Faith and Reason.

[Melchiah]

Better read up on your Asian history. There is a ton of violence between Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs in India. See India's and Pakistan's independences in 1948 and the fallout of Operation Blue Star in the '80s.

You mentioned Muslims, they are a branch of the Yahweh faith, and at the end of WWI the Ottoman Empire was broken up. That was bound to have violent repercussions, but it still isn't on the scale of the wars fought between Jew, Christian and Muslim. More violence in history can be attributed to one or more of these three faiths.

[thatwasnifty]

You mentioned Muslims, they are a branch of the Yahweh faith, and at the end of WWI the Ottoman Empire was broken up. That was bound to have violent repercussions, but it still isn't on the scale of the wars fought between Jew, Christian and Muslim. More violence in history can be attributed to one or more of these three faiths.

You're right in that there weren't any equivalents to the Crusades or Inquisition in India, but that doesn't discount the religiously-motivated violence that has and still does occur. My point was just that it's not only the Abrahamic faiths that are guilty, and the "penchant for violence" that you mentioned is an inherent quality of other faiths, as well.

For that matter, you could probably also count Japanese aggression in the first half of the 20th century as Shinto extremism, since they were motivated by the belief that they were divinely chosen to rule over the Pacific. It wasn't a purely religious motivation and it may have just been rhetoric for greed, but the fact that the Japanese seemed to buy it suggests that we can attribute the rape of Nanking and similar events to religion.

[Max™]

Claiming that people wouldn't kill each other if we weren't tainted by the insanity of religion is so fucking retarded it hurts my soul.

Watch Chimpanzee's sometime, they go to war just like we do. Except we have better sticks and rocks to crack each others skulls open with.

Those are our nearest living cousins, our grandfathers and theirs walked africa together.

We happened to excel at tool use, and that is why there are no other hominids walking around with us, we are warlike, violent, ignorant apes, rising fitfully towards true sentience.

[thatwasnifty]

Sorry that I unintentionally hurt your soul, but that's not what I said (or at least meant to say). Ultimately, all religious violence is just an excuse for fearing and hating the "Other." Without religion, people would just have to rely on other constructs to justify their violence. A problem with religion, though, is that it is inherently divisive and exacerbates this fear by claiming that only you have the key to the Truth and the Other is at best unaware and needs to be properly taught, and at worst an impediment to you that needs to be forcefully removed.

[Max™]

Wasn't just you, several people have implied this, and it's completely fucking ridiculous.

People use religion as an excuse for violence, but yes, they would, and have, and do use others.

That's why I generally say faith is fine, religion is bad, organized religion is the worst.

[Neosutra]

I'm not arguing from, for, or against a christian standpoint.

I don't have a problem with people who have faith, it's the problem of people getting involved in interpreting it.

Science doesn't discount god, it is just a bad hypothesis as it is outside the realm of experiment, and thus unfalsifiable.

My manifold argument is as well, but is derived from a logical standpoint, that being the Copernican principle, which holds true throughout the entirety of this universe... so it's as good a starting point as any, I'd say.

God on the other hand is just our dim brains groping towards a reason, as there is no sign of God within the Universe, it is not as logical.

If you can replace the word Manifold with God in each of your sentences and have it be equally as illogical/unprovable, then it isnt any more of a legitamite theory. As stated before, you are listing the -exact- same theist arguments for divine creation, but are adding a bit of physics flavor to them to convince yourself your views arent as trivial as the common man.

To go further, you stated I was "over reacting" in my attacks on religion. I havent bombed any churches, nor insulted my religious friends, nor have I stated that the concept of god is an impossibility (more of an improbability and theory of no merit until some evidence arrises). In reality, all I have done is deconstruct the common theist arguements in this thread, and debate the degradation that blind faith causes to our society.

In the end, my goal is to have our species move towards acceptance that we must have standards for what we hold to be true, and remove such superstitions that do not pass these tests and thus serve only to delude our intellectual qualities and supress knowledge.

If humanity is to survive the next 1000 years, it will be with the tools of reason, not faith.

[Max™]

I see a lot of the same outrage against religion in your arguments as I had, but again, you're overlooking the logic behind my manifold of universes argument.

Trivializing it by saying it is the same as theist arguments isn't fair, as the Copernican principle doesn't point to God, but it does point to our Universe not being the center of all things.

I arrived at this first, later I learned about faith and religion and god, and figured God would have to be in the manifold if it existed.

If the Copernican principle stops at the edge of the Universe, then we are in a special place at a special time, is that more satisfying to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

Then

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Collins & Hawking (1973) characterise Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[22] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder. In this sense, the anthropic principle is in direct opposition to design arguments.

I am arguing against a theistic, purposed, intelligently designed creation.

