Religulous

[Kaylia]

Oh your caps locks convinced me.

All our models for time space are incorrect and no such model exists.

How naive we were. BRB running through the halls of my lab and telling everyone to stop working.

Dear god, please stop whatever degree you are working on. You wont contribute to any field of relevance.

So did your bold text and swearing.


But in all seriousness, how can you reject

Gaudel theorem + need of a greater infinite to understand a lesser one.

Both theorem have mathematical demonstrations. Unless you want to attack the essence of maths (something I hope you're not stupid enough to do), you shouldn't even bother.


I'm going to have to ignore your next post if you don't simply want to call me stupid and avoid the mathematics. It's getting beyond pointless.

[Kaylia]

I don't think Kaylia is saying that you should stop trying just because it may potentially be an endless endeavor, just that it may very well be an endless endeavor. Which is kind of a good thing, if you look at it from a certain perspective.

Yep. There will always be place for more progress, but you will never get any closer from the infinity

[Kuya]

So absent absolutes, the argument boils down to whether or not the components of the system of belief that have a supernatural aspect are of any benefit to the individual or society as a whole? I would say no, I fail to see how any supernatural belief advances our understanding of the natural world or gives us anything but a false sense of security. You can respect and admire ancestors and nature without any supernatural reason to do so, I think historians and scientists do this quite admirably. Keep in mind that I am not arguing that these things are bad, just that the belief in ghosts dosen't add anything.

You sort of contradicted yourself; you said that they offer no benefits, yet you then said that science can better offer these benefits, which is a recognition that spiritual beliefs have benefits but that science can do it better, and to not get further into debate, as i prefer to leave it as simple tastes, i will mention that you just alluded to science being the arbiter of morality. I would be careful with that considering that your worry with spirituality was that it was too absolute and it would allow for blind adherence to beliefs even if they are detrimental, even though this fear was somewhat distorted, consider that science has far more legitimacy than a simple belief in Animism ever would, so in accordance, science is far likelier to provoke that blind adherence to belief because of the legitimacy that science offers with the labels such as facts, maybe not as powerful as theism, but certainly more than non theist spirituality. Even if you say that science would regulate itself with its rigorous rules, it is still just as liable as anything to fall under the grasp of people who may want to use its influence to advance their goals.

[Blarg]

If religion dissapears, it's because it's not needed anymore (from an evolutionary standpoint).

For the most part people aren't religious because they NEED it, they are religious because they were taught it. (not for everyone of course)

From an evolutionary standpoint not every aspect/trait of a individual/species is required for it to be alive and function, so you can not say that because religion is still around it is needed. There are some countries where the high majority of the population is non religious/atheist and they are doing exceptionally well. These people didn't just all of a sudden stop believing when they became well off and no longer needed what religion gives to people, they were just not brought up believing it.

[Neosutra]

So did your bold text and swearing.


But in all seriousness, how can you reject

Gaudel theorem + need of a greater infinite to understand a lesser one.

Both theorem have mathematical demonstrations. Unless you want to attack the essence of maths (something I hope you're not stupid enough to do), you shouldn't even bother.



I'm going to have to ignore your next post if you don't simply want to call me stupid and avoid the mathematics. It's getting beyond pointless.

\

First off, it's:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

And secondly, those address the philosophy of mathematics, and are not to be interpreted as directed limitations to physical models of any system. You need to get off this soap box sophmoric view of the universe and understand you know very little about what models we current do have and are capable of developing. This is not your area of expertise, please stop telling me what we wont be able to know and quoting arbitrary "math" postulates to attempt to add validity to your sinking argument.

[Kuya]

Neosutra correcting someone's spelling.

I think you knew this already, but au = o (sound) in French.

[Demosthenes11]

\

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/48...20da7209ca.jpg

I enjoy contributing

[Kaylia]

For the most part people aren't religious because they NEED it, they are religious because they were taught it. (not for everyone of course)

From an evolutionary standpoint not every aspect/trait of a individual/species is required for it to be alive and function, so you can not say that because religion is still around it is needed. There are some countries where the high majority of the population is non religious/atheist and they are doing exceptionally well. These people didn't just all of a sudden stop believing when they became well off and no longer needed what religion gives to people, they were just not brought up believing it.

That's not entirely true, most kids go through a rejection phase where they reject their parents' religion. I would agree with you if people never changed their beliefs, but that's not the case.

Why do you think many people consider religion so important? Why people brains accept spiritual beliefs so easily? One answer could be that it is comforting? Another is because it's needed to keep a society organized?

