Religulous

[Kobb]

I think it's more interesting that a movie discussion turns into this. Arguing your point isn't going to change anyone's mind when it comes to religion, why waste your time?

[Kaylia]

I think it's more interesting that a movie discussion turns into this. Arguing your point isn't going to change anyone's mind when it comes to religion, why waste your time?

How is it surprising that a movie about religion turn a thread into this? People will post their opinion sooner or later, and someone else will disagree.

It's true no one is going to change their opinion in the middle of an argument, but it's not like their beliefs will never change in the future. Reading a new argument will make you think twice about it, and it won't happen if no one try to convince each other.

[Cow_k]

As stated earlier, most people don't form beliefs on their own but rather through experience and argumentation. While it's unlikely anyone's going to change their mind on their own beliefs, they never would have come to their original stance without taking many different factors into consideration in the first place (at least they shouldn't <.>). So in that sense, someone actually could change their mind on religion by reading some of the arguments posted here. Again, I state that such a thing isn't very likely to happen, but while I suppose it's possible that someone could be instilled with a belief or disbelief in a higher power from birth, it's not real likely that even if that's a reality it'd happen very often which means opinions are formed by taking in the information around you.

As for movie discussion, considering that what we've been discussing encompasses the overall purpose of this movie (classification, close mindedness and the ramification of such stances), I think that we're very much discussing the movie in general.

And yes, I did see the movie, it was hilarious, but I don't agree that only religion could bring about the destruction of man by man's own hands as the movie tries to argue. I also don't agree with the idea that all religion is bad and that by practicing a religion you're automatically associating yourself with some of the crazies that have taken certain ideals and twisted them to their own crazy power schemes. Just because you're Christian doesn't mean you're automatically like all the crazy faith healers who scream "JESUS HEAL THIS MAN" every two seconds or that you support their insanity.

[Mizango]

I think it's more interesting that a movie discussion turns into this. Arguing your point isn't going to change anyone's mind when it comes to religion, why waste your time?

Why talk about anything? It's the fact of explaining your position on an issue, the issue in the beginning of this thread was a "religious" theme, hence the "religious" overtones you are seeing.

It's not about changing peoples minds.

[Dimmauk]

Why talk about anything? It's the fact of explaining your position on an issue, the issue in the beginning of this thread was a "religious" theme, hence the "religious" overtones you are seeing.

It's not about changing peoples minds.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6...onblogpue8.jpg

[Blarg]

Atheists say there's no God or higher power and no knowledge available now, in the past or in the future is ever going to change that. Atheists are just as close minded as theists and I refuse to throw myself into a camp that declares an answer on something that has no scientific answer.

You are kidding yourself if you think an Atheist wouldn't become a Theist if presented with actual evidence, ie. god comes down to them and does godly things. Does not believing in fairy's and unicorns make me close minded by the way?

I am an Atheist and I say until the evidence is presented I will not believe your claim.

[Senoska]

GDI, you can't just be "Agnostic" stop saying you are. Agnostic is a STATEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE. Not of BELIEF. You flat up are a theist or an atheist, agnostic or gnostic is a prefix to that. (Directed at entire thread, not one person in general.)

[Kaylia]

You are kidding yourself if you think an Atheist wouldn't become a Theist if presented with actual evidence, ie. god comes down to them and does godly things. Does not believing in fairy's and unicorns make me close minded by the way?

I am an Atheist and I say until the evidence is presented I will not believe your claim.

It depend why you brought unicorns and fairies in your beliefs. If it was to explain the first cause paradox, then it's no different than the concept of God.

And your reasoning go both way. If theist would be presented with evidence, they would change their mind. We can't talk about "evidence" when it's beliefs against beliefs.

GDI, you can't just be "Agnostic" stop saying you are. Agnostic is a STATEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE. Not of BELIEF. You flat up are a theist or an atheist, agnostic or gnostic is a prefix to that. (Directed at entire thread, not one person in general.)

What's the answer of 8/0. You can't just "not answer", it need to be a number.