I am arguing that we're here observing our existence because it is a natural outcome of an infinite manifold of universes.

I have considered possible states OF that manifold having some selection effects on Universes, but that is not the crux of my argument, just an offshoot.

1. The absurd universe

Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

2. The unique universe

There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

3. The multiverse

Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

4. Creationism

A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.

5. The life principle

There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.

6. The self-explaining universe

A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

7. The fake universe

We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

It also mentions my favorite, Lee Smolins Fecund Universes, which is roughly the version I arrived at on my own, to find out he had proposed it as well was intellectually satisfying.

[Neosutra]

I see a lot of the same outrage against religion in your arguments as I had, but again, you're overlooking the logic behind my manifold of universes argument.

Trivializing it by saying it is the same as theist arguments isn't fair, as the Copernican principle doesn't point to God, but it does point to our Universe not being the center of all things.

I arrived at this first, later I learned about faith and religion and god, and figured God would have to be in the manifold if it existed.

If the Copernican principle stops at the edge of the Universe, then we are in a special place at a special time, is that more satisfying to you?

First, equating my distaste for religion to some sophmoric perspective that you have shed for a more enlightened view is insulting and completely inaccurate. It seems to me that you are confusing the difference between the 'humanity isnt the center of everything' aspect of copernican principle as a justification for specified and unique existance (i.e. if there are many universes, then this one is unique), but the relativistic or modern use of the copernican principle leads us to quite an opposite conclusion. That in fact our existance is trivial in the extent that not only is our planet not the center of everything, but our universe may not even be uniquely special or independent.

The fact that you derived a manifold theory (a -highly- overly simplistic view of some of the concepts of string theory) and then wrapped it arround some theistic ideas you apperantly adapted afterwards doesnt show some amazing innovation or new perspective of our universe, but rather yet another person with an incomplete picture of the universe, wrapping what little physics they know of higher dimensions around the concept they want to be true of "god". Your perspective is absolutely no different than a person that states "well god did it" when asked where the universe comes from, you just add a few more scientific words to make it sound more complex.

I know the last paragraph may have sounded insulting, but take a second and think about what I said. I dont expect you to be an expert of string theory (im not), and i've yet to meet a true expert on the subject. There is just a simple fact that while some concepts may seem neat at this stage in your education, taking your limited perception of them and wrapping them around theistic hypothesis is reckless and serves to only make yourself feel like you have a good grasp of things (kind of how the concept of god makes common theists feel they have a grasp of things).

Additionally, you brought of the concept of negative actions occuring with or w/o religion, I suggest you read the first dozen pages of this thread, as it was already addressed that it isnt the actions that mankind takes that demonstrates faith's destructive nature, but the motivation for these actions. A man that is prejudice due to his upbringing can have that prejudice removed via education, counceling, and experience. However someone that believes another race is of lower stature because their god told them so will find it much harder to change those prejudices. It all goes back to applying a standard to what we call fact. As you progress in your education to move towards becoming a practicing scientist, I hope you start embracing that more, and realize that while some hypothesis may seem "comfortable" to you or inherent, you need to back them up and really put them to the test.

[Linliel]

Hang on, saying "You can't say something being statistically unlikely is an argument because it's really statistically unlikely my hand is here" is not a valid argument itself ^^;

Sure your hand is statistically unlikely, but you lucked out. Do you discount all statistical analyses of things because it's statistically unlikely your hand is here?

[Neosutra]

Again, it isnt statistically unlikely that we are here, and that shouldnt be used as an argument in any thread. Life exists where the conditions arise to support it. How can you say it is more statistically likely that we would have evolved in quandrant 2-3 of the universe's radial axes instead of where we are right now? Space is a big pile of nothingless with some matter in it, stating probability for chemical reactions to occur in any specific location in "nothingness" is illogical. "Well why didnt we form 2 feet to the left?!"

[Linliel]

Again, it isnt statistically unlikely that we are here, and that shouldnt be used as an argument in any thread. Life exists where the conditions arise to support it. How can you say it is more statistically likely that we would have evolved in quandrant 2-3 of the universe's radial axes instead of where we are right now? Space is a big pile of nothingless with some matter in it, stating probability for chemical reactions to occur in any specific location in "nothingness" is illogical. "Well why didnt we form 2 feet to the left?!"

Yeah exactly ^^; I lost the original quote where whoever it was said it ... aha it was heartslaught, but yeah heartslaught, you might want to reconsider that statement ^^

[Kaylia]

Based on what we currently understand. Maybe, *shocker* the cause of existence is something that left a testable mark on our universe. Maybe the whole of reality is a looping cycle. Einstein said himself, there's nothing in the whole of his research that suggests time can't work both ways. You can't assume that origin is something that's impossible to know, because you really don't know. We may never know, or we could learn the truth tomorrow. Either way, God has never been the right answer. I'd rather live not knowing the reason behind creation then to pretend I have an answer based on a delusion.

