Convert Me!!!

[Tornado_Creator]

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Aaaah, notice the thinly veiled appeal to popularity in this post.

Yes, the majority is wrong and the majority is delusional if the majority cannot provide proof of their imaginary friends. Now, if you're not going to give me the evidence I ask for, ******** OFF! I would like other people to enter the debate now, you bore me with your incessant circular logic.

I'm still amused at you calling yourself 'wholly objective'.

I've never met a human being capable of that. I don't think it's possible, therefore, I think you're quite delusional.

So, rather than objectively considering that a person who bases their lives of wholly objective principals you will say, "I don't think it's possible" and claim I'm the delusional one when you're only reason for believing it's not possible appears to be whim. I am entirely objective in all that is based around fact. Some things such as my moral compass, personal preferences and my depiction of pleasure are subjective, however those things are not based in fact but in personal thought and experience, so they cannot be considered in an objective manner.

Of course I'm not objectively considering it!

Based on all evidence I have, all my knowledge of human beings garnered from both interaction and studying, I have never heard of a wholly objective person. Human beings aren't logical beasts, except the times you train them to be. I imagine a wholly objective human would be severely retarded, if it's possible.

You cannot claim objectivity in dealing with fact; you're a human being, like me, and we all color fact with our own subjective experiences and beliefs. And that's part of where a deity comes in: how we color things. Where you don't see something, someone who has personal and subjective reason to believe does. Yes, that rock falls because of gravity, both the believer in the supernatural and the non believer can say, but the believer might claim it has something to do in the great scheme of things, and that's not something the non believer can test.

Yes it is, we just haven't done so yet because we'd rather spend our time researching how to improve medicine, create true space-travel and artificial gravity, improve computers and communication technology, create methods by which we can understand the past, create methods by which we can predict weather, improve current understanding of human physiology, improve industrial output via machines and other technology and creating methods by which to end hunger (science is already responsible for feeding 40% of the planet, however I would be prepared to bet that more of them thank God than those who thank the scientists), to name but a few things we're preoccupied with. When we're finished with all that, we'll explain to the idiot why the rock falls and explore the possibility of a "grand scheme of things" but lets face it, it's not likely to be real now is it, or we would have some evidence already, it's the one thing humans have been so sure of for the past 6000 years, surely they would try to prove it.

For someone who is so objective, you certainly seem to have a thing against theists, eh?

And we do have evidence, like I said. You've got people who interact with their deities. Also, how would you go about testing a supernatural source? I'm still quite sure that science is the study of the physical world, and it doesn't have much to say with things outside of it.

Yes, I have a lot against theists. They are people who command to much respect in the modern world for having imaginary friends that they claim really exist yet can't prove and with another breath threaten people with Hell... (and yes, Christians and Muslim thus the majority of theists believe in Hell). Quite frankly I consider theism insulting.

[Zunny D]

Hmm, I've been looking through all the post and I noticed that someone asked if you were challenging to be converted to a religion by logic alone. Firstly, this is very similar to a show from a long time ago in the UK "Humphrys' Search For God" Twas very educational.

But onto my point. I think what you asking is really impossible. You simply can't convince someone to be a believer in one of the three major religions by just logic. Religion in and of itself is a very illogical thing. It really just defies logic at every turn. If you look at the stories and parables in these books, they're all fantastical tales of people being swallowed by whales, being visited by angels, or parting the seas. All things that don't make logical sense.

Additionally, no matter how much of this evidence you put out there for the theists to confront, they always use God as they're trump card. "God defies all logic, so I'm right." Hmm. This doesn't stand up to scratch (especially if your well versed from the ED.)

Personally, I'm a Deist. Its really a fine line between being a Theist and an Atheist.

And lastly, I don't think you'll be converted unless you honestly WANT to be converted. Otherwise you'll just look at what Theists will tell you and scoff. Not talking against you or anything, but its just the natural tendency of the human mind. You won't accept something unless your totally open to it and want to accept it.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Oh, please.

It's all personal. I can't convince someone that doesn't like, say, curry, because they just don't. That doesn't mean I'm wrong in not finding curry to be tasty and a good, quick food.

But if it's a subjective opinion then it shouldn't effect things like laws then surely. You don't teach "curry doesn't taste nice" in school, you don't subvert science because "I don't like curry" and you don't stop gays from marrying because "the curry will taste bad".

Religion is not just a subjective opinion, it's bigger than that. If it was just a subjective opinion, people wouldn't call me evil for not following their invisible friend.

