I hear, all the time, "evidence"-based arguments from both the "religious" side and the atheist side. Both are, of course, completely wrong about everything ever.
If you are a Christian, you are doctrinally FORBIDDEN to try to prove God's existence. The New Testament demands faith as the ONLY qualification for salvation. Faith is defined as "belief without proof", or even "belief in the face of contradictory evidence". Even TRYING is blasphemy, as is pointed out numerous times by Jesus and the Apostles, when asked for signs (ie, proof that God is present). So if you WERE able to prove God's existence, then faith is IMPOSSIBLE, and you're fucking DOOMED. Also, so is everyone else. Well done, that man.
The other principle error made by many Christians is to deny the evidence that points at things they foolishly believe contradict their faith, when - as pointed out above - they should be THANKING the people that discover these things, as it is fuel for faith. You see the empirical evidence, you accept it as the way the universe operates, and you believe anyway...Even if that evidence shows that God isn't necessary. Part of being omnipotent is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
Atheists, on the other hand, make the same mistake in a different way. They point out the structure of the universe, demonstrate that God is unnecessary, and also show the obvious fact that there isn't any evidence for God's existence.
But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If God is everywhere, you can't stand outside the situation and observe, can you? No. Besides, the existence or non-existence of God should be more or less irrelevant to an atheist, so why fucking bother in the first place? God didn't do shit to fuck up your day (especially if he doesn't exist).
His followers, on the other hand, can be a right pain in the ass. Churches are the most destructive, corrosive force ever dreamed up by monkeys, and religions are just another uniform to put on. Which is why as a believer, I am REQUIRED to oppose all churches that impose ANY standards or regulations on their members.
But neither side can convince the other side of anything, because the entire topic is irrational in the first place. It lies outside of the purview of science. So shut up.
This sort of thing, being outside the purview of science and corruptable by organization, is best left to Holy Men™. You can tell who we are, because we live in deserts (all the really weird shit, once you think of it, comes out of deserts, because they AREN'T HABITABLE). We sit in the Big Empty and think Big Empty things until they start to make a horrible & contagious sort of sense. Then we come OUT of the desert, fueled by these beliefs, and start kicking the arses right off of everyone and everything. It's just how we roll.
"SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS."
- Ivan Stang
"THE REVERSE IS ALSO TRUE."
- The Good Reverend Roger
The thing that most people, believers or atheists, don't really care to consider is that God by definition isn't just the biggest ape in the cage. Trying to understand his/her/its motives is like an ant trying to understand American politics. Ain't gonna happen, hence the old expression, "Man thinks and God laughs."
The main thing is that, since God is an untestable concept, is stop trying to make sense of it. We haven't even figured out the physical universe, so why rush off trying to apply the rules we don't yet understand, to something that stands outside those rules? Just tell the whackos on the other side to fuck off, get their collection plate out of your face (and they all have those, in one way or another), stop telling you what you can put in front of your house in December (whether that be a nativity or a black velvet Dawkins), and just plain LEAVE YOU THE FUCK ALONE.
How hard is it? This isn't calculus.
More later. I have a LOT more to rant about, and unfortunately my Godless heathen boss demands my attention for a few minutes. For which he shall roast in perdition for eternity. By which I mean he's also stuck in Tucson.
Or Kill Me.
Rah!
Very well put.
As a rabid atheist i will make bad use of this by selective and inaccurate quoting.
Quote from: :regret: on October 22, 2013, 05:16:40 PM
Very well put.
As a rabid atheist i will make bad use of this by selective and inaccurate quoting.
As a believer, I will point out that atheists killed loads of people in the USSR
1, then I'll show my commitment to liberty by having all the books in the local school library burned.
1 I will conveniently forget the middle ages while doing so. Shut up.
Excelllent!
:mittens:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 05:18:33 PM
Quote from: :regret: on October 22, 2013, 05:16:40 PM
Very well put.
