Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Rank your religiousness II

View Poll Results: I am a

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Firm Believer

    1 1.89%
  • Theist

    0 0%
  • Deist

    1 1.89%
  • Agnostic

    19 35.85%
  • Atheist

    26 49.06%
  • Would Hit!

    6 11.32%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 136 of 136
  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Ong, let me ask you, what all possess a soul? From your earlier posts, I'd assume humans would be included and rocks would be excluded, but how about monkeys, dogs, dolphins, etc?
    What possesses a soul? I don't know, anything alive perhaps? Let's be clear again, I'm speculating here. I'm not even suggesting I believe what I type, I'm just entertaining the idea, I am not closed on the issue. If you're asking my opinion, I think everything that lives has a soul, that's us, cats, ants, trees, grass etc. If you're asking me the truth, then I don't know, because the truth isn't known by anyone, not even Wuf.

    Wuf has this idea that there is more evidence to suggest souls don't exist than there is to prove his son is male. I'd like to see this evidence, because he's onto something here that no man has ever been onto before.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What empirical evidence is there that contradicts the existence of souls? A tonnnnnn.
    Show me. Link me. Prove this to me. I'm open. I'm not religious, and I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God who designed everything, so you're not going to break me as a person if you can swing me on this. I have more faith that you cannot prove to me your position than I have in my position.

    I'm not saying "THEY EXISTS FFS JEEZ" etc, I'm saying "How can you know they don't"?

    Seriously, your mind is made up, I don't get that, I can't understand how you know that souls don't exist, yet humans as a race can't decide if this is the case or not. Are you more evolved than I am?

    Your position is very similar to that of a religious person. I am right, fuck everyone else, that sort of thing. It surprises me a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant
    I think I see your logic fail. You seem to think that God must be physical, in the same way that matter is physical. Does light not exist? What is it? They think it's a particle, yet it has no mass. Hmm. And then there's gravity. They think that might be caused by force-carrying particles called gravitons. But they can only speculate about that, since they can't find them. And then there's the real headbender... entanglement, where two particles in different locations (potentially light years apart) are entangled, that is, one responds at exactly the same time when the other is excited, there is no time dealy which one would expect as information is transmitted. I can't get my head around that, it seems information is travelling instantly, instead of at light speed. That's non-physicality right there for you. Why do you have such a problem with accepting things you don't understand? That's just being a human being, bro.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 06-01-2011 at 06:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #77
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    On the contrary, my position is as reasonable as they come. At what point do we say god doesn't exist? When we peer through the vast beyond and find nothing? When we peer so deeply into matter that matter itself breaks down? When we peer back in time so far that all laws and observations break down? When we peer into human history so deeply that we find the statistically insignificant make-believe is par for the course? When we peer into biology so deeply that we find every single thing about biology is explainable via biology?
    Most likely never. Why do we have to specifically say this? Do we have to say it separately for all deities and other mythical creatures? Can't we just accept the fact that we will probably never find out for certain, assume that everything without proof doesn't exist and carry on with our lives.

    The difference in our opinions is slight, mostly semantic yet an important one. I do not believe in things where there is no proof, but I do not disprove something there is no solid proof against. The position you're asserting is close to being willful ignorance, claiming something as truth when you have no data to back up your claims. An abrahamic creator god is by definition outside the grasp of our knowledge and understanding, you're positing that there is nothing outside our understanding, that we know what we don't know. That is the definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant
    Something being improbable or inconsequential is very different from being proven nonexistent.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  3. #78
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Also re the changes of standards for proof, no one is claiming that many of the things we "know" about the universe or laws of physics are cold hard facts or proven in any way. We don't expect them all to be 100% correct, we have to accept the fact that some or a lot of it will prove to be slightly off or completely incorrect. They are just our best current understanding of them. To state they are "solved" is ignorant, effectively saying there's no more need to pursue any deeper truths. This is as far off the mark as can be. The standards for proof are exactly the same.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    We don't know where life comes from
    Pretty sure we have a good idea... its not all fleshed out, but its not some complete mystery.

    We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them.
    Ya, this stuff blows my mind too... I love thinking about it though, thinking about the idea of the universal horizon and whatnot... the scale of things just starts to dawn on you. Pretty awesome stuff.

    We know shit.
    Say the universe is infinite... can you see how no matter how much we know, relatively we always will know very little?

    To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.
    I'd like to be clear that I am not at all saying "without a shred of doubt", but I am saying "for all practical reasons, with out a shred of doubt." I do not think this is unreasonable, and I think it is quite necessary when letting skepticism cloud the issue causes the continued propagation of this nonsense which has been boondoggling society for eons.


    We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?
    Right, so our moon is observable, all moons are not. But we have come to conclusions about many things that are not observable. In this instance we can conclude that there are in fact no moons made of cheese, as cheese in such great mass would simply collapse upon itself. That isn't even touching on the absurdity of the logistics of space cows and their space creamery. Maybe the amount of certainty that we can make this claim with is a teeny tiny tidbit below the certainty that we can say, "our moon is not made of cheese," but I guess this is where we disagree. You think its a significant margin, while I don't.


    edit: I deleted a bunch of your post simply because I either agreed, or did not think there was anything to say about it... not trying to strawman you.
    Last edited by boost; 06-01-2011 at 01:33 PM.
  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What possesses a soul? I don't know, anything alive perhaps? Let's be clear again, I'm speculating here. I'm not even suggesting I believe what I type, I'm just entertaining the idea, I am not closed on the issue. If you're asking my opinion, I think everything that lives has a soul, that's us, cats, ants, trees, grass etc. If you're asking me the truth, then I don't know, because the truth isn't known by anyone, not even Wuf.
    Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Scroll down to "Viruses." So here we have an example of something that shares some of the attributes of what we define as living organisms, yet not all. Its a sort of grey area. Clearly there is going to be a line drawn for practical purposes, but does it also just so happen that this is where the line for souls is drawn? It seems both arbitrary and coincidental that bacteria should have souls, but viruses should not. And if super basic life forms like bacteria (which is very much alive and clear of the grey area by the scientific definition) then what implications does this have? Do their souls get judged based on morality? Is there a bacteria heaven?

    And this just kinda swings back to a question I've been asking throughout this thread... why do you insist on (at the very least) leaving open the possibility that there are souls, when everything a soul could explain is better explained through science? You've said more or less in earlier posts that the lack of an afterlife/soul makes you uncomfortable or that you just flat out don't like the idea. Well.. I mean.. too bad man... Your affinity for some bit of nonsense gives it no greater credence.
  6. #81
    CoccoBill: Do unicorns exist? I'd assume you'd say something along the lines of "probably not, but I can't say for certain that they don't." And this is fine, but we can see that if they do exist, their existence is inconsequential to our existence. It simply doesn't matter. And so it is easy to just say "unicorns do not exist." No one would baulk at this statement. However we are applying the exact same logic to god and the supernatural, except unlike unicorns, the idea of god and the supernatural influence our society in dramatic and detrimental ways. And so it is very important that people open their eyes and see that their sky daddy(daddies) are just a bunch of unicorns.