Let's say you find a particles with 2 states that explain space/time interaction, what happen next? Are you going to say "we understand everything" and stop looking? This will be a satisfying explanation as to why everything came into existance, including this particles?

Your definition of knowledge here is just plain wrong. You don't "understand" your axiom, you accept them.

Um, Entropy (within this universe) increases.

I was quoting Neo's word

Regarding your comment about infinity, yes there are hierarchies of infinity, but infinity is different than simply an arbitrarily large number, and causality within an infinite state would more likely be circular than linear, I'd think.

Infinity can't be defined in your initial structure mathematically. If you manage to understand such structure, you will be able to ask yourself the same question: why this stucture appeared out of thin air?

[Neosutra]

Was refering to the lowest state of entropy (greatest availability for a system's energy to do work).

All systems attempt to move towards equilibrium as it's own form of order, it is this resultant push towards disorder that results in the development of more complex systems that most efficiently create this balance with the compounds available.

And no one stated that we were looking for a single theory that explained "everything", nor did we state that some particle could be found that explained "everything". You are only arguing against yourself kaylia.

[Kaylia]

Was refering to the lowest state of entropy (greatest availability for a system's energy to do work).

All systems attempt to move towards equilibrium as it's own form of order, it is this resultant push towards disorder that results in the development of more complex systems that most efficiently create this balance with the compounds available.

And no one stated that we were looking for a single theory that explained "everything", nor did we state that some particle could be found that explained "everything". You are only arguing against yourself kaylia.

I never said I wasn't fine with enthropy principle, I was asking how you come up with concept such as "better" and "worse" with this alone.

[Melchiah]

You're right in that there weren't any equivalents to the Crusades or Inquisition in India, but that doesn't discount the religiously-motivated violence that has and still does occur. My point was just that it's not only the Abrahamic faiths that are guilty, and the "penchant for violence" that you mentioned is an inherent quality of other faiths, as well.

For that matter, you could probably also count Japanese aggression in the first half of the 20th century as Shinto extremism, since they were motivated by the belief that they were divinely chosen to rule over the Pacific. It wasn't a purely religious motivation and it may have just been rhetoric for greed, but the fact that the Japanese seemed to buy it suggests that we can attribute the rape of Nanking and similar events to religion.

I broke my own rule here and made an assertion on other faiths that I am not familiar enough with to make assertions. However, this just serves to solidify my larger point that religion reinforces violence, division and discrimination.

What Max says is probably true, but if we can systematically strip away irrational excuses that we use to justify violence, I propose that as rational beings we will begin to discard violent tendencies that we can no longer justify to each other.

[Neosutra]

Rational beings moving past violence? But you're an atheist, you have no compasion or morals, surely you jest about this utopian concept of humanitarianism. And to Kaylia: Better or worse than what? What did I say was better or worse than something else when talking about entropic states?

[Ratatapa]

MY vision of life is this

Your mom give birth to you ----> you become a child and go to school -----> Adult and go to work ------> old man and get dumped by your kids in an old folk home----> die.


That is what life is

[Kaylia]

Rational beings moving past violence? But you're an atheist, you have no compasion or morals, surely you jest about this utopian concept of humanitarianism. And to Kaylia: Better or worse than what? What did I say was better or worse than something else when talking about entropic states?

I'm pretty sure you said a few time that religious beliefs are bad.

[Linliel]

MY vision of life is this

Your mom give birth to you ----> you become a child and go to school -----> Adult and go to work ------> old man and get dumped by your kids in an old folk home----> die.


That is what life is

Speak for yourself! My life is much more exciting!

[Melchiah]

Rational beings moving past violence? But you're an atheist, you have no compasion or morals, surely you jest about this utopian concept of humanitarianism. And to Kaylia: Better or worse than what? What did I say was better or worse than something else when talking about entropic states?

Yeah I know this is sarcasm. Kaylia got whooshed.

Also, my position is agnostic rather than atheist. I won't discount the possibility of a creator or a designer. However I do wholeheartedly reject the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. It's bunk, a control scheme, and an archaic delusion. Nonsense.

To animals, our species would probably appear as godlike. Therefore, if all minds are not created equal, it is arrogant to assume oneself to be the pinnacle of intelligence. There very likely is an intelligence higher than our own, however if it does exist it either has deigned not to reveal itself to us in a manner that we recognize, or it is incapable of doing so.

This is not to say that if there is a higher intelligence than our own it is necessarily responsible for our propagation.