As a rabid atheist i will make bad use of this by selective and inaccurate quoting.
As a believer, I will point out that atheists killed loads of people in the USSR1, then I'll show my commitment to liberty by having all the books in the local school library burned.
1 I will conveniently forget the middle ages while doing so. Shut up.
YOU ARE BURNING BOOKS???! SOME OF THOSE MAY BE WRITTEN BY DAWKINS!!!! I WILL SLAUGHTER YOUR FAMILY AND MAKE YOU WATCH BEFORE RAPING YOU WITH THE EIFFEL TOWER!
22 You know, just to prove my moral superiority.
cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/
One could use that reasoning to prove that people didn't fence left handed until the modern era.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/
One could use that reasoning to prove that people didn't fence left handed until the modern era.
Proof is for mathematicians. Bayesians update probabilities.
:mittens:
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/
One could use that reasoning to prove that people didn't fence left handed until the modern era.
Proof is for mathematicians. Bayesians update probabilities.
BAM!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/9/2/d92e290c66d423e4798a22a3690cbd31.png)
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/
One could use that reasoning to prove that people didn't fence left handed until the modern era.
Proof is for mathematicians. Bayesians update probabilities.
:lol:
I love that. Consider it stolen.
<3
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Agreed. But sometimes
very hard for me to put it into practice.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
But Reverend, itś the 21st Century already, and we're living in the future.
These people, like all of us, have been taught all their lives that we are supposed to be
reasonable, that only
ignorants believe in
superstitions.
Nowadays, it's just not
fashionable to believe something merely based on tradition, faith or authority.
Can you really blame them for trying their best to reconcile modern epistemology with their religious believes?
Wait, on second thought,don't answer that :)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 22, 2013, 07:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Agreed. But sometimes very hard for me to put it into practice.
Yes, that is the monkey reflex that makes you jump when someone is WRONG and you have to TELL THEM WHAT. Everyone has that reflex. It is what separates us from the lower animals. And the Buddhists (who piss me off, because there's no NEED or POINT in telling them to shut up).
And it's why the internet is a success. If nobody cared who was wrong about *insert subject*, the internet would have been a minor fad now only in use by the military, universities, and the Church of the Subgenius.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 22, 2013, 07:10:32 PM
But Reverend, itś the 21st Century already, and we're living in the future.
These people, like all of us, have been taught all their lives that we are supposed to be reasonable, that only ignorants believe in superstitions.
Nowadays, it's just not fashionable to believe something merely based on tradition, faith or authority.
And that's where you're WRONG. The future was flying cars and robot dancing girls. What YOU got was the past, only with some flashy toys and gizmos. We WERE sailing into the future, until 2001 rolled into 1933. It's a systems problem that is very hard to explain to laymen.
QuoteCan you really blame them for trying their best to reconcile modern epistemology with their religious believes?
Wait, on second thought,don't answer that :)
Too late. Yes. Yes, I can.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Indeed, the subject isn't testable, the subject isn't even defined enough to be a subject. Ask anyone what the subject is, and they will all tell you something different. We can't even talk about it, because there's no confined thing to talk about. The correct statement isn't "God is dead", "god doesn't exist" or "god is meaningless". The correct statement is 'god' is useless.
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Indeed, the subject isn't testable, the subject isn't even defined enough to be a subject. Ask anyone what the subject is, and they will all tell you something different. We can't even talk about it, because there's no confined thing to talk about. The correct statement isn't "God is dead", "god doesn't exist" or "god is meaningless". The correct statement is 'god' is useless.
Yes. That is precisely what I have been trying to say, when you look at it from a rationalist point of view. It's like comparing Wagner to a black velvet Elvis. They are two entirely separate art forms, and have no common points of reference.
There are, at a minimum, three approaches to life that are incompatible with each other: Rationalism, Belief, and Politics. While you CAN mix them, doing so destroys them for the person or group attempting the combination.
