Religion, It's for Dummies!

[Lykeios Orizontas]

Pro Life Nymph

Doofi3

I agree, I just didn't want to further validate the troll by adding so much to that one, lol.

Very funny scene from an awesome movie. However, that doesn't do anything to prove you aren't a troll. I haven't seen you offer any intelligent response to what others have to say so far. Nor did your original post do much other than bash on people that believe in a religion.

[Complex Systems]

Old Blue Collar Joe

I get a kick out of the claim that religion is for dummies made by people who can't grasp the fact that some things are beyond our knowing.

This is at best an appeal to ignorance, though. As you do later on, by asserting that a list of things are beyond our knowing;

Quote:

What causes global warming, 100%, beyond any reasonable doubt, and 100% irrefutable.
What caused the big bang, and when did it actually occur?
Is there a 'gay gene', and is it curable?

However, there is a clear difference between any of these three statements, and "does God exist?," which even you admit to.

Quote:

You cannot disprove, or prove, God(s) exist.

This difference being that the first three claims are falsifiable. We can say what doesn't cause global warming, we can say what didn't cause the big bang, and when it didn't occur, and we may be able to actually find if there is a 'gay gene.' If anything, over time, this allows convergence on "the truth."

In comparison statements about god do not meet any level of rigor outside of "personal decision." This makes it impossible to put any truth value behind those claims outside of the subjective opinions of individuals, which are well accounted to be skewed and poorly process a variety of data.

Sure, you can say that some things are beyond our knowing, but you can't say "some things are beyond our knowledge, therefore my belief in them is legitimate." The objective validity exists outside our opinions. By admitting we can't know something, we can't make valid claims about those things.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Wah, someone else is cooler than me and has a belief I don't have!

LET'S BASH IT!


That will make me feel better!

Or will it...?


Maybe, but it won't solve my problems. sad

[Lykeios Orizontas]

Complex Systems

However, there is a clear difference between any of these three statements, and "does God exist?," which even you admit to.

Quote:

You cannot disprove, or prove, God(s) exist.

This difference being that the first three claims are falsifiable. We can say what doesn't cause global warming, we can say what didn't cause the big bang, and when it didn't occur, and we may be able to actually find if there is a 'gay gene.' If anything, over time, this allows convergence on "the truth."

In comparison statements about god do not meet any level of rigor outside of "personal decision." This makes it impossible to put any truth value behind those claims outside of the subjective opinions of individuals, which are well accounted to be skewed and poorly process a variety of data.

Currently we cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity. That doesn't mean a proof one way or the other will not come to light in the future. I think that's the point he/she was trying to make. (If not, then I'm making it now.)

Complex Systems

Sure, you can say that some things are beyond our knowing, but you can't say "some things are beyond our knowledge, therefore my belief in them is legitimate." The objective validity exists outside our opinions. By admitting we can't know something, we can't make valid claims about those things.

We can make plenty of valid claims about such things. The fact that one is agnostic doesn't mean one can't make valid claims. Science is built on agnosticism. A true scientist never claims he or she knows something with absolute certainty, but there are plenty of "valid" claims made in regard to scientific principles.

[Lykeios Orizontas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Wah, someone else is cooler than me and has a belief I don't have!

LET'S BASH IT!


That will make me feel better!

Or will it...?


Maybe, but it won't solve my problems. sad

Yep! And notice how the OP hasn't come back to make any serious refutations of anyone else's points? I smell a TROLL. (Oh wait, he or she doesn't like being called that... then again, I don't like being called a dummy for believing in something that someone else doesn't have the capacity to comprehend.)

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Doofi3

Suicidesoldier#1

Wah, someone else is cooler than me and has a belief I don't have!

LET'S BASH IT!


That will make me feel better!

Or will it...?


Maybe, but it won't solve my problems. sad

Yep! And notice how the OP hasn't come back to make any serious refutations of anyone else's points? I smell a TROLL. (Oh wait, he or she doesn't like being called that... then again, I don't like being called a dummy for believing in something that someone else doesn't have the capacity to comprehend.)

