What Religion are you?

[Faris]

sorry, i was wrong. He's Baptist.

[Diamicles]

4- Islam eleminates class between the society. everyone is the same.

even women? or do the men have to wear Burqas as well?

[Neosutra]

Order doesn't require organized government any more than being good requires religion.

I dare you to make a thread about this. It's quite literally exactly what you argue endlessly against when it's something you disagree with. The hilarity of watching you argue the same points many have made against you, except in full neoretarded glory, would be amazing.

So the massive amount of trade, regulation, taxation, and resource management that any given nation has today is superfluous and the people of that area would be just fine without it..

I guess all the people of a land would band together and hold hands across any region to solve everything. Crime would stop completely, economic markets wouldnt crash because foreign goods would tariff themselves, and other groups of people wouldnt invade your lands because they are nice like that! The desert areas would be just fine without the water management and sharing between states. The colder areas of the nation would be just fine w/o the energy management, because who needs heat in Utah when it is 20 below!? Food production companies would self regulate what pesticides they put in your food. Elderly would just get jobs and get their asses off social security. Everything would be great! Millions of people totally wouldnt die.

I know it is your trend to argue the losing side of any debate Plow, but I would love to see you chase this one down, and again show us all how completely sophomoric your views on the world and life really are. I have a lot of work to do today, so take your time and spend at least 30 minutes on google (twice the time you need to master physics!) and show me how 300 million people in america would live w/o government. Please, Ron Paul this debate up some more.

And news flash Plow: Agencies that establish "Order" in a social/economic environments are also called "governments".

[zoobernut]

Plow your ideas of math and how it works are completely false. Seriously don't start talking about how math works when you don't understand it.

I would argue that throughout my math classes, and I have taken many, from the most basic level when I was a child to the most advanced math when I was in college it was at least 95% proofs.

This means that 95% of the time wasn't just teaching me math principles it was proving why they work and why they are what they are. So everything you said about "I will wait while you count" crap is so out of wack with reality.

Like I said in my last post either you did not go to school or you just don't understand how math works. Math doesn't take anything on faith, you start at the bottom and build up on it.

It is also retarded to say that you have to go through this process every time you want to do something math related. If I proved to myself that 2+2 = 4 when I was young I don't need to re-prove that for the rest of my life every time I need to use that piece of knowledge in another math problem.

[Zosi]

The difference between "Zero is not the successor of any natural number"* and "God exists and is omnipotent" is that the former is falsifiable but impossible to systematically prove true, whereas the latter is cleverly designed to be impossible to prove false and unnecessary to prove true. At least mathematicians are honest - when they base their reasoning off of axioms, they admit that the axioms are impossible to prove within the system and attempt to make the axioms as self-evident as possible. We could turn this philosophical and debate empiricism all day, but I don't think that's really necessary - if you really think that the existence of God and the foundations of number theory and formal logic are equally self-evident, you're beyond help.

* - Yes, this is somewhat of an arbitrary example. I picked an axiom that you might actually understand, even though something from axiomatic set theory would probably have been a better example of a "fundamental" axiom.

[Yuri-G]

Really? Have you personally counted 5,280x5,280 to make sure there's exactly 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile? Do you think anyone has?

Hint: I'm not talking about *just* when we teach math to young children. (Which, btw, to whoever that was that said "lol that's how we do it!" no, multiplication tables are almost universally taught purely through memorization now, only the most basic concepts are actually exemplified)

You're missing the point:

What is a mathematical proof? 2x+6=10 extremely simple, subtract 6 from 10 and divide by 2, x=2. Now, to prove it, would you then say ok, make 2 stacks of 2 beans, then another stack of 6 beans. Combine them all, and see that you have 10 beans. 'I'll wait while you count.'

No. You would use math. You would say ok, to prove it, we multiply 2x2, then add 6. This gives us 10, proving we are right.

I really hope *SOMEONE* around here is seeing what I'm getting at before I actually say this, because I *know* some (neo) are going to completely miss the point even when I do.

Proving math is correct by using math is directly comparable to proving "God's word" is correct by using the bible. At some point, you are trusting that your knowledge is the factual reality of the universe. (In your personal case, Max, I'm pretty sure you are trusting that it's the factual reality of all universes of all times, no?) Where do you make that distinction? Counting beans vs. trusting those who have studied math before you? "Going back in time" and watching the original big bang and observing billions of years of evolution, or trusting those who have studied religion before you?