So if you have rationalism and belief, you pretty much have to compartmentalize them, or lose them both. Certain fundamentalist groups don't seem to understand this, because the really FUNNY part is that shit like "intelligent design" is neither belief nor rationalism, but pure and unadulterated politics. Specifically, the politics of control.
If you think about it, what possible purpose, faith-wise, is gained by attacking rationalism in schools? None. But if you are out to control a population, you first attack its knowledge base. Scientists discredited, teachers impoverished, and students ignorant of actual science or history. At this point, they are play-doh, to mould as you see fit.
So, yes, it is entirely politics.
Even the common man backing it isn't defending his belief. He's defending the status quo as he perceives it. Increased knowledge means decreases control, which to many people means anarchy, cats and dogs fucking in the streets.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
I hear, all the time, "evidence"-based arguments from both the "religious" side and the atheist side. Both are, of course, completely wrong about everything ever.
If you are a Christian, you are doctrinally FORBIDDEN to try to prove God's existence. The New Testament demands faith as the ONLY qualification for salvation. Faith is defined as "belief without proof", or even "belief in the face of contradictory evidence". Even TRYING is blasphemy, as is pointed out numerous times by Jesus and the Apostles, when asked for signs (ie, proof that God is present). So if you WERE able to prove God's existence, then faith is IMPOSSIBLE, and you're fucking DOOMED. Also, so is everyone else. Well done, that man.
The other principle error made by many Christians is to deny the evidence that points at things they foolishly believe contradict their faith, when - as pointed out above - they should be THANKING the people that discover these things, as it is fuel for faith. You see the empirical evidence, you accept it as the way the universe operates, and you believe anyway...Even if that evidence shows that God isn't necessary. Part of being omnipotent is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
Atheists, on the other hand, make the same mistake in a different way. They point out the structure of the universe, demonstrate that God is unnecessary, and also show the obvious fact that there isn't any evidence for God's existence.
But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If God is everywhere, you can't stand outside the situation and observe, can you? No. Besides, the existence or non-existence of God should be more or less irrelevant to an atheist, so why fucking bother in the first place? God didn't do shit to fuck up your day (especially if he doesn't exist).
His followers, on the other hand, can be a right pain in the ass. Churches are the most destructive, corrosive force ever dreamed up by monkeys, and religions are just another uniform to put on. Which is why as a believer, I am REQUIRED to oppose all churches that impose ANY standards or regulations on their members.
But neither side can convince the other side of anything, because the entire topic is irrational in the first place. It lies outside of the purview of science. So shut up.
This sort of thing, being outside the purview of science and corruptable by organization, is best left to Holy Men™. You can tell who we are, because we live in deserts (all the really weird shit, once you think of it, comes out of deserts, because they AREN'T HABITABLE). We sit in the Big Empty and think Big Empty things until they start to make a horrible & contagious sort of sense. Then we come OUT of the desert, fueled by these beliefs, and start kicking the arses right off of everyone and everything. It's just how we roll.
"SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS."
- Ivan Stang
"THE REVERSE IS ALSO TRUE."
- The Good Reverend Roger
The thing that most people, believers or atheists, don't really care to consider is that God by definition isn't just the biggest ape in the cage. Trying to understand his/her/its motives is like an ant trying to understand American politics. Ain't gonna happen, hence the old expression, "Man thinks and God laughs."
The main thing is that, since God is an untestable concept, is stop trying to make sense of it. We haven't even figured out the physical universe, so why rush off trying to apply the rules we don't yet understand, to something that stands outside those rules? Just tell the whackos on the other side to fuck off, get their collection plate out of your face (and they all have those, in one way or another), stop telling you what you can put in front of your house in December (whether that be a nativity or a black velvet Dawkins), and just plain LEAVE YOU THE FUCK ALONE.
How hard is it? This isn't calculus.