    I mean, I do admire your live and let live attitude, and you are probably right that we can never know for certain... but proving god does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt is in my eyes crucial to the progress and betterment of society.
  7. #82
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,437
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    LOL OPERATIONS
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post

    I don't disagree with wuf in practice, I disagree in principle. My faith in any deity is as close to being non-existent as to warrant no deeper analysis, saying that I'm clinging to my last hope is a IMO absurd. All I'm saying is that we as humans have very limited capabilities, our modern science is brand new and just starting to find out stuff, yet still constantly evolving and making new breakthroughs. To assume that we know close to everything there is to know is silly, or to even assume that we ever can. We are not that much smarter than apes as we like to think, genetically we share 96+% with chimps. If that ~4% akes us this much smarter than them, what would a lifeform that much smarter than us think? If you think I'm trying to find some god in the gaps or forcefully prove that a god can exist, you're barking up the wrong tree. All I'm saying is that we know shit and to assume that we do, let alone can prove shit, is naive. Let me just say this again for emphasis, we don't know what 96% of the universe is made of. We have no clue. Or it could be that the 96% of dark energy and dark matter just do not exist and our models are out of whack. We don't know where life comes from, we don't know how, why and from where the big bang came, or if it did at all. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them. We know shit. To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.
    We're not dealing with human intelligence, but scientific development. A race 1000x smarter than us would understand the Universe infinitely less if they didn't build discovery upon discovery like we do. Like I said before, theoretical physics has a big ass problem in having to rely soooo much on untestable maths and theories because our understanding runs so deeply we're running out of stuff we can test. We will probably never fully run out of testable physics, but still the majority of theoretical physics is criticized for being untestable

    We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?
    We sure can. To the same degree of certainty we can prove that two apples put in a bucket aren't three apples. A moon made out of cheese defies physics as does me putting two apples in my bucket becoming three apples
  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Show me. Link me. Prove this to me. I'm open. I'm not religious, and I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God who designed everything, so you're not going to break me as a person if you can swing me on this. I have more faith that you cannot prove to me your position than I have in my position.
    "Show me a tree"

    Points at tree "there you go"

    Looks at tree "no, show me a tree"


    You're not understanding the topic. Every single piece of discovery we've ever had is evidence for this subject. Some is better than others. The proposal of the supernatural is within the gaps of what we don't know, and the gaps have been closed enough that it's a meaningless proposal. The soul was an interesting proposal when it first came around because phenomena was not explainable, but now it is, and the idea of a soul has changed meaning except people are simply not acknowledging that change.

    Seriously, your mind is made up, I don't get that, I can't understand how you know that souls don't exist, yet humans as a race can't decide if this is the case or not. Are you more evolved than I am?

    Your position is very similar to that of a religious person. I am right, fuck everyone else, that sort of thing. It surprises me a lot.
    You're using a load of appeals fallacies right here. My position on this subject is the one of reason, do you suggest I not be reasonable instead? If somebody is adamant that the Moon exists, are they being unreasonable? You're not understanding my posts. The evidence for a human soul is the same for a flying grizzly bear. End of story



    I think I see your logic fail. You seem to think that God must be physical, in the same way that matter is physical. Does light not exist? What is it? They think it's a particle, yet it has no mass. Hmm. And then there's gravity. They think that might be caused by force-carrying particles called gravitons. But they can only speculate about that, since they can't find them. And then there's the real headbender... entanglement, where two particles in different locations (potentially light years apart) are entangled, that is, one responds at exactly the same time when the other is excited, there is no time dealy which one would expect as information is transmitted. I can't get my head around that, it seems information is travelling instantly, instead of at light speed. That's non-physicality right there for you. Why do you have such a problem with accepting things you don't understand? That's just being a human being, bro.
    You're out of your depth. This IS physical. The definition of the scientifically physical is basically anything that is shown to exist, anything that affects reality. Particles, forces, entanglement, uncertainty principle....all physics

    So far, nothing we have EVER seen could be a soul. Likewise, nothing we have ever seen could be two apples in my bucket magically being three. If you posit the soul you would be reasonable to also posit anything and everything with zero evidence because it's the same
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Most likely never. Why do we have to specifically say this? Do we have to say it separately for all deities and other mythical creatures? Can't we just accept the fact that we will probably never find out for certain, assume that everything without proof doesn't exist and carry on with our lives.
    I'd love to move on with our lives. As long as it means we don't get to cherry pick reason. We will never find anything out for certain because it's not possible. By the same standards we apply to every single other thing in human life than our favorite superstitions, we use realistic and reasonable standards of proof, not the deepest ultimate standard that there can be no proof and anything is possible

    Refusing to claim that god doesn't exist based on what we know currently is like refusing to claim the Sun is real. With normal things, when every shred of evidence backs us up we go "duh dummy of course", but when it's about our favorite superstition we go "well maybe, I'm not ruling it out"

    An abrahamic creator god is by definition outside the grasp of our knowledge and understanding, you're positing that there is nothing outside our understanding, that we know what we don't know. That is the definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Actually, Abrahamic god is both understandable and not understandable. He is an inherent contradiction. He is proven as false as the notion that Chicago sits on top of Phuket

    I am not positing there are not things outside our understanding. On the contrary, I think the most reasonable position is that a possibly infinity is outside our perception

    Something being improbable or inconsequential is very different from being proven nonexistent.
    Actually it's not. Inconsequential = non-existent as far as we're concerned. Bearded Sky Daddy doesn't mean anything unless he actually causes effects. We have yet to find one single supernatural effect, and if we did, it would crazily be not supernatural, but rather natural because by definition anything that affects us is natural
  11. #86
    trick question....DITKA IS GOD
  12. #87
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Actually it's not. Inconsequential = non-existent as far as we're concerned. Bearded Sky Daddy doesn't mean anything unless he actually causes effects. We have yet to find one single supernatural effect, and if we did, it would crazily be not supernatural, but rather natural because by definition anything that affects us is natural
    I'll just grab this one point for now since I'm drunk as shit. You're redefining nonexistent. Existence is not measured by our ability to perceive it, nor are direct effects on us required for something to have meaning. Natural as a term is just manufactured by us to describe things we understand, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Everything we do not understand is supernatural, until it becomes natural when we get it.

    I'm in no way arguing anything about what would be practical for humankind or what would be the most coherent strategy in a debate with a jesus-loon, I'm merely stating what I believe to be irrefutable facts. I've found many of the people on this forum to be some of the brightest people I've met. This mainly stems from the ability to question ones beliefs, to be skeptical, to be open about ideas other than your own. I find a large part of knowledge and understanding stems from humility, the ability to realize our limitations. We shouldn't take things for granted. We shouldn't accept any information given to us without criticism. We shouldn't get cocky and assume we know. We should be always willing to learn more. We should not rule out possibilities we don't want to see. When I say I would believe in god if I had proof I mean it. This is not about conviction or stance or merit, it's about testable proven facts.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'll just grab this one point for now since I'm drunk as shit. You're redefining nonexistent. Existence is not measured by our ability to perceive it, nor are direct effects on us required for something to have meaning. Natural as a term is just manufactured by us to describe things we understand, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Everything we do not understand is supernatural, until it becomes natural when we get it.