What I'm getting at is that everyone has their own definition of when something is thoroughly proven enough to be factual. Yes, your "side" has millions who have intensely studied math to determine the reality. The other "side" has millions who have intensely studied religion to determine the reality. I assure you, just as there are multitudes who have studied math and physics far beyond myself, there are multitudes who have studied theology far beyond yourself.

I'm trying to be nice here but you are either purposefully trolling or one of the most ignorant people I have ever met. this is one of those things where I literally feel stupider after reading it.

we don't prove math by using math, we prove math by applying the logical principles of the universe to it. I have one stone, then I pick up another one, I now have two stones. 1 + 1 = 2. the terms 1, 2, +, and = are all defined by man, but even if we didn't have those terms, 1 + 1 would still = 2. we just wouldn't have a way to describe that concept, it would still exist. and in fact, different cultures have different ways of describing this concept, but whether you're using decimal math, hexidecimal math, or mayan math, it all adds up the same. 1 + 1 will always = 2 no matter how you look at it. it's just how the universe works.

I'm not a mathematician or any sort of expert on the subject so I should probably let someone else take this one, but I just couldn't let it go. if you really believe what you just posted, I honestly feel sorry for you - but then again, maybe I shouldn't. you seem to be fairly happy living in your delusion, kudos I guess. if it works for you, fine. just don't try to pollute the real world with your psychotic misconceptions.

[Zosi]

I was actually going to post something like that, but decided to go simpler. Since you brought it up, I'll post the whole thing.

Mathematical axioms are patterned after our observations about the world, particularly our brain's recognition of quantity and multiplicity. For example, the reflexivity of equality is based on the observation that as long as a collection of objects remains unchanged, counting it always gets the same answer. From that, we move on to multiple quantities, and observe that if we count one quantity then another and get the same answer, that doesn't change if we count the other quantity first. After a while we start changing the quantities, and noticing that adding an object to each of two equal quantities of objects doesn't change the fact that they're equal. Eventually we define "zero" as the result of counting nothing, and make the observation that no matter how many objects we add to a collection of one or more, we never seem to end up with a quantity of zero.

This is how mathematics is built up, and with the inclusion of formal logic (which is equally patterned on our brain's perception of the field in question, namely the concepts of truth and falsehood and the rules governing "truthiness values"), we can combine the things we've "proven" to reach even more interesting conclusions. The key is that anyone can verify these basic steps, using exactly the steps I described above. The results are intuitive, they match what we expect would happen in the actual world, and that's what gives mathematics its legitimacy.

[Yuri-G]

yeah, see, I knew I should have let someone who actually knew what they were talking about explain it lol. much better post than mine. but that's what I was getting at.

[Max™]

You know what Religion is to me?

A meme, know what another source of memes is?

4chan.

Would the world be better, or worse, if 4chan didn't exist?

Easily better, you'd say, for while it may be amusing, nothing really beneficial comes out of there.


Does religion cause people to aspire to become better in some cases?

Yes... do I honestly believe those people would not have done what they did if they were logical, faithless, well educated humans?

No. Religion as a reason is feeble, religion as an excuse is lame.


It literally has no more basis in reality than Grimm's Fairy Tales, we made this shit up, there is no proof you can point towards, no experiment you can perform that shows the existence of god.

It is an idea, a particularly dangerous one, because it encourages selflessness BEYOND the point of benefiting your species. It promises more life, in exchange for giving up your life.

This is insane, how do you not see it?

If I told you I would get you out of jail, if you go rob a bank and get arrested, would you believe me?

If you would, maybe you should be going to church, you're just the type of person they're looking for.


What made me so hateful towards religion, Firas?

Logic, having the unfortunate timing to live in America during these last few years, having seen the bloody history of our world, which was undeniably made bloodier BY faith and religion, in a way which nothing else could have done.

Realizing that the sheepbrained majority are holding back our advancement as a species, by clinging to their stupid goddamn fairy tales, and their stupid fucking dreams of an afterlife.

Being able to simply extrapolate where we could go as a species if not for the hobble that religion has put on us.... all of these things made me HATE this stupid infection of the mind.


You might be happy with people squabbling over this ball of dirt until "the end times", and you might be happy hoping that there will be a "great reckoning", and things will be "set right, how god wants them to be"...

I know better, I know that shit doesn't happen, I know we made this shit up, and there will be no apocalypse, there will be no great reckoning, there will be no last judgment, and no afterlife.