Anyway, correct or not, I'm sure religion had its use in the past. Can we replace it with something else? Maybe, maybe not...evolution will do its job and eliminate the uneficient behavior.

And secondly, those address the philosophy of mathematics, and are not to be interpreted as directed limitations to physical models of any system. You need to get off this soap box sophmoric view of the universe and understand you know very little about what models we current do have and are capable of developing. This is not your area of expertise, please stop telling me what we wont be able to know and quoting arbitrary "math" postulates to attempt to add validity to your sinking argument.

You're hopeless. If it work mathematically, you have to disprove it mathematically. If you want to argue there is "2 mathematics", let me know when you're done with your model.


What "sophmoric view" do I have? Could you please describe thing instead of spewing bullshit left and right.

What's your view? What's my "sophmoric" view? How your view reject the need of a greater dimension to explain a lower one with your "advanced view"?

[Kaylia]

Gonna try to guess your next post


Neosutra: HOLY JESUS, how can you be so wrong [avoid saying why or how it's false]. I'm working on a consistant model that explain itself [no hints about the model, no one can argue this way]. It's using mathematics, but it's so consistant it doesn't have to follow logics [ignore logics].

[Blarg]

That's not entirely true, most kids go through a rejection phase where they reject their parents' religion. I would agree with you if people never changed their beliefs, but that's not the case.

Why do you think many people consider religion so important? Why people brains accept spiritual beliefs so easily? One answer could be that it is comforting? Another is because it's needed to keep a society organized?

Anyway, correct or not, I'm sure religion had its use in the past. Can we replace it with something else? Maybe, maybe not...evolution will do its job and eliminate the uneficient behavior.

Don't expect evolution to work the same way in our world, humans go against what makes sense as far as best traits survive all the time. Instead of mutations making certain people immune to diseases we have drugs that do this for us, so these natural benefits really do nothing as far as procreation and passing them on goes.

You say most kids end up rejecting religion but with a 80%~ christian America this doesn't really hold true. Sure teens are more likely to rebel against religion but what aren't they rebelling against? It's not them choosing just religion and not believing in it, it's them choosing as much as they can and rebelling, religion is just included in that.

One answer could be that it is comforting? Another is because it's needed to keep a society organized?

In my last 1-2 posts I said how some countries are very atheistic and are well organized and exhibit lower incarceration rates, better life expectancy, and all sorts of things that contribute to a highly functioning safe society. If it was really required, it may have been in the past like how we have said, but if it was still required to keep a society organized these non religious society's would be falling apart or at least not showing above average traits.

If you were to all of a sudden in 1 day take religion away from everyone in the world you would of course have problems because you are taking away a big part of someones life. If this removal of religion happened over generations where kids were not indoctrinated there would be far fewer problems because religion hasn't had a chance to take root in their lives.

Just how necessary do you think religion is these days anyway? I'm not sure if you are just playing devils advocate here or not.

[Cow_k]

I noticed this a page or two back, but for anyone who thinks that religion is the cause for all the so-called religious wars of the past has to be kidding themselves. There will always be people who use the weak minded to serve their own goals be it with religion, money or politics. Maybe we would have lost a few wars here or there, but there's a good chance we might have seen different ones with different names in their places.

All the easily persuaded theists that people seem to blame for everything have to go somewhere if religion is gone and you can bet that we'll see the same problems that exist now.

Edit: And for Blarg, while I can agree that for some people religion is completely useless, how many people have managed to quit smoking, stop doing drugs, stop using alcohol or other self destructive behavior claiming that religion was the only thing that helped them when nothing else worked? I don't think that all religion is pointless nor destructive even though it can be used in that way just like everything else.

[Kaylia]

I'm not saying that the benefit of religion are exclusive to religion, but you can't deny them (assuming they exist) simply because there is different alternative.

Japan for example is considered very atheistic because there is no major religion established, but they still have popular spiritual beliefs to make up for it.


How necessary is religion these days? Organized religion? spiritual beliefs? Both? I really don't know. I'm certain that someone who follow moral guideline imposed by certain religion will be a better person for the society than some self centered atheist.

If we look case by case and make an average, I would say that religion is probably harmless.

[Neosutra]

Wow, just blew right past that philisophical interpretation of Godel's theorem and ignored everything posted. You sure do argue like a theist.

Every Kaylia's post:

"ZOMG like math proves you cant have a model that I dont understand lulz".