    I'm in no way arguing anything about what would be practical for humankind or what would be the most coherent strategy in a debate with a jesus-loon, I'm merely stating what I believe to be irrefutable facts. I've found many of the people on this forum to be some of the brightest people I've met. This mainly stems from the ability to question ones beliefs, to be skeptical, to be open about ideas other than your own. I find a large part of knowledge and understanding stems from humility, the ability to realize our limitations. We shouldn't take things for granted. We shouldn't accept any information given to us without criticism. We shouldn't get cocky and assume we know. We should be always willing to learn more. We should not rule out possibilities we don't want to see. When I say I would believe in god if I had proof I mean it. This is not about conviction or stance or merit, it's about testable proven facts.
    I did somewhat equivocate two different meanings to "existence", but that's why I added "as far as we're concerned". We don't have sufficient vernacular to succinctly describe the difference between consequential and inconsequential existence

    The reason my point is important is because people posit an assertion with consequence, we then find a different and fully evidential reason for that consequence, then they hand wave it away and still claim their assertion. Superstitions cherry pick which one they want for any given purpose. You can't do that. Something is either consequential and therefore is effected and knowable, or it's inconsequential and therefore unknowable. It is wrong to posit something with consequence, then when shown to be wrong, claim the consequence is really inconsequential

    This is such a crazy topic, and IMO shows how brainwashed humans become based on experience and all. Our superstitious ideas are the most disproven things ever. We have gone back to the beginning of our time, to the ends of the beyond, and to the depths of matter. We have found NOTHING to back up superstitions. We have delved so deeply into our reality that we know for the biggest fact of all time that our superstitions are wrong because they logistically can't actually be right.

    The reason we haven't found god is because is because we live in REAL LIFE and if we did find god he would just be another piece of matter. If we found god inside a quark we wouldn't call it god because it would just be a more fundamental quantum thing and would act like it. Even the disorder of the Universe is orderly. We understand our Universe well enough to know that every single superstition we've ever had defies physics and bypasses the very reality of our existence.

    Superstitions are important when they can actually be right. We now know the Universe works without superstitions, and superstitions thus cannot be right because their very definitions contradict reality
  14. #89
    A point I'd like to make. It was a point that blew the lid on this topic for myself a while back

    The main problem people make on this subject is extrapolating "anything" into "something specific" i.e. they don't define then examine the logistics of their assertion. I'll use the soul idea as an example

    What is a soul? Well the general meaning people use involves memory. Okay, what is memory? Memory is determined brain activity. Is there any reason to believe that memory can survive outside the brain? No. Why? Because memory is the makeup of particular necessary interactions that are found only inside the brain and is known to not be possible in something like grass or steel or thin air. It's the same reason a walrus can't also be a battleship, different things are different things

    Flesh out how memory actually survives brain destruction. This is the problem people have. They make brushing and uneducated attempts to explain it like "it becomes one with the Universe". Oh really? So it becomes the quarks? It already is quarks and it's because of the nearly infinite interactions between quarks that it became memory. Maybe it becomes dark matter? Facepalm. Maybe it becomes the ether? You mean the undetected ether? Maybe it becomes, uh, well, it just becooomes, man....

    The bottom line is that just like chlorophyll is no longer chlorophyll when you burn its grass, memory is no longer memory when you destroy its brain. You can do this for any and every meaningful superstition

    It's all a clear cut case of people believing that one thing becomes another thing without changing. That's what it is. This is why I'm not wrong and why it's really just so obvious. Nobody ever acknowledges that when they argue for these kinds of things, they are asserting that something can be something else without being something else. Memory can't be soul because they are logistically two different things. Then when you flesh out all the little assertions about souls that people have, you find that none of them could be soully simply because they are different things

    Superstition is the ultimate "have your cake and eat it too"
  15. #90
    Ok, I'm going to simplify how I see the development of this thread.

    OP - "So, who believes in God?"

    Various replies

    Ong - "Not religious, don't believe God is a concious entity, but I can accept some interpretations. I think we have a soul."

    Wuf/Boost "Lol no we don't"

    Ong - "Huh? How can you be sure?"

    Wuf - "We definitely don't have a soul because there's no evidence for it."

    Ong - "But... what about my existence and awareness? That's evidence isn't it?"

    Wuf - "No."

    Ong - "Huh?"

    Wuf - "Science has no room for magic."

    Ong - "Maybe science can explain the soul?"

    Wuf - "Ok, if I'm not confusing you enough as it is, I will bombard you with bizarre analogies about trees instead of answering the question."

    Ong - "but..."

    Wuf - "Show me a tree."

    Ong - "Erm..."

    Wuf - "You're out of your depth. I am all knowing."

    Ong - "Right. Now I understand."

    /summary.


    Wuf, I have no problem with your position in regards to this discussion, my issue comes with the fact you are so adamant you are correct. It's as if you are saying something is definitely untrue until the opposite is proven. Your arrogance is astonishing. Are there dinosaurs on other planets? One could argue that it is very likely to be the case since the universe is so massive, also one could argue that due to the lack of any evidence to support this claim, it should be considered very unlikely, we haven't found any sort of life beyond our planet thus far. Of course, no-one knows the answer for sure.

    I don't understand how anyone of intelligence can be so sure about the question -"Do we have a soul?"
    I'm not sure. I'm not saying we definitely do. I'm saying I think we do. That is all. I'm not saying a soul is magic, other people are saying that. Life itself is magic. Look at me, I'm a collection of quarks and gluons, working together to discuss with another collection of quarks and gluons the meaning of existence. That, my friend, is fucking magic right there. If there was no magic in the world, then there would be no life. The soul is life. That's what I'm saying. You tell me that a soul definitely doesn't exist, I interpret that as life doesn't exist. I can prove to you that life does indeed exist, but you could probably find a counter-argument and still look smart.

    Your last post I actually consider your best in this whole thread so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is a soul?
    Right. Of course, this is the crux of the problem. No-one can define this accurately, and so therefore we are arguing about our different interpretations of what a soul is.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well the general meaning people use involves memory.
    Really? I disagree. My memory is chemical. My soul is the "energy", for lack of a better word, that gives me life. It's what makes me different from a rock.

    I'm not trying to say I'm right, all I'm saying is that is how I see it. No problem with others who see it differently, but for fuck's sake, don't pretend you know, because it makes you look very arrogant to me. No-one knows the answer. If you knew the answer, you'd be very famous indeed.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 06-02-2011 at 08:17 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Scroll down to "Viruses." So here we have an example of something that shares some of the attributes of what we define as living organisms, yet not all. Its a sort of grey area. Clearly there is going to be a line drawn for practical purposes, but does it also just so happen that this is where the line for souls is drawn? It seems both arbitrary and coincidental that bacteria should have souls, but viruses should not. And if super basic life forms like bacteria (which is very much alive and clear of the grey area by the scientific definition) then what implications does this have? Do their souls get judged based on morality? Is there a bacteria heaven?