I know that this INSANITY is killing my species, is hindering out chances of getting out into the Universe before some actual catastrophe befalls us, not some bullshit mythical made up one, but a real one, like a quasar going off near us, a massive asteroid taking out a continent, a global plague... or our own stupidity being whipped into a religious fervor and finally triggering a global nuclear exchange.

It disgusts me that my future rests in the hands of people so feebleminded they can't tell the difference between REALITY, and a goddamn STORY.


So that, is what made me this way towards faith.

Let me know what science has done to hold you back from your potential, to risk your life, to make your life undeniably worse, to make you so willing to remain ignorant and blind.

[Ksandra]

Let me know what science has done to hold you back from your potential, to risk your life, to make your life undeniably worse, to make you so willing to remain ignorant and blind.

http://www.topnews.in/health/files/Cocaine.jpg


I just...oh you meant the GOOD SCIENCE

[edit] accidentally wrong image

[Effluo]

More and more I think Max was touched by a preist.

[Neosutra]

More and more I think Max was touched by a preist.

I love when theists get owned so hard that they have nothing more to come back with than "oh some preist/preacher/reverand must have raped you". As if the massive destruction, logical fallacies, attack on knowledge, wars, oppression, and bigotry werent enough to make people go "fuck that shit", we have to personally be raped by a priest to be against religion.

Maybe if more people were raped by priests the theist would start questioning their dogma.

Time to put on my catholic preist outfit (and yes I do own one) and bend some theists over.

[Effluo]

I love when theists get owned so hard that they have nothing more to come back with than "oh some preist/preacher/reverand must have raped you". As if the massive destruction, logical fallacies, attack on knowledge, wars, oppression, and bigotry werent enough to make people go "fuck that shit", we have to personally be raped by a priest to be against religion.

Maybe if more people were raped by priests the theist would start questioning their dogma.

Time to put on my catholic preist outfit (and yes I do own one) and bend some theists over.

I love when Neo goes all internet raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggge and threatens to put on his preistly robes and hand out some justice.

I want to be first Neo... please don't make me beg

[zoobernut]

He is right though Effluo any time someone disagrees with religion or the belief in god they are "angry at their parents, molested by a priest, insert any random excuse that has nothing to do with the discussion here"

It is a really lame thing to say.

[Effluo]

Heyheyheyhey... I never said Molested, i said touched. You sick bastards are the ones who went there... Could have a been a good touch... PERVERTS!

[Ksandra]

He is right though Effluo any time someone disagrees with religion or the belief in god they are "angry at their parents, molested by a priest, insert any random excuse that has nothing to do with the discussion here"

It is a really lame thing to say.

equally those that do agree with religion are just "a product of upbringing and brainwashed and naive"

and thus the thread goes in circles in circles in circles in circles

[zoobernut]

Well I never said religion is just a product of upbringing sometimes people decide to believe in things on their own or for other reasons. I agree with you religion is a much more complex issue than just upbringing.

I do believe that a lot of religions out there got a free pass from the crazy card because they are so old that no one questions them or the books that were written and I think it is absurd and ridiculously hypocritical when someone who believes in one religion makes fun of another just because it is newer.

Christianity is not any more true than Scientology just because it is older. It just has more history. (just to give an example)

Same thing Christianity is not any more true than the Church of Mormon just because it is older. John Smith may have been on to something.

Or on the flip side if anyone came forward today and started to make the claims that Jesus made or that Mary made about the virgin birth and such they would be put into a mental institution or at least looked at funny. Those kinds of claims today certainly do not motivate thousands and millions to follow them.

Edit: If you are going to support the idea of religion you better support peoples rights to follow all of them and not be selective because no single god and no single religion is any more valid than the next.

[Max™]

More and more I think Max was touched by a preist.

Certainly hope you don't mean Catholic priest, I've ALWAYS known the Catholics were fucked, before I even developed my current hatred of religion. I've never set foot in a Catholic church.

I've never been alone and near an actual priest, never been molested, or abused, I don't come to this position from one of injustice.

I got here by logic, and study.

I learned to hate religion, by learning what it really is.

[Plow]

So the massive amount of trade, regulation, taxation, and resource management that any given nation has today is superfluous and the people of that area would be just fine without it..

I guess all the people of a land would band together and hold hands across any region to solve everything. Crime would stop completely,

There's clearly no crime when there's government.

economic markets wouldnt crash because foreign goods would tariff themselves,

Economies never crash under government.

and other groups of people wouldnt invade your lands because they are nice like that!

