affect "every model"? And what does this have to do with god?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I really don't see the connection with your previous line of arguments.

Which model? The Classical Mechanical model.

I'll re-explain what this has to do with belief or disbelief God in the morning.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm tired of repeating myself... I'm tired of you guys not understanding where I'm coming from... So forgive me, but I give up.

You win. I take back everything I've said. Atheism is obviously more logical than any other viewpoint. And the rest of the world is deluded.

All the best.

Ciao. ^_^

Apparently it's you who's misunderstanding. I have never stated anything that would even imply that the rest of the world is deluded. I've said many times that the people who have had experiences that they can only label "God" are quite justified and rational about the subject. Plus, we're not even talking about the rest of the world. I'm only really talking about your average member of an Abrahamic faith. My atheism is not a comment on wicca or Buddhism or Hinduism or the religions of the majority of the world.

And, I understand where you're coming from. Where you're coming from is thinking I'm saying something I'm not. If you'd just listen and understand, I guarantee you wouldn't feel the need to argue, mainly because from what you've said, I know we agree on the main gist of this.

 

[DarkSun]

Apparently it's you who's misunderstanding. I have never stated anything that would even imply that the rest of the world is deluded. I've said many times that the people who have had experiences that they can only label "God" are quite justified and rational about the subject. Plus, we're not even talking about the rest of the world. I'm only really talking about your average member of an Abrahamic faith. My atheism is not a comment on wicca or Buddhism or Hinduism or the religions of the majority of the world.

And, I understand where you're coming from. Where you're coming from is thinking I'm saying something I'm not. If you'd just listen and understand, I guarantee you wouldn't feel the need to argue, mainly because from what you've said, I know we agree on the main gist of this.

No, you haven't. But that's the vibe I've gotten from a few people in this thread.

MBall... I think you've given me an idea for a poll.

 

[Atheologian]

People generally believe the things they have experiences of if they know/trust someone who claims to have had such an experience. A lot of people claim to have experienced ghosts and witches but I think the percentage of people who claim to see pixies and unicorns are much lower.

That's because the pleasant things we make up are easier to forget, or decide aren't true. The more afraid we are of something, the more inclined we are to beleve it. This is the very reason most people won't shake the belief in God, even in the face of common sense and reason. The fear of God is instilled early on, and doubly reinforced.

 

[DarkSun]

That's because the pleasant things we make up are easier to forget, or decide aren't true. The more afraid we are of something, the more inclined we are to beleve it. This is the very reason most people won't shake the belief in God, even in the face of common sense and reason. The fear of God is instilled early on, and doubly reinforced.

:foot::foot::foot:

Sort of like your disbelief in God?

 

[Madhuri]

That's because the pleasant things we make up are easier to forget, or decide aren't true. The more afraid we are of something, the more inclined we are to beleve it. This is the very reason most people won't shake the belief in God, even in the face of common sense and reason. The fear of God is instilled early on, and doubly reinforced.

Yes fear is also a factor, but fear is something mostly prevelent to Christianity and Islam. We can't make these kinds of absolute statements about religion when we are only talking about particular groups.

 

[Atheologian]

:foot::foot::foot:

Sort of like your disbelief in God?

No, actually the exact opposite of my disbelief in God.

 

[Atheologian]

Yes fear is also a factor, but fear is something mostly prevelent to Christianity and Islam. We can't make these kinds of absolute statements about religion when we are only talking about particular groups.

That isn't true. Fear is the staple of most religions. You can't look a few eastern religions and suppose most religions are like that. Religion, throughout histroy, has used Fear to propogate itself and keep the faith.

 

[Atheologian]

If it's not fear that is required, it's usually stupidity or gulliblity that reigns

Consider the Tuka Movement in Fiji in 1885 or the Taro Cult in northern Papua New Guinea in 1919. These were "cargo" cults. The native people built planes, control towers and runways out of straw and sticks. They even made fake headsets and flares. There is still one such cult, in Tanna, Vanuatu. They worship John Frum, and believe that he will return one day, to kick all the white people out of their lands and bring them all the "cargo", manufactured clothes and supplies and canned foods, they will ever need. They specifically believe their dead ancestors built the planes, filled them with goods, and the planes were lured off route by sneaky white men.

Knowing where the cargo actually comes from, knowing John Frum never existed (he was a fictional character made up by a native named Manehivi) and knowing that straw planes and control towers will not produce cargo from the skies, would you believe in John Frum?

Don't be so quick to say no. What if I told you John Frum was just another way to say nature? John Frum is real, he talks to me? Guides me? Just because the story behind John Frum was a misunderstanding on the behalf of the native people, not realizing that World War II planes were dropping this cargo and using the island as a jump spot, why should I renounce the existence of John Frum?

No, John Frum is very real. He is real in the hearts of the natives. John Frum is every bit as real as any other deity, which says quite a bit. If we were to explain the origins of the cargo, show them how it was produced, where it came from and how it got there, I'm sure there would still be natives that insisted, "That doesn't mean John Frum isn't real..."


Replace "JOHN FRUM" with whatever you call your deity. This is how the non-religious view the religious, in the wake of knowledge and scientific advancement.

 

[Madhuri]

That isn't true. Fear is the staple of most religions. You can't look a few eastern religions and suppose most religions are like that. Religion, throughout histroy, has used Fear to propogate itself and keep the faith.

Fear -can- be used, and often is. But we can't apply that factor to every situation. Otherwise, I do agree with you that fear is a major reason or influence.

 

[Atheologian]

Fear -can- be used, and often is. But we can't apply that factor to every situation. Otherwise, I do agree with you that fear is a major reason or influence.

This is where most atheists draw the line between abhorence and tolerance of a religion. While I don't think practicing Budhism or Taoism or Doasim is harmful to those around the believers, I do think religions based on fear and repression are, and should be treated as such.

 

[Madhuri]

I'm a hindu and definitely am not based in fear of God. That's a major religion.

 

[DarkSun]

That isn't true. Fear is the staple of most religions. You can't look a few eastern religions and suppose most religions are like that. Religion, throughout histroy, has used Fear to propogate itself and keep the faith.

Yes, but to claim that all people only believe things out of fear is a sweeping generalisation toward a massively diverse group of people.