    And this just kinda swings back to a question I've been asking throughout this thread... why do you insist on (at the very least) leaving open the possibility that there are souls, when everything a soul could explain is better explained through science? You've said more or less in earlier posts that the lack of an afterlife/soul makes you uncomfortable or that you just flat out don't like the idea. Well.. I mean.. too bad man... Your affinity for some bit of nonsense gives it no greater credence.
    I missed this post first time around, I guess I've been too preoccupied with wuf's input.

    Viruses, huh? Yeah they're weird. In fact, I'm not sure humans really understand what they are at all. I don't.

    From the Wiki page you link... "In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies."

    What this means is that is no general concensus on what exactly life is. Science can try to define life, but there will always be grey areas while we have an incomplete understanding of science. Different people from different backgrounds will have different interpretations. I would call a virus a lifeform, just a very basic one. Therefore, I would say a virus has a soul. I might be wrong.

    You seem to be of the opinion that a soul goes against science. I'm of the opinion science can potentially explain souls. Current science can't, but I would argue that is because we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of science. Just because science can't explain it now, that doesn't mean it's therefore bollocks. It means the question is unanswerable at this time.

    A lack of afterlife (and beforelife) doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just doesn't make sense to me. I find it incredible that I would be alive now, but not before 1979 and not after I die. Maybe my memories and individual personality are exclusive to the form I currently take, but the life in me, I believe, existed before I was born and will continue to exist forever. Of course, I do not understand what I'm saying here. I don't have a problem with that, and I also don't have a problem with being wrong.

    I really fail to see how anyone can be certain of their position on this matter. It's arrogant of a person to think he knows.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #92
    OngBonga will become famous soon enough.
    - You're the reason why paradise lost
  18. #93
    Oh, and as for bacteria heaven, that seems pretty fucking ridiculous. I don't believe in heaven and hell, I'm not religious. Bacteria is a simpler lifeform than a human, obviously. Since I don't actually know what a soul is, or even if it exists, I can't even begin to imagine the difference between a bacteria soul and a human soul. I think I like the idea of a human being made of billions of little souls, where the bacteria is made of merely hundreds. That's specualtion in the extreme, but it at least goes some way to explaining the difference between a human and bacteria when it comes to the soul.

    Where does the intelligence (however limited) in us all come from? Where does the life in us, and bacteria, come from? These are unaswerable questions. One can speculate and come up with various bizarre and wild answers, but no-one knows for sure. Anyone who pretends to is arrogant; I'm sorry if that's insulting but it's the word that fits.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 06-02-2011 at 08:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by kevster View Post
    OngBonga will become famous soon enough.
    So will you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #95
    Thank God for evangelical atheism.
  21. #96
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I'd like to be clear that I am not at all saying "without a shred of doubt", but I am saying "for all practical reasons, with out a shred of doubt." I do not think this is unreasonable, and I think it is quite necessary when letting skepticism cloud the issue causes the continued propagation of this nonsense which has been boondoggling society for eons.
    It is quite likely that we will never have solid proof to demonstrate there is no god. Just pretending we do and saying it out loud will not change anyone's convictions. Christianity, for example, is rigged to be resistant to facts and criticism, the bible is the only source of truth, questioning anything is heresy, any inconsistencies in the bible are just allegorical or God working in mysterious ways etc. Just perfect.

    Before we can get rid of religions we need to get rid of the root causes that drive people to them, that create them. Religions are there to fill a need; human's need to explain the phenomena they witness, to find meaning and reason in all sorts of events happening around them, to get hope, comfort and protection. Science has only in the past couple hundred years started to shed some light on the most fundamental questions we've had for millenia, where do we come from, what is life, what happens when we die etc. When we have, if we ever do, a fairly complete understanding of all of these issues, when we've gotten rid of poverty, wars and all kinds of human suffering, maybe then we might have a chance to get rid of religions. I'm not holding my breath.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  22. #97
    Haha, whoever negged me obviously isn't influencial enough to change my reputation status. I'm still close to being famous.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #98
    bode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,043
    Location
    slow motion
    good thread. Cocco Bill really sums up my beliefs well, and way better than i ever could.
    eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
  24. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    It is quite likely that we will never have solid proof to demonstrate there is no god. Just pretending we do and saying it out loud will not change anyone's convictions.
    You do realize that with a high enough degree of skepticism, we could never convict a murder suspect, right?

    Christianity, for example, is rigged to be resistant to facts and criticism, the bible is the only source of truth, questioning anything is heresy, any inconsistencies in the bible are just allegorical or God working in mysterious ways etc. Just perfect.
    Yep, religion is one charismatic murder suspect.

    Before we can get rid of religions we need to get rid of the root causes that drive people to them, that create them. Religions are there to fill a need; human's need to explain the phenomena they witness, to find meaning and reason in all sorts of events happening around them, to get hope, comfort and protection. Science has only in the past couple hundred years started to shed some light on the most fundamental questions we've had for millenia, where do we come from, what is life, what happens when we die etc. When we have, if we ever do, a fairly complete understanding of all of these issues, when we've gotten rid of poverty, wars and all kinds of human suffering, maybe then we might have a chance to get rid of religions. I'm not holding my breath.
    See, but, a world without these things is a world without religion-- it's also a world without a lot of good stuff; arguably a world without suffering is a world without joy... so you can see you've set an unreachable bar which maintains the status quo.
  25. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh, and as for bacteria heaven, that seems pretty fucking ridiculous. I don't believe in heaven and hell, I'm not religious. Bacteria is a simpler lifeform than a human, obviously. Since I don't actually know what a soul is, or even if it exists, I can't even begin to imagine the difference between a bacteria soul and a human soul. I think I like the idea of a human being made of billions of little souls, where the bacteria is made of merely hundreds. That's specualtion in the extreme, but it at least goes some way to explaining the difference between a human and bacteria when it comes to the soul.

    Where does the intelligence (however limited) in us all come from? Where does the life in us, and bacteria, come from? These are unaswerable questions. One can speculate and come up with various bizarre and wild answers, but no-one knows for sure. Anyone who pretends to is arrogant; I'm sorry if that's insulting but it's the word that fits.
    1 Ok, good for you, I like the idea of Santa Claus buying my nephews presents, cuz I'm cheap and don't feel like it.

    2 No, no it does not. If you were writing fiction, then yes, this is a cool fiction to build from. But when we are trying to find the truth, blind folding ourselves and throwing a dart does not cut it. Instead we could begin from the default position, there are no souls (as there is no evidence to support souls existence), then we don't have to play this silly guessing game to make souls work.