No government has ever invaded another land.

etc. etc.

The desert areas would be just fine without the water management and sharing between states. The colder areas of the nation would be just fine w/o the energy management, because who needs heat in Utah when it is 20 below!? Food production companies would self regulate what pesticides they put in your food. Elderly would just get jobs and get their asses off social security. Everything would be great! Millions of people totally wouldnt die.

I know it is your trend to argue the losing side of any debate Plow, but I would love to see you chase this one down, and again show us all how completely sophomoric your views on the world and life really are. I have a lot of work to do today, so take your time and spend at least 30 minutes on google (twice the time you need to master physics!) and show me how 300 million people in america would live w/o government. Please, Ron Paul this debate up some more.

I'm nowhere remotely near an anarchist.

If you want to argue with one, make a thread. Or are you afraid that Guartz of all people will make you look like a complete retard?

Or just sit here trying to argue it in a religion thread, literally making direct points people make for religion, except since it's government you're totally ok with it.

Since daddy wasn't a politician, and it won't piss him off to go the other way.

And news flash Plow: Agencies that establish "Order" in a social/economic environments are also called "governments".

Who said anything about agencies establishing the order?

Some scientist around here must have missed the section in their science class about natural order.

I was actually going to post something like that, but decided to go simpler. Since you brought it up, I'll post the whole thing.

Mathematical axioms are patterned after our observations about the world, particularly our brain's recognition of quantity and multiplicity. For example, the reflexivity of equality is based on the observation that as long as a collection of objects remains unchanged, counting it always gets the same answer. From that, we move on to multiple quantities, and observe that if we count one quantity then another and get the same answer, that doesn't change if we count the other quantity first. After a while we start changing the quantities, and noticing that adding an object to each of two equal quantities of objects doesn't change the fact that they're equal. Eventually we define "zero" as the result of counting nothing, and make the observation that no matter how many objects we add to a collection of one or more, we never seem to end up with a quantity of zero.

This is how mathematics is built up, and with the inclusion of formal logic (which is equally patterned on our brain's perception of the field in question, namely the concepts of truth and falsehood and the rules governing "truthiness values"), we can combine the things we've "proven" to reach even more interesting conclusions. The key is that anyone can verify these basic steps, using exactly the steps I described above. The results are intuitive, they match what we expect would happen in the actual world, and that's what gives mathematics its legitimacy.

You're still accepting much of math as true based on the fact that math proves it is. If you're not literally counting beans, how is that different than Jesus telling people "What do you mean why can't you see God? You've seen me."


People were convinced by their observations on religion, too. Does the fact that we can't go back and watch them differ from the fact that we can't go back and watch Einstein's experimentation? Oh, we can duplicate the research? How can we be so sure? Were we there to see it?

Get past the "omg I'm so offended" at the idea that someone's questioning the legitimacy of math. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that the only difference is where you draw the line for "acceptable" proof, and that even that gap is not that broad, at all.


Glad to see max is another clone of neo, actually paying attention to his incoherent rambling was getting annoying, as funny as it is to watch them spout the same arguments over and over and over again while going "but you said that before it doesn't count!"

Certainly hope you don't mean Catholic priest, I've ALWAYS known the Catholics were fucked, before I even developed my current hatred of religion. I've never set foot in a Catholic church.

I've never been alone and near an actual priest, never been molested, or abused, I don't come to this position from one of injustice.

I got here by logic, and study.

I learned to hate religion, by learning what it really is.

No, sorry, you didn't. Physics doesn't prove the psychological impact of religion, and it's quite clear you have not studied the sociology or psychology behind it at all.

Keep telling yourself that, though, it's totally different from a religious person going "Look at those poor, Godless, Russian heathens, a lack of religion makes for a terrible world."

[zoobernut]

You're still accepting much of math as true based on the fact that math proves it is. If you're not literally counting beans, how is that different than Jesus telling people "What do you mean why can't you see God? You've seen me."


People were convinced by their observations on religion, too. Does the fact that we can't go back and watch them differ from the fact that we can't go back and watch Einstein's experimentation? Oh, we can duplicate the research? How can we be so sure? Were we there to see it?

Wow Plow really stop with the math examples. I appreciate most of the arguments you have made in this thread even if I disagree with them but the math thing is just ignorant.

I don't even know what to say about math anymore since you did not read my post or any others about why your idea of how math works is wrong.