I know right?

They're troll becuase they were trying to make others made, but they are stupid becuase they actually believe it. xp

[Lykeios Orizontas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Doofi3

Suicidesoldier#1

Wah, someone else is cooler than me and has a belief I don't have!

LET'S BASH IT!


That will make me feel better!

Or will it...?


Maybe, but it won't solve my problems. sad

Yep! And notice how the OP hasn't come back to make any serious refutations of anyone else's points? I smell a TROLL. (Oh wait, he or she doesn't like being called that... then again, I don't like being called a dummy for believing in something that someone else doesn't have the capacity to comprehend.)

I know right?

They're troll becuase they were trying to make others mad, but they are stupid becuase they actually believe it. xp

Precisely.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Doofi3

Suicidesoldier#1

Doofi3

Suicidesoldier#1

Wah, someone else is cooler than me and has a belief I don't have!

LET'S BASH IT!


That will make me feel better!

Or will it...?


Maybe, but it won't solve my problems. sad

Yep! And notice how the OP hasn't come back to make any serious refutations of anyone else's points? I smell a TROLL. (Oh wait, he or she doesn't like being called that... then again, I don't like being called a dummy for believing in something that someone else doesn't have the capacity to comprehend.)

I know right?

They're troll becuase they were trying to make others mad, but they are stupid becuase they actually believe it. xp

Precisely.

3nodding

[King Shining Heaven]

There is a religion and morality subforum. This belongs there

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Complex Systems

Old Blue Collar Joe

I get a kick out of the claim that religion is for dummies made by people who can't grasp the fact that some things are beyond our knowing.

This is at best an appeal to ignorance, though. As you do later on, by asserting that a list of things are beyond our knowing;

Quote:

What causes global warming, 100%, beyond any reasonable doubt, and 100% irrefutable.
What caused the big bang, and when did it actually occur?
Is there a 'gay gene', and is it curable?

However, there is a clear difference between any of these three statements, and "does God exist?," which even you admit to.

Quote:

You cannot disprove, or prove, God(s) exist.

This difference being that the first three claims are falsifiable. We can say what doesn't cause global warming, we can say what didn't cause the big bang, and when it didn't occur, and we may be able to actually find if there is a 'gay gene.' If anything, over time, this allows convergence on "the truth."

In comparison statements about god do not meet any level of rigor outside of "personal decision." This makes it impossible to put any truth value behind those claims outside of the subjective opinions of individuals, which are well accounted to be skewed and poorly process a variety of data.

Sure, you can say that some things are beyond our knowing, but you can't say "some things are beyond our knowledge, therefore my belief in them is legitimate." The objective validity exists outside our opinions. By admitting we can't know something, we can't make valid claims about those things.

Maybe you should learn some reading comprehension, as that wasn't the question the OP asked, was it?
And not one of the questions do you have a 100%, verified 100% fact, as an answer. Merely our best theories based on current available information. Which was the entire point of my comment.
I never once said we'll 'never know'. And knowing what didn't happen does not equate to knowing what did happen.

[Centuries Before]

1. Spirituality for dummies.
No guilt or shame here. My religion does not in any way hinder my thoughts. I attended science class perfectly well without thinking that my beliefs were not compatible with what I was being taught, because there are still 'what if's in science, as I think someone else mentioned in a post in his thread.

2. Loss of spiritual depth perception.
Thank goodness my religion is varied then instead of being one-track and linear. Examples being the mystery cults, and the other sects of worship that were all tolerated and at times even assimilated into the Roman belief system. If that isn't demonstrating a willingness of diversity, I don't know what is. Along the lines of tolerance, the ancient Romans were also more tolerant than the Christians - it was only under the reign of a few Emperors, that the persecutions actually occured.