More later. I have a LOT more to rant about, and unfortunately my Godless heathen boss demands my attention for a few minutes. For which he shall roast in perdition for eternity. By which I mean he's also stuck in Tucson.
Or Kill Me.
Or non-members. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/Cibolo-voters-facing-critical-November-ballot-4765739.php)
QuoteIn addition, officials approved several other major measures for the ballot, including a $2.8 million bond issue and a proposed ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcohol within 300 feet of a church or school.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 22, 2013, 09:08:50 PM
Or non-members. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/Cibolo-voters-facing-critical-November-ballot-4765739.php)
QuoteIn addition, officials approved several other major measures for the ballot, including a $2.8 million bond issue and a proposed ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcohol within 300 feet of a church or school.
In San Antonio? :lulz:
You may as well just build a jail/wall around the city and call it a day.
And also politics. If you're in a church, is the sale of alcohol 295 feet away somehow disrupting the Holy?
No, it's territorial marking, much like a dog pissing on light poles.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 08:03:17 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
But it wasn't really the point. The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable. Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.
The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up. If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.
And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them. In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.
Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.
Indeed, the subject isn't testable, the subject isn't even defined enough to be a subject. Ask anyone what the subject is, and they will all tell you something different. We can't even talk about it, because there's no confined thing to talk about. The correct statement isn't "God is dead", "god doesn't exist" or "god is meaningless". The correct statement is 'god' is useless.
Yes. That is precisely what I have been trying to say, when you look at it from a rationalist point of view. It's like comparing Wagner to a black velvet Elvis. They are two entirely separate art forms, and have no common points of reference.
However, if they start making testable definitions, i.e. "The world was created in 6 days", "The Earth is 6,000 years old", etc, and use them as the basis for their supernaturalism, it updates my probability towards the supernaturalism being not. Which is pretty much the history of science in a nutshell.
Quote from: Kai on October 22, 2013, 10:09:07 PM
However, if they start making testable definitions, i.e. "The world was created in 6 days", "The Earth is 6,000 years old", etc, and use them as the basis for their supernaturalism, it updates my probability towards the supernaturalism being not. Which is pretty much the history of science in a nutshell.
Well, the thing to remember is that they lifted all that shit off of Babylonian mythology (which makes it particularly delicious), and you can't keep a good myth down.
The real fact of the matter is, in terms of faith, it doesn't MATTER how the world got here, or if it was done via natural mechanism or by some divine fiat. It doesn't matter how much credible evidence for evolution exists, or even how magnets work (okay, might be getting a little carried away, there).
The empirical world is undeniably extant and measurable. To deny those measurements in defense of a scriptural interpretation that was first stamped on clay tablets when humans thought rain was Marduk getting his rocks off is sign of a serious lack of faith.
Like I said, the empirical world and faith have absolutely no common points of reference. The urge to dream up common points and then enforce that shit on others is the point where religion turns to poison.
If my neighbor wants to believe that mankind isn't a species of great ape, it doesn't hurt me a bit. If my neighbor wants to interfere with my daughter's science classes to push her bullshit, then I have a problem.
See above solution.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 22, 2013, 09:08:50 PM
Or non-members. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/Cibolo-voters-facing-critical-November-ballot-4765739.php)
QuoteIn addition, officials approved several other major measures for the ballot, including a $2.8 million bond issue and a proposed ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcohol within 300 feet of a church or school.
In San Antonio? :lulz:
You may as well just build a jail/wall around the city and call it a day.
Not SA proper. One of the burbs.
But you might as well build a jail/wall around SA anyway.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 10:06:05 PM
And also politics. If you're in a church, is the sale of alcohol 295 feet away somehow disrupting the Holy?
No, it's territorial marking, much like a dog pissing on light poles.
You can't sell alcohol until noon on Sundays, anyway. It's the SALE OF ALCOHOL THAT HAPPENS 295 FEET FROM THE CHURCH AFTER EVERYBODY LEAVES.