    3 No, they are questions whose answers you find disagreeable. Read up on biology, these things are pretty well explained. When they are not fully explained, there is nothing that hints at a soul. You seem to think that because you are ignorant of something, mankind is ignorant of it, this is very troubling and might I say... arrogant...

    4 Right, one can do this, as you are doing, or one can use the scientific method to find definitive answers or at least a better understanding of our world.

    5 Yes, if we define a question as unanswerable, then anyone who pretends to know the answer is arrogant. The problem is, you have defined several things that are knowable and are known as unanswerable. Like I said before, this seems to present the idea that you arrogantly believe that that which you do not know is unknowable.
  26. #101
    21 grams son nuff said.
  27. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I missed this post first time around, I guess I've been too preoccupied with wuf's input.

    Viruses, huh? Yeah they're weird. In fact, I'm not sure humans really understand what they are at all. I don't.

    From the Wiki page you link... "In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies."

    What this means is that is no general concensus on what exactly life is. Science can try to define life, but there will always be grey areas while we have an incomplete understanding of science. Different people from different backgrounds will have different interpretations. I would call a virus a lifeform, just a very basic one. Therefore, I would say a virus has a soul. I might be wrong.

    You seem to be of the opinion that a soul goes against science. I'm of the opinion science can potentially explain souls. Current science can't, but I would argue that is because we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of science. Just because science can't explain it now, that doesn't mean it's therefore bollocks. It means the question is unanswerable at this time.

    A lack of afterlife (and beforelife) doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just doesn't make sense to me. I find it incredible that I would be alive now, but not before 1979 and not after I die. Maybe my memories and individual personality are exclusive to the form I currently take, but the life in me, I believe, existed before I was born and will continue to exist forever. Of course, I do not understand what I'm saying here. I don't have a problem with that, and I also don't have a problem with being wrong.

    I really fail to see how anyone can be certain of their position on this matter. It's arrogant of a person to think he knows.
    1 What? Religion and Philosophy are all over the place on an issue, therefore an issue is unsettled. What about science? Are you suggesting that science needs the consensus of religion and philosophy? Is this some new empirical checks and balances system modeled after our democratic republic? Link?

    Science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas built in... that is the whole point to my bringing this up. There are grey areas, and these grey areas are a pretty awkward place for the idea of a soul, esp when it has been asserted that not only do humans have souls, but all lifeforms have souls.

    2 And so we can see we are on a slippery slope, why a virus and not a rock? Or how about a chunk of metal... does the chunk of metal not interact with its surroundings? Does it not oxidize in the presence of oxygen? Neither a chunk of metal nor a virus has a brain, intelligence, etc. Like I said before, science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas, however the idea of a soul demands a definitive and arbitrary line to be drawn. This is a pretty serious problem with your idea that every living thing has a soul, and I'd like to see you tackle it without redefining what a constitutes a soul (again.)

    3 It does. It can, it does. It explains them the same way it explains Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc.

    4 Yes, the life in you did exist, as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, magnesium, etc. These things were not "alive", but your mother collected them, as well as some semen from your old man, and here you are. After you die, other living things will take advantage of your no longer in use mass of highly prized elements. These other things will then produce more life thanks to the generous donation you have made to the circle of life. If you want to call this list of elements a soul, fine, but please note that you are at best stretching the definition to the extreme, and imo you are just completely redefining it.

    5 I covered this in my previous post.
    Last edited by boost; 06-02-2011 at 02:12 PM.
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics View Post
    21 grams son nuff said.
    snopes.com: Weight of the Soul
  29. #104
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You do realize that with a high enough degree of skepticism, we could never convict a murder suspect, right?
    Then again, isn't that better than convicting all murder suspects without evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    See, but, a world without these things is a world without religion-- it's also a world without a lot of good stuff; arguably a world without suffering is a world without joy... so you can see you've set an unreachable bar which maintains the status quo.
    Perhaps, but this is a different discussion. If I was granted the power to decide, I'd do the following, in order of priority:

    1. Enforce separation of church and state everywhere
    2. Stop preferential treatment of certain religions by governments
    3. Privatize or shift to governments any functions currently operated by churches and funded by governments (foreign aid, substance abuse treatment, child care etc.) and stop all government funding of all churches
    4. Make it illegal to not bitchslap anyone with any religious ideas
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, I'm going to simplify how I see the development of this thread.

    OP - "So, who believes in God?"

    Various replies

    Ong - "Not religious, don't believe God is a concious entity, but I can accept some interpretations. I think we have a soul."

    Wuf/Boost "Lol no we don't"

    Ong - "Huh? How can you be sure?"

    Wuf - "We definitely don't have a soul because there's no evidence for it."

    Ong - "But... what about my existence and awareness? That's evidence isn't it?"

    Wuf - "No."

    Ong - "Huh?"

    Wuf - "Science has no room for magic."

    Ong - "Maybe science can explain the soul?"

    Wuf - "Ok, if I'm not confusing you enough as it is, I will bombard you with bizarre analogies about trees instead of answering the question."

    Ong - "but..."

    Wuf - "Show me a tree."

    Ong - "Erm..."

    Wuf - "You're out of your depth. I am all knowing."

    Ong - "Right. Now I understand."

    /summary.
    I lol'd pretty well at this


    Are there dinosaurs on other planets?
    No, there are not. We know this due to the definition of dinosaur. It's almost impossible that there are not tons of planets with things similar to dinosaurs, but no actual dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are an Earth specific, gene specific thing. This represents the crux of the issue. You must define your assertion then analyze it instead of mixing and matching when you want you assertion to be undefined and unknowable yet not even acknowledge that



    I don't understand how anyone of intelligence can be so sure about the question -"Do we have a soul?"
    I'm not sure. I'm not saying we definitely do. I'm saying I think we do. That is all. I'm not saying a soul is magic, other people are saying that. Life itself is magic. Look at me, I'm a collection of quarks and gluons, working together to discuss with another collection of quarks and gluons the meaning of existence. That, my friend, is fucking magic right there. If there was no magic in the world, then there would be no life. The soul is life. That's what I'm saying. You tell me that a soul definitely doesn't exist, I interpret that as life doesn't exist. I can prove to you that life does indeed exist, but you could probably find a counter-argument and still look smart.
    We're clearly not using the same definitions. You're using magic in a colloquial sense like it's mystery and amazement, I'm using it in its technical way that it's make-believe. Life is only magical in a romantic way, in a scientific way, there is no magic





    Right. Of course, this is the crux of the problem. No-one can define this accurately, and so therefore we are arguing about our different interpretations of what a soul is.
    And that's my position winning the argument. If you can't define it then we're not actually talking about something. This is the most incredible goalpost shift. You can't assert a proposal then claim that proposal is really no proposal.



    Really? I disagree. My memory is chemical. My soul is the "energy", for lack of a better word, that gives me life. It's what makes me different from a rock.
    But dude, we already know for a fact that chemicals are what give you life. Why must you assert an "energy" with no definition and thus is not an assertion at all.