3. Engineered obedience training.
Good thing that mine isn't organised then. While organisations to replicate it do no doubt probably exist, I am more comfortable with practising at home or outside only where appropriate. It is not obedience based off hierarchies for most reconstructionist paths, it is the reconstruction of patterns of behaviour from archaeological and historical sources. Not all of them are appropriate ofr this day and age after all - sacrifices, for example. But incense is just as good of a substitute. There are no authorities for what I believe in. I talk directly to the gods when I need to. And, also on top of that, Roman religion had the concept of du et des (sp?) - essentially, 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours'. It was not a one-way street of prayer and servitude, it was showing respect and expecting something back in return. If you didn't get anything? Try another god. Not kidding, they had loads.

4. Toilet-bowl time management.
Boring? Man, I love reading me some Roman texts. I'm learning Latin for that purpose, amongst other things. I find them fascinating. Then again, I also find most religious texts interesting because it's interesting to me to see how other religions percieve the world and why. No sermons or hours of learning for me. Offerings rarely take more than, what, 10 minutes tops. Even public ones rarely go over that generous time allocation, unless there's questions from the public or you're translating Latin phrases at the same time. I spent far more time gaming, drawing and studying for university than I do with anything associated with my religion.

5. Support your local *****]
I donate to Help the Heroes, does that count as 'real and honourable'?
This section really isn't relevant at all to my religion. Although the dole was significantly better back in Roman times than it is now.

6. Incest is best.
Incestuous marriages (and presumably sex/reproduction) was frowned on, and is nefas - that is, against the laws of the gods and man. AD 295 made it forbidden.

The ancient roman religion is also one of the most tolerant. As I said before, the persecutions only came with the reigns of specific Emperors rather than being a permanent feature. So long as the public religion was not disturbed and they paid their taxes, people could practise more or less what the hell they wanted. I don't condemn any of my friends for believing or not believing in anything different to me. I understand and acknowledge that they have different opinions and backgrounds to me, and therefore have come to their own conclusions on religious faith or a lack of it - I'd be a poor friend if I tried changing their minds. Whatever float's ones boat.

Idiocy or hypocrisy - pick one.
Pre-marital sex? Not so good after Augustus, rock on before/after.
10,000 year old earth? A quick google search didn't come up with anything as to how old they thought it was, but Eratosthenes worked out that the Earth wasn't flat in the 3rd century BC, and the atom theory was in India around the 6th century BC - for classical antiquity this was around the 5th BC, but close enough. The ancients weren't as stupid as everyone gets taught at times.

8. Inherited Falsehood.
I wasn't born into what I believe, enough said.

9. Compassion in chains.
Religion might be the gunpowder of humanity, but you still need the spark to set it off that comes from the nature of humanity as a whole. Even if religion did not exist, you'd probably still have people at each others' throats, just for different reasons.

10. Faith is fear.
Not for me it isn't wink I respect the gods, but I've never cowered, grovelled or knelt (kneeling = not done).

11. Religion is spiritual immaturity.
I don't need something to worship, but I had something of a lightbulb going off in my head, and here I am. Still willing to show an interest in the cloning of the mammoths without throwing a fit, pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage and whatnot. I'm in no way hindered by my religion at all.

/£0.50. Sleep time. Tl'dr is that I personally am not hindered by my religion.

[Victoria of Gallifrey]

I could almost buy into this. Then I remember all the religious people I know who are smarter, bigger, better, faster, and more efficient than I am. And it's not that they just want to have their lives ran in some automated thoughtless scheme. They believe and practice what they believe because they have reached certain logical conclusions. And some of their testaments are pretty thought provoking and intellectual. They just happen to have the element of faith that I lack that seems to make their system work for them in full effect.

That being said, there are "dummies" out there who fit into this mess you've posted here. Some people are sheep and need to be led because they can't manage life otherwise.

[servivigiledeus]

"I think you're just as deluded and narrow-minded as any religious nut I've ever met.

Not to mention this is quite obviously a weak attempt at trolling" i tip my hat to you sir

[Complex Systems]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Complex Systems

Old Blue Collar Joe

I get a kick out of the claim that religion is for dummies made by people who can't grasp the fact that some things are beyond our knowing.