You mean other laws aren't already based on subjective opinion? All those goals for the other laws are subjective opinion anyways, just opinion that is more widely accepted. Doesn't make it any better.

And yes not all subjective opinions are of equal strength. Just because the taste of curry is one doesn't mean they all have the same value in people's minds.

[LordKhrima]

Tornado_Creator

plasma soldier

If there's a particular religion your hoping to be convinced about, maybe I can help. But the best I could really do is educate you. There's no way I could possibly convince you to convert to anything using concrete facts, it's simply impossible. All religious views are subjective. That and I'm not religious so I don't really want to convert you against your will.

I'm surprisingly well educated on religion actually. I don't actually want to be converted in the way you're thinking, I just want people to provide evidence. It appears that people don't understand that the purpose of this thread is to make people consider religion critically and either show me reasonable evidence to believe or stop believing (preferably the second because then that means I'm correct in the assertion that there is no God).

Ah, OK. Can't help you there unless I was playing devil's advocate but even then...

[Ratreoz]

devilbuddha

everything has spiritual essence, which obviously cannot be tested by your beloved technology.

It may just be me, but it almost sounds like you regard technology with contempt.

Quote:

and yes there is a k in magick to differentiate from slight of hand crap. besides it looks cooler. i know you will find the white light some time.

Do you know why Crowley put a 'k' in "magic"?

Quote:

namaste.

Lulz.

Do you actually know what that means?

The Incredible Z-Man

But onto my point. I think what you asking is really impossible. You simply can't convince someone to be a believer in one of the three major religions by just logic. Religion in and of itself is a very illogical thing. It really just defies logic at every turn. If you look at the stories and parables in these books, they're all fantastical tales of people being swallowed by whales, being visited by angels, or parting the seas. All things that don't make logical sense.

It isn't just that it doesn't make sense. It's completely bonkers.

[Biot-Savart Law]

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

So, rather than objectively considering that a person who bases their lives of wholly objective principals you will say, "I don't think it's possible" and claim I'm the delusional one when you're only reason for believing it's not possible appears to be whim. I am entirely objective in all that is based around fact. Some things such as my moral compass, personal preferences and my depiction of pleasure are subjective, however those things are not based in fact but in personal thought and experience, so they cannot be considered in an objective manner.

Of course I'm not objectively considering it!

Based on all evidence I have, all my knowledge of human beings garnered from both interaction and studying, I have never heard of a wholly objective person. Human beings aren't logical beasts, except the times you train them to be. I imagine a wholly objective human would be severely retarded, if it's possible.

You cannot claim objectivity in dealing with fact; you're a human being, like me, and we all color fact with our own subjective experiences and beliefs. And that's part of where a deity comes in: how we color things. Where you don't see something, someone who has personal and subjective reason to believe does. Yes, that rock falls because of gravity, both the believer in the supernatural and the non believer can say, but the believer might claim it has something to do in the great scheme of things, and that's not something the non believer can test.

Yes it is, we just haven't done so yet because we'd rather spend our time researching how to improve medicine, create true space-travel and artificial gravity, improve computers and communication technology, create methods by which we can understand the past, create methods by which we can predict weather, improve current understanding of human physiology, improve industrial output via machines and other technology and creating methods by which to end hunger (science is already responsible for feeding 40% of the planet, however I would be prepared to bet that more of them thank God than those who thank the scientists), to name but a few things we're preoccupied with. When we're finished with all that, we'll explain to the idiot why the rock falls and explore the possibility of a "grand scheme of things" but lets face it, it's not likely to be real now is it, or we would have some evidence already, it's the one thing humans have been so sure of for the past 6000 years, surely they would try to prove it.

For someone who is so objective, you certainly seem to have a thing against theists, eh?

And we do have evidence, like I said. You've got people who interact with their deities. Also, how would you go about testing a supernatural source? I'm still quite sure that science is the study of the physical world, and it doesn't have much to say with things outside of it.

Yes, I have a lot against theists. They are people who command to much respect in the modern world for having imaginary friends that they claim really exist yet can't prove and with another breath threaten people with Hell... (and yes, Christians and Muslim thus the majority of theists believe in Hell). Quite frankly I consider theism insulting.

*rolls eyes*

If the theism/atheism proportion switched, we'd have just as many nasty atheists, I'm sure. Besides, hell is a common concept, I thought. I mean, even atheistic religions can have them. And even irreligious people can believe in a hell.

But! That is neither here nor there, because you suggested that a deity should be testable by science. Do you have some sort of method for this? Because that would be interesting, no?