    I'm not trying to say I'm right, all I'm saying is that is how I see it. No problem with others who see it differently, but for fuck's sake, don't pretend you know, because it makes you look very arrogant to me. No-one knows the answer. If you knew the answer, you'd be very famous indeed.
    You completely misunderstand. I am not saying "something" isn't out there, I am saying "your thing" isn't out there. And that is 100% fact. Because when you start defining your thing, we then start testing it, and it fails the tests. It then becomes that your thing is wrong, end of story. This applies to every single superstition that has ever been meaningfully defined

    Like if you say there is "life force". Nigga there is no life force because by definition, life cannot be a force. This is asserting something that has been completely undefined, there are no words for it, and it is fully and completely meaningless until we get there

    Is there something out there? Yes. Could this something be a god? No. Why? Because we know how gods are defined, and their existence would be a contradiction to reality

    There are some crazy things out there that we don't know about, but in order to find them, we have to define them and discover how true the definitions are
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Then again, isn't that better than convicting all murder suspects without evidence?
    You adopted the position of the extreme. I pointed out how the position of the extreme is unreasonable. Now you are implying that I support the position of the opposite extreme. Hello CoccoBill-- oh, who's that? Your friend? What's his name? Oh, nice to meet you Mr. Strawman.


    Perhaps, but this is a different discussion.
    I'm pretty sure it's not? You calling it one seems really arbitrary to me?

    If I was granted the power to decide, I'd do the following, in order of priority:

    1. Enforce separation of church and state everywhere
    2. Stop preferential treatment of certain religions by governments
    3. Privatize or shift to governments any functions currently operated by churches and funded by governments (foreign aid, substance abuse treatment, child care etc.) and stop all government funding of all churches
    4. Make it illegal to not bitchslap anyone with any religious ideas

    luls.
    Last edited by boost; 06-02-2011 at 03:43 PM.
  32. #107
    supa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,529
    Location
    At the bar drinking whisky with an "e"
    It's impossible to disprove what does not exist.
    “Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all”

    Put hero on a goddamn range part II- The 6max years

    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    start using your brain more and vagina less

    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    Members who's signature is a humorous quote about his/herself made by someone who is considered a notable member of the FTR community to give themselves a sense of belonging.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by supahaole View Post
    It's impossible to disprove what does not exist.
    Do unicorns exist?

    If you answer is anything but no, then we really can't have a debate about anything. Obviously if it is "no" it is "no, for all practical purposes." Sure one could exist, but so could anything. But we treat unicorns as if they do not exist, because there is no reason to think they exist, and behaving in any other way would be unreasonable. Now when the unreasonable behavior stemming from the belief in unicorns influences the making of laws, the election of officials, etc, we have a problem.

    Furthermore, when we allow ourselves to give credence to these absurd possibilities we allow for real debates to be chalk full of nonsense. People become trained to accept that when an opposing opinion is presented, no matter how absurd, it is equally valid. This detrimentally halts progress in society. For an example, take a look at the controversy over climate change. Sure it could be anything from a natural cycle to Santa Claus turning up his thermostat, but the probability of this, with no evidence to support it, is so low that it would be unreasonable to treat it as anything but false.
    Last edited by boost; 06-02-2011 at 04:50 PM.
  34. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by supahaole View Post
    It's impossible to disprove what does not exist.
    Yeah, the theory is that you can't prove a negative. But it's also that you can prove a contradiction and thus "prove a negative". But also you can't prove anything ultimately

    I honestly take contention with some of the ideas of proof. Like the whole you can't prove two plus two equal four thing. I think that we're tricking ourselves by not properly devising and defining words that describe what's really going on. Because the idea that you can't prove two plus two equals four is right in one way, but in sooooooooo many other ways is simply wrong

    For me, though, this topic includes the proving a contradiction thing. Like a space elephant. It can't exist because it's an inherent contradiction. I'm honestly not sure how relevant or understood the notion of ultimate proof/knowledge really is
  35. #110
    supa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,529
    Location
    At the bar drinking whisky with an "e"
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Do unicorns exist?
    I don't know.

    /debate.
    “Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all”

    Put hero on a goddamn range part II- The 6max years

    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    start using your brain more and vagina less

    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    Members who's signature is a humorous quote about his/herself made by someone who is considered a notable member of the FTR community to give themselves a sense of belonging.
  36. #111
    Shotglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,755
    Location
    feelin' allright
    My thoughts on religion:


    Quote Originally Posted by givememyleg View Post
    i'll never understand how anyone can go through life being sober.
  37. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by supahaole View Post
    trollolololol
    well played.
    Last edited by boost; 06-02-2011 at 04:51 PM.
  38. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by supahaole View Post
    I don't know.

    /debate.
    That doesn't work. Most of the time people claim lack of discoverability it's just a cop-out. I don't know enough about unicorns to say, but we could have enough knowledge to find out whether or not they exist. It's all about precision

    It's like how we know that a 20 ton spider doesn't and has never existed. That defies physics i.e. cannot exist. Unicorn is much trickier than that, but with precise definitions and precise discovery, we could know if it's possible they exist(ed). In most ways we know they did not exist as they're exclusively mythology, but there is still some possible real root in there

    These debates always boil down to people expressing defined attributes to stuff, then when challenged, they revert back to an undefined thing. That's when the debate is over, it's just important to understand why
  39. #114
    supa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,529
    Location
    At the bar drinking whisky with an "e"
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    well played.
    “Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all”

    Put hero on a goddamn range part II- The 6max years

    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    start using your brain more and vagina less

    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    Members who's signature is a humorous quote about his/herself made by someone who is considered a notable member of the FTR community to give themselves a sense of belonging.
  40. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    20 ton spider...cannot exist.
    CLEARLY YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN MY BASEMENT BATHROOM THEN, SIR.
  41. #116
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You adopted the position of the extreme. I pointed out how the position of the extreme is unreasonable. Now you are implying that I support the position of the opposite extreme. Hello CoccoBill-- oh, who's that? Your friend? What's his name? Oh, nice to meet you Mr. Strawman.
    Your position was that we need no solid proof to declare something nonexistent (or guilty), mine is that we do. Just like my position may lead when applied to courts of law to false negatives, yours will lead to false positives. I don't see how my position is extreme, in fact I not only find it reasonable, but the only fundamentally correct one. How did I misrepresent your position and what is the strawman?

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    Perhaps, but this is a different discussion.
    I'm pretty sure it's not? You calling it one seems really arbitrary to me?
    First we were discussing whether we have in a meaningful sense any proof for or against a deity, then we started discussing what would be the sociologically, morally or preferentially best way to communicate about such proof or lack thereof.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by BennyLaRue View Post
    CLEARLY YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN MY BASEMENT BATHROOM THEN, SIR.
    lolllll. Next WW game, I wanna be the Benny
  43. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Your position was that we need no solid proof to declare something nonexistent (or guilty), mine is that we do. Just like my position may lead when applied to courts of law to false negatives, yours will lead to false positives. I don't see how my position is extreme, in fact I not only find it reasonable, but the only fundamentally correct one. How did I misrepresent your position and what is the strawman?
    This is not my position in the least bit, and as far as the conviction in a court analogy goes it is where it starts to break down. The difference is there are no negative consequences to a false negative in regards to the factuality of superstitions. Furthermore I am not saying no solid proof is needed, I am saying absolute proof is not needed. There is solid proof, just not absolute proof. You may not have intended to strawman me, but you did, and then did it again in this post.