This is at best an appeal to ignorance, though. As you do later on, by asserting that a list of things are beyond our knowing;

Quote:

What causes global warming, 100%, beyond any reasonable doubt, and 100% irrefutable.
What caused the big bang, and when did it actually occur?
Is there a 'gay gene', and is it curable?

However, there is a clear difference between any of these three statements, and "does God exist?," which even you admit to.

Quote:

You cannot disprove, or prove, God(s) exist.

This difference being that the first three claims are falsifiable. We can say what doesn't cause global warming, we can say what didn't cause the big bang, and when it didn't occur, and we may be able to actually find if there is a 'gay gene.' If anything, over time, this allows convergence on "the truth."

In comparison statements about god do not meet any level of rigor outside of "personal decision." This makes it impossible to put any truth value behind those claims outside of the subjective opinions of individuals, which are well accounted to be skewed and poorly process a variety of data.

Sure, you can say that some things are beyond our knowing, but you can't say "some things are beyond our knowledge, therefore my belief in them is legitimate." The objective validity exists outside our opinions. By admitting we can't know something, we can't make valid claims about those things.

Maybe you should learn some reading comprehension, as that wasn't the question the OP asked, was it?
And not one of the questions do you have a 100%, verified 100% fact, as an answer. Merely our best theories based on current available information. Which was the entire point of my comment.
I never once said we'll 'never know'. And knowing what didn't happen does not equate to knowing what did happen.

Hey, you know, I didn't start off with any ad homs, maybe you shouldn't either?

The fact we don't know something 100% doesn't leave the chance of knowledge. The way a lot of god(s) are enumerated makes them strictly unfalsifiable, that is, even with the extension of technology a being that doesn't exist in the material realm is unfalsifiable.* The only things we can know with 100% accuracy and fact are mathematical and logical truths, so we need to find other ways to accumulate legitimate knowledge about the world around us.

You further totally miss the point of falsification. Since something has to be 100% fact, we have to make an all claim, or a universal claim. The contrapositive to a universal claim is a single thing that disproves it. So "All swans are white" is disproven (falsified) by "a black swam exists." You're entirely right that it doesn't equate to knowing what did happen, but by exclusion of "a large enough" amount of false hypotheses might allow us to converge on the truth.

*

[Complex Systems]

Doofi3

Currently we cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity. That doesn't mean a proof one way or the other will not come to light in the future. I think that's the point he/she was trying to make. (If not, then I'm making it now.)

Taken from my response to BCJ, just I took out the size tags.

The fact we don't know something 100% doesn't leave the chance of knowledge. The way a lot of god(s) are enumerated makes them strictly unfalsifiable, that is, even with the extension of technology a being that doesn't exist in the material realm is unfalsifiable.

Being able to test something implies it exists in the material realm, which would be a contradiction.I'm going to stick with the christian god here, since according to Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." implies that god existed before "stuff" existed. Thus, is outside of "stuff." Any amount of material evidence proving this god doesn't exist among all the "stuff" would never be sufficient to disprove a claim that the god exists outside of it, citing Gen 1:1. This makes claims about the christian god unfalsifiable as we can neither prove nor disprove any claims sufficiently.

The only things we can know with 100% accuracy and fact are mathematical and logical truths, so we need to find other ways to accumulate legitimate knowledge about the world around us.

You're right, some god(s) may be able to be falsified, just not all of them. Many of them will remain unfalsifiable or provable under most accepted logical systems.

Quote:

We can make plenty of valid claims about such things. The fact that one is agnostic doesn't mean one can't make valid claims. Science is built on agnosticism. A true scientist never claims he or she knows something with absolute certainty, but there are plenty of "valid" claims made in regard to scientific principles.

We can make claims about things we can know, under a variety of different epistemologies. However, things that are strictly not-testable are unknowable. How can we make valid claims about things we cannot know? Scientists can at least say, "according to this outline, we came to these results," and people can test and try to duplicate those results. I'm currently working on two economics papers for my job where I probably spend 1/5th of the time outlining my methodology, data, and rationale for doing certain things. I'm trying to be as open as possible for people to double check my work.