Of course, you could always ask to pick a choice, but you might as well just make him roll a dice.

[Blarg]

It depend why you brought unicorns and fairies in your beliefs. If it was to explain the first cause paradox, then it's no different than the concept of God.

And your reasoning go both way. If theist would be presented with evidence, they would change their mind. We can't talk about "evidence" when it's beliefs against beliefs.

I brought fairy's and unicorns in because cow_k seems to think not believing in something makes you close minded, I'm not responding to you so I'm not sure why you are talking about the first cause. Theist's would be much less likely to change their mind seeing as how they rely on faith and not evidence. If they had incontrovertible evidence they wouldn't need faith would they.

How I feel about the first cause. The idea of infinite and nothing are very hard concepts to fathom and that may just be a 'problem' with how our brains work. Maybe there isn't really a first cause problem and we just think there is because our human brain is used to living 80~ years and then it stops so when dealing with time periods way outside of times that are natural to us we have problems thinking in that way. This is just a maybe so don't bother spending any time dissecting what I wrote unless you want to.

[Neosutra]

It depend why you brought unicorns and fairies in your beliefs. If it was to explain the first cause paradox, then it's no different than the concept of God.

And your reasoning go both way. If theist would be presented with evidence, they would change their mind. We can't talk about "evidence" when it's beliefs against beliefs.



What's the answer of 8/0. You can't just "not answer", it need to be a number.

Of course, you could always ask to pick a choice, but you might as well just make him roll a dice.

You still dont get it. You cant equate "first cause" theorems and god on equal footing. The concept of god is NOT the same as examining the first cause "paradox" as you put it. What paradox are you even talking about? And more importantly it isnt "beliefs vs beliefs", it's "beliefs" vs. "facts". Athests dont "believe" there isnt a god, we examine the "facts" and conclude there is no god.

Also, 8/0 = indefinate, because you arent performing an action, the entire practice of dividing an integer by another integer to is to determine the subset of those values that can fit into the original integer, it isnt a valid mathematical procedure to test how much of nothing can fit into something. It's not some magical device that if you divide by 0 you get god.

And yes, you missed the point again that sensoka made. You cant just be "agnostic". Agnostic is a prefix to theist or atheist. And from your argument stance, you are very much an agnostic theist.

[Kuya]

What i'm getting is that a lot of people seem to have different definitions on what an atheist is. Some say it is the lack of belief others say it is the knowledge of falsity.

Senoska said prefix, not preface.

[Kaylia]

You still dont get it. You cant equate "first cause" theorems and god on equal footing. The concept of god is NOT the same as examining the first cause "paradox" as you put it. What paradox are you even talking about? And more importantly it isnt "beliefs vs beliefs", it's "beliefs" vs. "facts". Athests dont "believe" there isnt a god, we examine the "facts" and conclude there is no god.

Which facts? List them.


[edit]
I already explained the paradox, but you left the thread and ignored my point.

Also, 8/0 = indefinate, because you arent performing an action, the entire practice of dividing an integer by another integer to is to determine the subset of those values that can fit into the original integer, it isnt a valid mathematical procedure to test how much of nothing can fit into something. It's not some magical device that if you divide by 0 you get god.

And yes, you missed the point again that sensoka made. You cant just be "agnostic". Agnostic is a preface to theist or atheist. And from your argument stance, you are very much an agnostic theist.

I think it's you who missed my point. Ask your computer to solve a problem that has no solution,and it's going to crash. Forcing someone to pick a particular beliefs to answer this question is ridiculous...

Sure, I can make a postulate that god exist or don't and join one side, but why would I do this? Like I said earlier, I could just roll a dice.

[Kaylia]

I brought fairy's and unicorns in because cow_k seems to think not believing in something makes you close minded, I'm not responding to you so I'm not sure why you are talking about the first cause. Theist's would be much less likely to change their mind seeing as how they rely on faith and not evidence. If they had incontrovertible evidence they wouldn't need faith would they.