[Ratreoz]

Angels_Satire

If the theism/atheism proportion switched, we'd have just as many nasty atheists, I'm sure.

Maybe. Doesn't address his point though. (Hint: It's about responsibility)

Quote:

But! That is neither here nor there, because you suggested that a deity should be testable by science. Do you have some sort of method for this? Because that would be interesting, no?

The one who proposes a hypothesis should also propose a way of falsifying it.

Or are you saying that the critics of string theory are the ones who should come up with a way of falsifying it?

Doesn't work that way.

[A Lost Iguana]

Ratreoz

Or are you saying that the critics of string theory are the ones who should come up with a way of falsifying it?

It is in the critic's best scientific interests to construct a test. If they believe that strings are not the answer then it would be to their benefit to find evidence — or propose a test as theorists tend not to get their hands dirty much these days — to this effect.

Do you really think Peter Higgs came up with the designs to look for his famous boson? In the real world, the critic should also work toward resolving the issues because things get done faster that way.

[Biot-Savart Law]

Ratreoz

Maybe. Doesn't address his point though. (Hint: It's about responsibility)

Hm?

Quote:

The one who proposes a hypothesis should also propose a way of falsifying it.

Or are you saying that the critics of string theory are the ones who should come up with a way of falsifying it?

Doesn't work that way.

I don't think the scientific method holds well with supernatural deities.

You can't, as far as I'm aware, construct a testable scientific hypothesis for a deity. He suggested one should be able to.

[Lets Do The Time-Warp]

Ratreoz

Lets Do The Time-Warp

-That's the kind of thinking that causes religious wars.
Good going :]

Actually, it's just the truth. A claim of reality is either true or false. It would be folly to dispute this.

Quote:

-It would convince me it's pure fantasy if I die and I have no soul and I don't go to peace.

So you are never going to be convinced.

Quote:

-Well get used to it, I doubt religion is going anywhere.

I can try to minimize the damage it causes.

Lets Do The Time-Warp

At least you accept the fact that you /could/ be falsely decieving yourself, even though you believe it's highly unlikely.

And I don't?
"Also, you have no idea what I do and do not believe, so please do not assume you know. It's very rude and absolutely ignorant."

-Some things are not always so black and white.

-Nope. And I don't believe you should be able to dispute me on that, because you seem as if you are never going to be convinced otherwise of what you see, either.

-In my opinion you're only making it worse. Attacking peoples beliefs is dangerous territory.

-Ah, well going back and reading that, I shouldn't have written that. I do apologize.
However I take no insult to that, as I oppenly admit I'm a hypocryte. Just like every other person on this planet. I'm only human.

[Tornado_Creator]

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

So, rather than objectively considering that a person who bases their lives of wholly objective principals you will say, "I don't think it's possible" and claim I'm the delusional one when you're only reason for believing it's not possible appears to be whim. I am entirely objective in all that is based around fact. Some things such as my moral compass, personal preferences and my depiction of pleasure are subjective, however those things are not based in fact but in personal thought and experience, so they cannot be considered in an objective manner.

Of course I'm not objectively considering it!

Based on all evidence I have, all my knowledge of human beings garnered from both interaction and studying, I have never heard of a wholly objective person. Human beings aren't logical beasts, except the times you train them to be. I imagine a wholly objective human would be severely retarded, if it's possible.

You cannot claim objectivity in dealing with fact; you're a human being, like me, and we all color fact with our own subjective experiences and beliefs. And that's part of where a deity comes in: how we color things. Where you don't see something, someone who has personal and subjective reason to believe does. Yes, that rock falls because of gravity, both the believer in the supernatural and the non believer can say, but the believer might claim it has something to do in the great scheme of things, and that's not something the non believer can test.

Yes it is, we just haven't done so yet because we'd rather spend our time researching how to improve medicine, create true space-travel and artificial gravity, improve computers and communication technology, create methods by which we can understand the past, create methods by which we can predict weather, improve current understanding of human physiology, improve industrial output via machines and other technology and creating methods by which to end hunger (science is already responsible for feeding 40% of the planet, however I would be prepared to bet that more of them thank God than those who thank the scientists), to name but a few things we're preoccupied with. When we're finished with all that, we'll explain to the idiot why the rock falls and explore the possibility of a "grand scheme of things" but lets face it, it's not likely to be real now is it, or we would have some evidence already, it's the one thing humans have been so sure of for the past 6000 years, surely they would try to prove it.

For someone who is so objective, you certainly seem to have a thing against theists, eh?