    First we were discussing whether we have in a meaningful sense any proof for or against a deity, then we started discussing what would be the sociologically, morally or preferentially best way to communicate about such proof or lack thereof.
    I guess I still don't see how this is a tangent as opposed to the natural flow of the discussion.
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Life is only magical in a romantic way, in a scientific way, there is no magic
    Yes, quite. The only magic about a soul is romantic magic. Science has an answer, I'm sure of it. And when science has the answer, then we can properly define what soul means.

    You say the soul doesn't exist because we cannot define it. Did magnetism not exist until we discovered it? Did the sun not exist until someone called it the sun?

    For me, you're too concerned with logic. You know exactly what I mean when I ask "are there dinosaurs on other planets", and your answer is no, because dinosaurs are unique to Earth. Do I really have to say "are there creatures on other planets identical to dinosaurs"?
    If we found such creatures on Neptune or wherever, we'd call them dinosaurs.

    And this is the problem you have with a soul. Because I cannot define what I say might exist within me, you say my opinion is invalid. This is where I disagree with you. If I could define it, then I wouldn't use the word 'might'.

    I'm not afraid of what cannot be understood.

    After much consideration, I don't think you're arrogant. I apologise for using that word to describe you. I think you're a pedantic logical soft-porn-obsessed nerd (which isn't an insult, I will add).
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    You say the soul doesn't exist because we cannot define it. Did magnetism not exist until we discovered it? Did the sun not exist until someone called it the sun?
    You're not understanding my point on this. I am concerning myself with presented proposals. "Any something" isn't the same as "a specific something". When someone said "magnetism", it was evidentially scrutinized, and subsequently determined for truth. Superstitions are scrutable. Every single proposal has been shown to be false, then the response is to exit scrutability so they can't be disproven, but they're also meaningless when doing so

    For me, you're too concerned with logic.
    lolwut? Please tell me you know what you're saying

    You know exactly what I mean when I ask "are there dinosaurs on other planets", and your answer is no, because dinosaurs are unique to Earth. Do I really have to say "are there creatures on other planets identical to dinosaurs"?
    Oh I knew what you meant, but you don't know what I mean. I am expressing arguably the most important factor in fact discovery: precision

    If we found such creatures on Neptune or wherever, we'd call them dinosaurs.
    We wouldn't actually. Popular publications would. But scientists wouldn't even come close to doing so. Organisms that could exist on Neptune would be almost nothing like dinosaurs. Even if they kinda sorta looked like them, they'd be worlds apart in what they are. The similarities would be things like they're biological, bipedalism, carbon-based, but nothing much more specific

    And this is the problem you have with a soul. Because I cannot define what I say might exist within me, you say my opinion is invalid. This is where I disagree with you. If I could define it, then I wouldn't use the word 'might'.
    That works. Just be sure to not accidentally imposing attributes onto it without scrutiny

    After much consideration, I don't think you're arrogant. I apologise for using that word to describe you. I think you're a pedantic logical soft-porn-obsessed nerd (which isn't an insult, I will add).
    That's cool. I do love me some softcore.
  46. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    After much consideration, I don't think you're arrogant. I apologise for using that word to describe you. I think you're a pedantic logical soft-porn-obsessed nerd (which isn't an insult, I will add).


    edit: I hate to respond to a semi-serious debate with a meme, but this is all I could think of.
  47. #122
    Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism

    The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
    My favorite kind!

    That's right wuff-wuggy. Your mental masturbation is little more than the inconsequential ramblings of an internet warrior trying to feed his ego.
  48. #123
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    This is not my position in the least bit, and as far as the conviction in a court analogy goes it is where it starts to break down. The difference is there are no negative consequences to a false negative in regards to the factuality of superstitions. Furthermore I am not saying no solid proof is needed, I am saying absolute proof is not needed. There is solid proof, just not absolute proof. You may not have intended to strawman me, but you did, and then did it again in this post.
    So the difference between "solid proof" and "absolute proof" is in your opinion a strawman, and the former doesn't represent your position "in the least bit"?

    Could you explain what is the difference between solid and absolute?

    Could you list some pieces of solid proof that we have for the nonexistence of a god?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  49. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    So the difference between "solid proof" and "absolute proof" is in your opinion a strawman, and the former doesn't represent your position "in the least bit"?

    Could you explain what is the difference between solid and absolute?

    Could you list some pieces of solid proof that we have for the nonexistence of a god?
    The distinction he's making is the same I've made. It's the difference between reasonableness and ultimate absolution (which isn't even possible). In every single aspect of our lives, we use reasonable proof to determine things, but for some weird reason, on the topic of superstitions, everybody disregards reasonableness and require the most ultimate idea of proof possible.

    This is complete silliness and logically contradictory. If we were to apply ultimate proof to our lives then nothing would be true. You wouldn't be human, you wouldn't be alive, this wouldn't be 2011, we wouldn't be on Earth, etc etc. This is clearly ludicrous thinking. But nooooo not when discussing superstitions. Then eeeeeverything is on the table and the teeniest tiniest most infinitesimal possibility is enough to think it's reasonable to not rule it out

    Solid proof of the nonexistence of god is that we have gone to the depths of the human ability to perceive and experience reality, and have not found him. This means that any consequential idea we have of god is a contradiction to reality. This is the best possible proof humankind could ever have for anything ever. If we can't rule god out, we can't rule anything out

    When will people realize that if you think that the possibility alone that a superstition is true is a good enough reason to not rule it out, it is no different than holding that position on anything and everything? It's possible I'm a minotaur. You could be talking to a minotaur right now. Don't laugh, it's possible.
  50. #125
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is complete silliness and logically contradictory. If we were to apply ultimate proof to our lives then nothing would be true. You wouldn't be human, you wouldn't be alive, this wouldn't be 2011, we wouldn't be on Earth, etc etc. This is clearly ludicrous thinking. But nooooo not when discussing superstitions. Then eeeeeverything is on the table and the teeniest tiniest most infinitesimal possibility is enough to think it's reasonable to not rule it out
    I'm not talking about ultimate proof, I'm saying we have no proof, since we are discussing ideas that by definition are unknowable. We can not prove anything regarding a supreme deity one way or the other. This is the only logical conclusion IMO. Your argument is based on practical consequences, not logical provable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Solid proof of the nonexistence of god is that we have gone to the depths of the human ability to perceive and experience reality, and have not found him. This means that any consequential idea we have of god is a contradiction to reality. This is the best possible proof humankind could ever have for anything ever. If we can't rule god out, we can't rule anything out

    When will people realize that if you think that the possibility alone that a superstition is true is a good enough reason to not rule it out, it is no different than holding that position on anything and everything? It's possible I'm a minotaur. You could be talking to a minotaur right now. Don't laugh, it's possible.
    I'm not laughing, and I'm not ruling out the possibility. I'd have to read more Descartes and Kant before diving deeper in this argument between the merits of different schools of panrationalism. Let's just say I'm not yet readily accepting your stance of appealing to authority, in this case human intellect, to determine what exists and what doesn't.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  51. #126
    An unknowable truth is an oxymoron. If it is absolutely unknowable, by definition it does not exist in our reality. Something that cannot be observed is simply not real. But lets be clear, I said "cannot be observed", not "has not been observed." If this something exerts any sort of influence over our reality, it is no longer unknowable, as its influence can be observed, and through observation of the influence we can know the cause.