And yes, you are an idiot.

[Kaylia]

Wow, just blew right past that philisophical interpretation of Godel's theorem and ignored everything posted. You sure do argue like a theist.

Every Kaylia's post:

"ZOMG like math proves you cant have a model that I dont understand lulz".

And yes, you are an idiot.

Where is the philosophical interpretation you're talking about. It's strictly mathematical.


A model IS a mathematics interpretation of the universe. Saying you can avoid mathematics logics is retarded, but mathematically, philosophically and physically.

[0ni0n]

I noticed this a page or two back, but for anyone who thinks that religion is the cause for all the so-called religious wars of the past has to be kidding themselves. There will always be people who use the weak minded to serve their own goals be it with religion, money or politics. Maybe we would have lost a few wars here or there, but there's a good chance we might have seen different ones with different names in their places.

All the easily persuaded theists that people seem to blame for everything have to go somewhere if religion is gone and you can bet that we'll see the same problems that exist now.

Edit: And for Blarg, while I can agree that for some people religion is completely useless, how many people have managed to quit smoking, stop doing drugs, stop using alcohol or other self destructive behavior claiming that religion was the only thing that helped them when nothing else worked? I don't think that all religion is pointless nor destructive even though it can be used in that way just like everything else.

By the token of your argument, if there's no religion, i am sure people who used religion to quit smoking, stop doing drugs, stop using alcohol or other self destructive behavior would also find something else to help themselves.

Perhaps people would be used in wars and atrocities with excuse other than religion, but that doesn't make religion any less of a tool. Spanish inquisition, the oppression of science in medieval period, the crusades, were all deeply rooted in religion. The point i am trying to get across that religion has more harm than good for humanity and it's becoming fast obsolete in many parts of the world.

[Blarg]

If we look case by case and make an average, I would say that religion is probably harmless.

I've already said this but... 'good people do good things, bad people do bad things, and good people do bad things when they follow dogma'

Get rid of religion and you have the good people still doing good, bad still being bad, and those who followed the dogma are now good again.

Japan for example is considered very atheistic because there is no major religion established, but they still have popular spiritual beliefs to make up for it.

Sweden and Denmark were the countries that I didn't name earlier. As far as I know they aren't very spiritual either. In whatever those surveys of bests cities/countries to live these 2 come up near the top in many many categories. Low suicide rates would suggest that they don't require a religion or spiritual view point to make up for anything, since it's really not required at all.

How necessary is religion these days? Organized religion? spiritual beliefs? Both? I really don't know. I'm certain that someone who follow moral guideline imposed by certain religion will be a better person for the society than some self centered atheist.

Well how many of the guidelines of their religion is this person going to follow, they are not all good as you know, follow the wrong ones and you are one of those good people who do bad things. I may choose to follow gods law that females are not allowed to speak in church, this won't be good at all.

A self centered anyone will probably do little for society, and a charitable anyone will do good for society.

[Kuya]

If you don't mind repeating yourself, what were you suggesting with the bit about largely atheist nations, Blarg?

[Kaylia]

A self centered anyone will probably do little for society, and a charitable anyone will do good for society.

Yep, but the question is, are you going to get more charitable anyone if people follow a particular religion.

If you consider religion as a teaching, and those morale guideline are good (ie: love everyone), it shoud increase the amount of charitable person.

[Blarg]

If you don't mind repeating yourself, what were you suggesting with the bit about largely atheist nations, Blarg?

Kaylia seemed to be stating that religion, and possibly spiritual belief, is necessary based on the fact that evolution hasn't selected against it, as well as some other reasons I think. I stated that if it were actually necessary a nation/country that exhibited low spirituality and religion should show negative effects because they are lacking something inherently important. Since these 2 countries that I mention actually show above average results the assumption that it is necessary is likely false.

[Cow_k]

See, what I'm trying to argue is that religion doesn't cause more bad than good, but rather the people who use religion as a scapegoat for their wrong doings.

I mean, most of America is overweight now, does that mean that food does more bad than good and we should stop eating and just have controlled injections or something? I know that's an extreme, but it's the people that abuse these things that are the problem. I'd say that alcohol does more harm than good, yet people worldwide accept it. Unfortunately, a lot of good things end up abused and used by people when given a chance. Until we become a society where all mood is controlled by psychotropic drugs and all we care about is base survival, we'll always have these problems. Religion at it's core (at least much religion) teaches overall decent practices and if you really follow the core tenants of a religion you'll usually live a peaceful happy life.