How I feel about the first cause. The idea of infinite and nothing are very hard concepts to fathom and that may just be a 'problem' with how our brains work. Maybe there isn't really a first cause problem and we just think there is because our human brain is used to living 80~ years and then it stops so when dealing with time periods way outside of times that are natural to us we have problems thinking in that way. This is just a maybe so don't bother spending any time dissecting what I wrote unless you want to.

Our finite brain can't fathom infinity for sure. You won't hear me say otherwise, it's the main reason why I pick agnosticism.
If you want to understand infinity, you would need to be infinite yourself (or an infinity greater than the one you're observing), but it doesn't help us here, since we can't be infinite.

You will never see a "proof" that God exist, it's an act of faith they are doing. They are guessing that there is an infinite being that we can't understand. An atheist denies the validity of this claim, but to reject the possibility, you will need certain beliefs about this world that can't be justified with science or logics. Generally speaking, it can be simplified to "I don't see it/need it, therefore it doesn't exist".


Posted it on last page, but if you want to accepts and use mathematics, you have to accept those 2 theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...teness_theorem
If you believe those maths don't fit perfectly to our world, you will have to agree that any mathematical model can't describe the world correctly, and that physics will never be completed.

[Suiram]

I'm surprised that this hasn't been posted yet. Someone told me about this the other day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.

As a result of this, there is uncertainty in any empirical observation, and so no model of the universe can ever be fully realized.

[Senoska]

What i'm getting is that a lot of people seem to have different definitions on what an atheist is. Some say it is the lack of belief others say it is the knowledge of falsity.

Senoska said prefix, not preface.

Was going with Agnostic-theist, etc. Forgive the wording. Atheist is defined as no belief in a god, nothing more, nothing less. To be an Atheist, you don't need to believe in evolution, and you don't need to trust science, etc. The majority tend to but that's irrelevant.

Belief is a light switch, it's on or it's off. You can't half believe something. You're a theist or an Atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic says nothing of your belief.

[Neosutra]

Which facts? List them.


[edit]
I already explained the paradox, but you left the thread and ignored my point.



I think it's you who missed my point. Ask your computer to solve a problem that has no solution,and it's going to crash. Forcing someone to pick a particular beliefs to answer this question is ridiculous...

Sure, I can make a postulate that god exist or don't and join one side, but why would I do this? Like I said earlier, I could just roll a dice.

I left the debate because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall and I dont have the endurance to continually have some ignore everything posted and ramble on continually. Just because you stated a paradox doesnt mean it's a paradox. You just stated a bunch of garbage that follows no logical order and doesnt really support anyone's argument, let alone your own.

And what facts do you want? Or more precisely, what facts support ANY theist argument?

And pin it any way you want, you're a theist who doesnt know what to call their god. But then again ive already defined your god for you, it's everything YOU dont understand about this universe.

And please stay out of particle physics in this discussion, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Suiram]

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and it's not particle physics.

[Neosutra]

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and it's not particle physics.

Was talking to Kaylia.

[Kuya]

Was going with Agnostic-theist, etc. Forgive the wording. Atheist is defined as no belief in a god, nothing more, nothing less. To be an Atheist, you don't need to believe in evolution, and you don't need to trust science, etc. The majority tend to but that's irrelevant.

Belief is a light switch, it's on or it's off. You can't half believe something. You're a theist or an Atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic says nothing of your belief.

Etymologically i agree with you.

[Kaylia]

Was going with Agnostic-theist, etc. Forgive the wording. Atheist is defined as no belief in a god, nothing more, nothing less. To be an Atheist, you don't need to believe in evolution, and you don't need to trust science, etc. The majority tend to but that's irrelevant.

Belief is a light switch, it's on or it's off. You can't half believe something. You're a theist or an Atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic says nothing of your belief.

I agree it's the most logical definition if you want to stick with ethymology, but it's not the best way to classify people and describe their beliefs if you want to include everyone in a single model.

A belief is something you assume to be true, you could describe it as an on/off switch if you want. However, if you want to attack this particular belief or make any comment about it, you will necessarilly assume that something else is true. In this scenario, being an atheist don't allow you to say anything about the theism case.