And we do have evidence, like I said. You've got people who interact with their deities. Also, how would you go about testing a supernatural source? I'm still quite sure that science is the study of the physical world, and it doesn't have much to say with things outside of it.

Yes, I have a lot against theists. They are people who command to much respect in the modern world for having imaginary friends that they claim really exist yet can't prove and with another breath threaten people with Hell... (and yes, Christians and Muslim thus the majority of theists believe in Hell). Quite frankly I consider theism insulting.

*rolls eyes*

If the theism/atheism proportion switched, we'd have just as many nasty atheists, I'm sure. Besides, hell is a common concept, I thought. I mean, even atheistic religions can have them. And even irreligious people can believe in a hell.

But! That is neither here nor there, because you suggested that a deity should be testable by science. Do you have some sort of method for this? Because that would be interesting, no?

Finally a decent question. A method for testing "God".

The first is obvious, as many religions state that you can talk to God and gain answers and other such things from him, you could conduct a double-blind study by which people pray to God, Allah and any other deity named in the study and ask for something to happen, this is then compared to if we ask Joe Pesci (or anyone else for that matter to do it), it can be something mundane, like asking for it to snow. This is repeated multiple times and if there is a notable difference this would be supporting evidence that a God exists and that his is capable of doing things via prayer.

Obviously any direct manifestation of the divine would be some pretty strong supporting evidence.

True, consistent, prophecy. This being simply a book containing multiple prophecies, that are not ambiguous or subject to interpretation, all of which come true. The prophecies would have to be something extreme. Like for example, if it said something like "in the first decade of the millennium marking the new age, the easternmost city of the great power to the west will be lost when the ground doth shake at the stroke of two and the city doth sink into the sea", and then at 2am in autumn 2009 there was a huge earthquake and San Francisco sinks into the ocean. This example would be quite compelling. Remember however a book of 600 prophecies that has 14 come true is not compelling, by law of averages and shear luck they where going to get something right with that many stabs at it.

That's just a few ideas of the top of my head, I can come up with more if given time.

[A Lost Iguana]

How does one test for something that can change physics?

[Dark Lord Drake]

A Lost Iguana

How does one test for something that can change physics?

Bit funny you asked that after he gave possible tests, though I consider them flawed in that the first depends on one view of the diety and the second requires the diety work with you, which then negates the need for it.

[Biot-Savart Law]

Tornado_Creator

Finally a decent question. A method for testing "God".

The first is obvious, as many religions state that you can talk to God and gain answers and other such things from him, you could conduct a double-blind study by which people pray to God, Allah and any other deity named in the study and ask for something to happen, this is then compared to if we ask Joe Pesci (or anyone else for that matter to do it), it can be something mundane, like asking for it to snow. This is repeated multiple times and if there is a notable difference this would be supporting evidence that a God exists and that his is capable of doing things via prayer.

Obviously any direct manifestation of the divine would be some pretty strong supporting evidence.

True, consistent, prophecy. This being simply a book containing multiple prophecies, that are not ambiguous or subject to interpretation, all of which come true. The prophecies would have to be something extreme. Like for example, if it said something like "in the first decade of the millennium marking the new age, the easternmost city of the great power to the west will be lost when the ground doth shake at the stroke of two and the city doth sink into the sea", and then at 2am in autumn 2009 there was a huge earthquake and San Francisco sinks into the ocean. This example would be quite compelling. Remember however a book of 600 prophecies that has 14 come true is not compelling, by law of averages and shear luck they where going to get something right with that many stabs at it.

That's just a few ideas of the top of my head, I can come up with more if given time.

Deities generally have personality. Would one really respond if it knew you were testing it? *ponders* Some of them might, some of them, I think, wouldn't enjoy it. I mean, I know I sometimes don't do things simply because others want me to do them.

Excuse me as I go and try to cram Fourier series into my brain.

[Tornado_Creator]

Dark Lord Drake

A Lost Iguana

How does one test for something that can change physics?

Bit funny you asked that after he gave possible tests, though I consider them flawed in that the first depends on one view of the diety and the second requires the diety work with you, which then negates the need for it.

I'm not the one claiming that the deity exists. If Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity and then came up to me and asked "Ok You, how shall we prove this" I would feel as though this is really odd, surely the person postulating that something is how it is should be well versed enough in the field to test what they are claiming. So yeah, I would be a little shocked if that happened.

But yes, you are right, my first two tests are not infallible, and the third depends on interpretation at least to some degree but I wanted to at least try and come up with something, not that I really should as it's senseless for me to be testing someone else's hypothesis without a method.