    I guess there is the idea then that our soul will go on to meet this unknowable entity in another reality. But a soul, which is by definition unobservable, cannot exist in this reality, so how could we hope for it to go from this one to another?

    Either way, my entire point is that belief in superstitions is unreasonable. Taking the stance of "well it could be" just caters to the idea that faith is a virtue. If you insist on saying "well its possible", I would just hope that you clarify the statement with "but so improbable, that believing in superstitions and acting upon such beliefs is unreasonable."
    Last edited by boost; 06-03-2011 at 01:10 PM.
  52. #127
    I think I'm now antiagnostic. I believe in everything. Nothing is untrue!
  53. #128
    supa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,529
    Location
    At the bar drinking whisky with an "e"
    Satanic Buddhists for Christ imo.
    “Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all”

    Put hero on a goddamn range part II- The 6max years

    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    start using your brain more and vagina less

    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    Members who's signature is a humorous quote about his/herself made by someone who is considered a notable member of the FTR community to give themselves a sense of belonging.
  54. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    practical consequences, not logical provable facts.
    They're the same



    Let's just say I'm not yet readily accepting your stance of appealing to authority, in this case human intellect, to determine what exists and what doesn't.
    I'm not sure if I'd wanna call that an appeal to authority. Also, it wouldn't be just to intellect, but to sense and perception.


    What about M-theory? Here we have one of the most real things that isn't proven and probably unprovable, and really could just be wrong. What happens in our world when it's proven right? Nothing. What happens when it's proven wrong? Again, nothing. Photons are still the same, gravity is still the same, geology is still the same, everything is still the same. This is a very important point because it is what combats the consequential proposals of the unknown.

    It is likely that an infinite reality exists and is unknown and unknowable, with the craziest attributes. But these inconsequential realities have no bearing on our consequential realities. Is there something out there? Yes. Is it your thing? No. Why? Because you propose meaning to your thing, and then we test it for certainty. If you don't propose your thing or meaning then there is nothing to talk about

    The funny thing that people don't realize is that superstition of modern times has moved into theoretical physics. Everything else has been proven contradictory. Our pseudo-superstitions are trying to find those strings deep "inside" quarks or those branes "upon" which our universe resides. It's not superstitious inasmuch as we're trying our best to be empirical about it, but it is superstitious inasmuch as it's the last place where "magical" things make some sense. There ain't no scientists looking for souls for a reason. There are scientists looking for extra dimensions for a reason
  55. #130
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I think I'm now antiagnostic. I believe in everything. Nothing is untrue!
    You must know my ex girlfriend.
  56. #131
    I believe that I do.
  57. #132
    I'm concerned. We haven't heard from OngBonga since 10.32 yesterday evening EST. Seriously, what the fuck is this guy doing with his time?
    - You're the reason why paradise lost
  58. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by kevster View Post
    I'm concerned. We haven't heard from OngBonga since 10.32 yesterday evening EST. Seriously, what the fuck is this guy doing with his time?
    Maybe he decided to execute the only experiment that can test out his theories of a soul and an afterlife...
  59. #134
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Breezing through this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What about M-theory? Here we have one of the most real things that isn't proven and probably unprovable, and really could just be wrong.
    M-theory is not a real thing. It's a model. And it's an untestable model. M-theory is just like God. People suppose it because it works so well to explain so much. Its elegant maths really tie together a lot of observation and everyone likes elegance.

    To prove or disprove M-theory would mean that we would need to perceive and measure dimensions that we have no idea how to perceive and measure. Just as, to prove or disprove God would mean that we would need to..(snip).. and measure.

    You can be beyond any reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist. As I saw boost say, the line is, "I can't know that God doesn't exist, but the chance that he does is unfathomably small." You can't know that God doesn't exist because of the build of the model.

    You can't know M-theory is wrong. You can either buy into it and see where it takes you or dismiss it because it doesn't fall from observation but rather from a human delight with its form. You can't know God doesn't exist. You can either buy ..(snip).. delight with its form.

    This is all why I really like the label pragmatic agnostic.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 06-04-2011 at 02:22 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  60. #135
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I think I'm now antiagnostic. I believe in everything. Nothing is untrue!
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You must know my ex girlfriend.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I believe that I do.
    Far and away the greatest contribution to this thread.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  61. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Breezing through this thread.



    M-theory is not a real thing. It's a model. And it's an untestable model. M-theory is just like God. People suppose it because it works so well to explain so much. Its elegant maths really tie together a lot of observation and everyone likes elegance.

    To prove or disprove M-theory would mean that we would need to perceive and measure dimensions that we have no idea how to perceive and measure. Just as, to prove or disprove God would mean that we would need to..(snip).. and measure.

    You can be beyond any reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist. As I saw boost say, the line is, "I can't know that God doesn't exist, but the chance that he does is unfathomably small." You can't know that God doesn't exist because of the build of the model.

    You can't know M-theory is wrong. You can either buy into it and see where it takes you or dismiss it because it doesn't fall from observation but rather from a human delight with its form. You can't know God doesn't exist. You can either buy ..(snip).. delight with its form.

    This is all why I really like the label pragmatic agnostic.
    That's all right and good, but it's still not acknowledging my point. Meaningful superstitions are not to be equated with meaningless superstitions. The former are any real proposals, the latter are what people retreat their "ideas" into when their real proposals are beaten up

    I have not for a second argued that the unknowable is knowable. What I have argued is that peoples proposed superstitions are knowable. Is there "something" out there? Of course. Is that something a particular contradictory superstition? No. The soul is a great example of this. Ongie seems to have retreated the concept of a soul into claiming a soul doesn't require memory, but that's wrong because without memory the proposal has no actual consequence. We determine that memory dies a human death, then the idea of a soul is meaningless and wrong. It only could be "right" if it's redefined, which is par for the course for superstitions. God of the gaps is the most important fallacy to understand on this topic IMO. Is there "something" about the connectivity of the Universe? Yes. Is it some form of Universal Consciousness? lolno. Why? Because the idea is an evidential contradiction

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •