Do you believe in Astrology?

[BerenTebogo]

And just to reinforce, the link I posted on the first page is to an essay that addresses astrology from every single scientific and unscientific angle and invariably disproves it without a doubt using both REAL physics and the physics that astrologers claim are what make astrology work.

Under scrutiny and under astrology's own laws it doesn't even work. That's how stupid it is.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

[foopy]

Astrology involves horoscopes, but horoscopes arent the focal point.

The commercialized astrology? yeah, pretty bad. But, astrology is the oldest science(pseudo-scince) in history and was the beginning of astronomy. Commercialized? Yeah.. there are actually 13 houses in astrology, although they round it down to 12 just to make an even number.

No one believes in astrology because they read horoscopes on msn.com. A lot of people make judgements on astrology without even reading anything about it, which is similar to christians making judgements on mostly everyone they dont understand before they read anything about what they dont understand.

Can you really hate something so malleable and misunderstood? Its just a correlation of relating human's at their time of birth to the alignment of the planets and the electromagnetism that forms ~you~.

Ive read lots and lots, and was skeptical myself, but a little bit more indepth info and it makes more sense. Especially when you consider there are multiple signs in your whole chart.

im just ranting, i fucking hate every one of you.

best troll ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

totally pwned kuya's trolls. step your game up kuya.








(sadly, i can't be sure if he's trolling. i'm going to assume he was so i don't become sath-style enraged with indignation over the sheer stupidity.)

[pahnphoenix]

A belief in aliens is truly no different than a belief in god or this silly astrology. I guess just some people don't like the word belief or being compared to theists. It's expected of militant atheists to hate being compared to theists.

on a board with this many science boners, i can't believe it took 5 pages for that bait to be taken.

also, either there is intelligent alien life or there's something really, really weird that explains our existence. the former is, as you know, more or less guaranteed to be what's up (though it could be true along with the latter)... but if it's not, something's up. admittedly, no one really knows the probability of life arising, but i can't imagine it's low enough for it to be intellectually acceptable that it happened once given billions of galaxies with billions of star systems in each (and likely much more beyond the observable universe).

edit:

best troll ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

totally pwned kuya's trolls. step your game up kuya.








(sadly, i can't be sure if he's trolling. i'm going to assume he was so i don't become sath-style enraged with indignation over the sheer stupidity.)

i disagree. kuya is being concise, while i couldn't work up the interest to read the post you quoted. i thought my trolling wasn't bad, despite being pretty half-assed. i had some potential at the end there with attacking sath's implied/eventually-explicit claim that astrology was somehow harmful, but i lost interest. the aliens + astrology was a much better tactic to begin with.

explicit talk of trolling sucks, i know, but in my defense, that any of you are taking this thread seriously at all excuses me shitting on it by lame meta-troll talk.

[BerenTebogo]

on a board with this many science boners, i can't believe it took 5 pages for that bait to be taken.

also, either there is intelligent alien life or there's something really, really weird that explains our existence. the former is, as you know, more or less guaranteed to be what's up (though it could be true along with the latter)... but if it's not, something's up. admittedly, no one really knows the probability of life arising, but i can't imagine it's low enough for it to be intellectually acceptable that it happened once given billions of galaxies with billions of star systems in each (and likely much more beyond the observable universe).

Saying that there is either life (let's call it choice A) or that we are special and influenced by an external force (choice B) if I'm reading what you're saying, is just a bit silly.

You have a decent idea, although scale up the size hundreds of billions of times, but you're missing one of the most important parts about the laws of probability. If there is a 99.999...% chance that something exists then there is also a chance that it doesn't exist. A choice c, if you will.

It's splitting hairs to a degree but it is a concept that is very important to remember when dealing with orders of magnitude on the level we are. There can, as amazingly unlikely as it is, be a situation where life is entirely possible in the universe AND we are the only example of it. I do not think that this is true, however, it is a case that must be considered when looking at the situation as a whole.

The probability of life is based on a few things, but the most important of them can be summed up fairly succinctly to give an accurate idea of what we're looking at and what we look for:

1) Ingredients - Hydrogen and Carbon at the very least. These exist throughout the universe so this condition is fulfilled.

2) Planet size - Too small and the planet will fail to support life or an atmosphere in some cases where a planet too large will be gaseous. There are limits to the size a solid planet can be.

3) Location, location, location - Earth and Mars are two planets that fall under what is so aptly named the "Goldilocks" area/region/zone whatever. This means literally what you think it means, not too hot, not too cold, it's juuuuuust right. Now this zone varies in different planetary systems based on many variables, the most important of which is the size and type of the star in the system. If a planet falls too closely to the star it will have a temperature far too hot to sustain life and be bombarded with cosmic rays further prohibiting the creation of life. Too far from the sun and temperatures will be too low for there to be liquid water, which is one of the things we look for in planets that may be able to sustain life.

Liquid water IS a rare thing in the universe. Do not be fooled by the abundance on Earth.

So, tl;dr: The probability of life is directly proportional to the probability of planets in a system to fall within the necessary designation. The overall probability is just a sum of all the probabilities that all (not all are listed here) the necessary requirements for life are met then coupled with the probability that single-cell organisms will develop before the planet in question is destroyed by any number of factors (3.5 billion years for multi-cellular life on Earth in a system that has a sun with the total life of ~9 billion years. Should single cell organisms emerge on a planet on the aging side of a star it may not have the necessary time for life to form.)

All in all it is incalculable, but it is also important to remember just how many variables are in the problem and it is equally important to remember that as long as a probability less than 100% exists there exists a probability for the opposite.

[pahnphoenix]

Spoiler: show

Saying that there is either life (let's call it choice A) or that we are special and influenced by an external force (choice B) if I'm reading what you're saying, is just a bit silly.

You have a decent idea, although scale up the size hundreds of billions of times, but you're missing one of the most important parts about the laws of probability. If there is a 99.999...% chance that something exists then there is also a chance that it doesn't exist. A choice c, if you will.

It's splitting hairs to a degree but it is a concept that is very important to remember when dealing with orders of magnitude on the level we are. There can, as amazingly unlikely as it is, be a situation where life is entirely possible in the universe AND we are the only example of it. I do not think that this is true, however, it is a case that must be considered when looking at the situation as a whole.

The probability of life is based on a few things, but the most important of them can be summed up fairly succinctly to give an accurate idea of what we're looking at and what we look for:

1) Ingredients - Hydrogen and Carbon at the very least. These exist throughout the universe so this condition is fulfilled.

2) Planet size - Too small and the planet will fail to support life or an atmosphere in some cases where a planet too large will be gaseous. There are limits to the size a solid planet can be.

3) Location, location, location - Earth and Mars are two planets that fall under what is so aptly named the "Goldilocks" area/region/zone whatever. This means literally what you think it means, not too hot, not too cold, it's juuuuuust right. Now this zone varies in different planetary systems based on many variables, the most important of which is the size and type of the star in the system. If a planet falls too closely to the star it will have a temperature far too hot to sustain life and be bombarded with cosmic rays further prohibiting the creation of life. Too far from the sun and temperatures will be too low for there to be liquid water, which is one of the things we look for in planets that may be able to sustain life.

Liquid water IS a rare thing in the universe. Do not be fooled by the abundance on Earth.

So, tl;dr: The probability of life is directly proportional to the probability of planets in a system to fall within the necessary designation. The overall probability is just a sum of all the probabilities that all (not all are listed here) the necessary requirements for life are met then coupled with the probability that single-cell organisms will develop before the planet in question is destroyed by any number of factors (3.5 billion years for multi-cellular life on Earth in a system that has a sun with the total life of ~9 billion years. Should single cell organisms emerge on a planet on the aging side of a star it may not have the necessary time for life to form.)

All in all it is incalculable, but it is also important to remember just how many variables are in the problem and it is equally important to remember that as long as a probability less than 100% exists there exists a probability for the opposite.

agreed on all counts, but given the vastness of the universe i think it would still be pretty unacceptable, unless a lot of further considerations similar to those in your tl;dr pop up once we have more detailed info about the rest of the universe. uniqueness would be intellectually awkward, but it's possible. the thing is, it would be weird to *believe in it* given the info we currently have. as far as i know, there's no principled reason to think (1)-(3) won't be satisfied (enough times for intelligent life to be probable) given billions of billions of star systems. so, we should believe that it is probable.

to believe otherwise is to baselessly believe in the mysterious factor that makes it improbable, which is bad for the reasons a skeptic might criticize belief in aliens.

all of this is, of course, fundamentally different than belief in god or astrology. you have a lot more info about those things. eg the concept of god is more or less incoherent to begin with, so some people (me) might argue that it's actually impossible to believe in god in the first place, and that theists are kidding themselves (unless they believe in vacant notions like "a creator" which themselves speak of shit we don't understand and therefore can't have thoughts about). belief in god is like belief in a square circle. you can't believe in a square circle, no matter how hard you try.

discuss.

[BerenTebogo]

I am going to say, clearly and without any ambiguity, the biggest reason why I believe these silly beliefs are harmful. This way, if any of you still disagree you can know EXACTLY what you are disagreeing with.

One fairly regular intervals (every few years? maybe yearly, I don't know) the NSF conducts polls of the scientific knowledge held by Americans.

Boooooring. Right? I mean, let's set aside personal feelings on science and look at what the data can tell us. Our fellow Americans vote just as we do, they lobby their congressmen just as we do, they speak out about causes and concerns that matter to them, just as we do.

So, who cares where science comes in? I do.

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built."

"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

Now, why does this matter at all? Some people hate science! Well, when voting in this country means more than just picking a side and throwing feces at the other, (a fact I'm not sure all Americans understand) knowledge is REQUIRED to properly weigh in on matters such as climate change, stem-cell research, funding for NASA, funding for science education.

Hell, a little bit of knowledge of science would help keep the Texas BoE from dragging this country back to a pre-Industrial revolution era.

Ok, so that's that. Hard to disagree with those facts. Why does it apply in any way, or any form, to why Astrology and other silliness (religion) can be harmful?

The answer is that none of them are innately harmful. They're not. That's the truth of it all. What IS harmful is that these beliefs, while not forcing you, do encourage you to give up the realm of the unknown to a spiritual being or the "cosmic forces" around us.

This encouragement for a more "hands-off" approach to scientific discovery is abhorrent! Now, there are many religious people who are scientists. There are a few, somewhere I'm sure, scientists who don't discredit Astrology (leaning towards molecular biologists, they have no clue what goes on anywhere but in a microscope) and that's fine and good and nice, but it isn't an argument for science and belief walking hand in hand.

One of the main pillars of Astrology and many religions and pseudo-sciences (fake or bad science) is that YOU, the believer, are being GIVEN information that is TRUE. Period. That's the end of that. What they tell you about the world or anything really SHOULD be taken as fact in most situations.

This is terrible. Terrible terrible terrible. Anytime ANYONE tells you anything you should be skeptical of it to some degree if you are not an expert in the field. If you read something I write, even if you agree with me, who is to say that I'm not lying to you to further some agenda I may have? You don't know, you're not an expert and maybe I'm not either! How much do you really know about me? Is my opinion to be trusted? Is my science sound?

Many of the people who agree with me and argue on behalf of me (it happens) have very little knowledge of the situation. This is equally terrible. I would rather nobody, not a soul, believe me on anything I say without some independent verification. When you are provided with information it is up to you to judge, based on certain variables, whether the information is worth trusting or discarding.

Systems of belief generally work contrary to this effect. Despite the fact that progress can only occur as long as there exists things unknown, many systems of belief attempt to convince you that they have all the answers. Where is the joy in that? But dial it back a notch even. If you are skeptical of people who disagree with you about your beliefs are you able to defend your beliefs in an argument that doesn't end with "because God says so!" or "because it just works and I know it and you don't!"

Faith can be an amazing thing. We take things on faith every day. All of us.

Every time you sit in a chair you have faith that the person who constructed it wasn't a fucking loon and it will support your weight. We don't walk around testing the support capacity of every chair before we sit in it. Every time we make judgments instantly based on previous experience we are using faith to an extent. "I've never sat in a chair and had it break -> this chair will not break" If you then, somehow, sit on a chair and it immediately cracks you will inevitably test the strength of chairs before sitting in them for some time to come. This is normal.

We do this with the world around us all the time but when we are told a piece of information that we discover to be false we become no more skeptical of the next information we receive. Or rather, very few people become more skeptical. Often, when information doesn't fit with ideas we all believe then we find excuses for why it doesn't - or worse - we find ways to say that it does when it clearly doesn't at all.

So, why does any of this matter? Well, where is our future?

Is our future in tilling fields and building wooden damns while we terrace farm and build our adobe huts? Hmm.

No, I'm pretty sure our future lies intrinsically with a mix of social evolution and technological progress. To be precise, society as we know it today only advances in any noticeable measure when technology advances by significant measures first.

Well, where does technology come from? Do investment bankers provide technological progress? How about priests? Astrologers? Has the zodiac influenced any major innovations lately? Progress doesn't come directly from scientists, this is not my point, but it DOES come from people who think scientifically.

Nobody gets an invention or idea right the first time. Nobody. Instead of publishing a wrong idea or product and saying "it works because it does" they take the faulty idea or invention and find out what is wrong with it through experimentation (testing) and attempt to fix it and then test it again. On and on and on until it all fits nicely together. Science is not about bending the will of ideas to you but about bending yourself to the will of what is TRUE.

If Einstein was even tiny bit off on his calculations for General Relativity he would have thrown it all out. How many people are willing to do that with their PROVEN false religious ideals?

We live in a country where many people willingly stop their education, of any sort, and give up the realm of the unknown to mysticism. I can't control that and I shouldn't want to. It is then when these people vote, or rally, or speak out incorrectly, however, that they have now done something bad and harmful. It is when they have children and instead of teaching them to think critically of everything they teach them EXACTLY what to believe and what not to. This is wrong.

When your system of beliefs causes you to shut your mind out to things you don't understand by claiming to have a static and unchanging explanation of it, well, that is just wrong! Science constantly changes because we are always furthering our understanding of even the most deeply held theories, and that is wonderful. Science and scientific thinking is glorious because it allows me to happily say that for as much as I know about the universe, in total, I know absolutely nothing! Why does this make me happy? Well, because it means that there still is so much more I can learn.

Learning, and admitting you don't know everything, is absolutely amazing. I don't understand how any person can say that it is anything less than that. Honestly. And you may say, "Well Sath! You're claiming to know that Astrology is wrong!" And yes, I am, because everything that Astrology is based around is based around a science that we have a DEEP, DEEP, DEEP and thorough understanding of. I can provide mountains of FACTS and EVIDENCE not supposition or coincidence. It is no longer my burden to prove that Astrology is wrong. It's been proven. It's been experimentally tested thousands of times AND the facts prove it wrong as well. It's the astrologers who have the burden to try to prove that it IS true. It is up to them to not say, "well it works because we say it does," because no, it doesn't for any of the many reasons already listed.

When it comes to God, well, not a single person alive can prove that there isn't a god. Period. It's not an experimentally testable hypothesis. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheism is stupid. Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist - without evidence. The most any intelligent person can be is Agnostic since, the bottom line is, we really don't fucking know. I don't believe there is a god but I can't say with a straight face that there isn't.

See the difference? I have to defend a position I don't like or support because the evidence against it isn't there. Whether I like it or not.

At the end of the day that makes me a better person than someone who says that I am wrong because I do not follow their beliefs. Can I experimentally prove that? No, I can't, but like I said, we all exercise a little bit of faith every day.

[BerenTebogo]

I think I accidentally touched on most of your points in the rant I was writing separate from your questions, lol. However I want to clarify your point about god, as someone who doesn't believe in god. Now, believing in things that have been proven false (the Earth is 6,000 years old etc) is patently and ridiculously stupid. There are things, however, that are not so clear cut.

We know the big bang is true, it's verified by the Cosmic Microwave Background. We know the universe is expanding, it's verified by the red shift. We tentatively know that the total energy of the universe is zero based on the calculations for the expected energy of the quantum fluctuations in empty space which means, tentatively, that the universe is of a flat orientation. We also know that if the total energy of the universe is zero that there was zero energy present at the big bang and the universe could have arisen out of a quantum fluctuation. Concepts I can't even speak on properly as I'm not an expert.

We know, to an extent anyways, all of this. None of this, however, answers the questions about whether there is a god or not since the questions can't be answered.

If people want to believe in ideas that aren't blatantly false and aren't allowing the beliefs to run their lives and harm them in any way then who am I to stop them? Insisting god doesn't exist puts me on the same level as those INSISTING that he does. It is a question I'm not qualified to answer, only to have an opinion on.

I think as long as people keep the supposition out of the facts then it's not my area to say what is and isn't true. When people try to tell me astrology is true, well, no, it isn't because of so many, many, many factual reasons.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

me and kuya had this same exact argument but with less words and more fun. wtg shitheads

[Weiing]

Want to discuss god? Just read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins... Saves a lot of time from actually writing long-winded explanations.

[Kuya]

Richard Dawkins is just as bad Osama Bin Laden.

[BerenTebogo]

Want to discuss god? Just read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins... Saves a lot of time from actually writing long-winded explanations.

I love Dawkins, at times, but he is a very polarizing figure. At times he is even less effective than I am about conveying a message to people who may have the wrong idea and I call people cum-guzzling donkey rapers.

He's an amazingly intelligent individual who is exceptionally articulate and precise, but at times he takes the same approach I do on BG to ostracizing religious people in their own forums. It's not like I'm having this argument at astrology.net. Here I have an even footing and even support in most cases. I think he just doesn't know where to meet people in the middle sometimes. If you've educated some a little you've done a much greater thing than if you've failed to educate them a lot.

But again, I do love him. His discussions with Dr. Lawrence Krauss are among my favorite as Krauss is one of my favorite theoretical physicists.

[Weiing]

I echo your sentiments. Regardless, I am still a big fan of him.

[pahnphoenix]

I think I accidentally touched on most of your points in the rant I was writing separate from your questions, lol. However I want to clarify your point about god, as someone who doesn't believe in god. Now, believing in things that have been proven false (the Earth is 6,000 years old etc) is patently and ridiculously stupid. There are things, however, that are not so clear cut.

We know the big bang is true, it's verified by the Cosmic Microwave Background. We know the universe is expanding, it's verified by the red shift. We tentatively know that the total energy of the universe is zero based on the calculations for the expected energy of the quantum fluctuations in empty space which means, tentatively, that the universe is of a flat orientation. We also know that if the total energy of the universe is zero that there was zero energy present at the big bang and the universe could have arisen out of a quantum fluctuation. Concepts I can't even speak on properly as I'm not an expert.

We know, to an extent anyways, all of this. None of this, however, answers the questions about whether there is a god or not since the questions can't be answered.

If people want to believe in ideas that aren't blatantly false and aren't allowing the beliefs to run their lives and harm them in any way then who am I to stop them? Insisting god doesn't exist puts me on the same level as those INSISTING that he does. It is a question I'm not qualified to answer, only to have an opinion on.

I think as long as people keep the supposition out of the facts then it's not my area to say what is and isn't true. When people try to tell me astrology is true, well, no, it isn't because of so many, many, many factual reasons.

NON-PROOFREAD VERSION FUCK

i don't think belief in god (which means many different things to many different people) should be stopped, but unless you believe stuff like "i believe in god which just means i believe in a moral order" or "in some sense [that should get quotes on it] there must have been a time when there wasn't anything, so i think someone created everything," (despite the fallacies contained within that sentence, *it's a belief that you can have*), i don't think you can believe in god.

like, AT BEST it seems you can only believe "that god" without any de re beliefs about god. even then, there's just nowhere to get started in believing. you know? *what* is god?

i suppose some people might have an indexical belief in god. they've felt some "presence", and they know through whatever (usually irrational) means that that was god. that's fine with me, and i guess i overstate my case when i accept that but don't accept belief in god. it's still... weird to me.

i mean, i'm sitting in the dark right now. i could feel a thump on my head. i'll believe in "the thing that hit me in the head", but how much can i really get from that? i can say "i will call the thing that hit me in the head 'bob'," and say "i believe in bob," but how much am i saying there? surely, if we're being honest, i can't assert something as grand as whatever religious people are trying to assert by "i believe in god/allah/etc." i'm very, very skeptical that people can conceptualize enough stuff for their belief in god to be more than either vacant words or misplaced words.

i don't like to argue for this too hard, but take when someone says "i believe there's something greater out there, and that it loves me." what the fuck is that? what is "something greater"? you mean something bigger than you? something more complex? you think the Whole Outside World has a personality maybe? but if so, what the fuck does that mean? are you part of it? are you just trying to capture an indescribable feeling with words? because those words... what do they say??

there's different ways for language to have meaning; or rather, there's different views you can have as to what amounts to meaning. if you ask me, a linguistic form has meaning if it can be used for something--its use *is* its meaning. if you ask the majority of philosophers of language (or linguists), the meaning of a sentence is its truth conditions (or for a command, "satisfaction conditions", etc). very few people who have thought about these things at all and are worth talking to fail to hold one of these two views of meaning.

so when i say, "god exists," *how does the world have to be* for my sentence to be true??? i would contest that very few (if any) people could even get started in answering that question satisfactorily... but that's just to say that no one understands the sentence 'god exists'. it feels like we understand it, but that's just because we use the word 'god' for a lot of very practical things. "what are those catholics doing in there?" "worshipping god." "oh word?" but when it comes down to it, we don't know what the world is like if "the supreme being" exists.

i'm rambling a bit. time to drink some fantôme saison. i feel like i want to post in the recent beer thread, but i fear that i would be drawn into some troll-like talk and come off like a snob. (shrug)

[Tsuko_Asura]

Sath, do you have AIM or MSN? Something relatively important to discuss with you

[BerenTebogo]

NON-PROOFREAD VERSION FUCK

i don't think belief in god (which means many different things to many different people) should be stopped, but unless you believe stuff like "i believe in god which just means i believe in a moral order" or "in some sense [that should get quotes on it] there must have been a time when there wasn't anything, so i think someone created everything," (despite the fallacies contained within that sentence, *it's a belief that you can have*), i don't think you can believe in god.

like, AT BEST it seems you can only believe "that god" without any de re beliefs about god. even then, there's just nowhere to get started in believing. you know? *what* is god?

i suppose some people might have an indexical belief in god. they've felt some "presence", and they know through whatever (usually irrational) means that that was god. that's fine with me, and i guess i overstate my case when i accept that but don't accept belief in god. it's still... weird to me.

i mean, i'm sitting in the dark right now. i could feel a thump on my head. i'll believe in "the thing that hit me in the head", but how much can i really get from that? i can say "i will call the thing that hit me in the head 'bob'," and say "i believe in bob," but how much am i saying there? surely, if we're being honest, i can't assert something as grand as whatever religious people are trying to assert by "i believe in god/allah/etc." i'm very, very skeptical that people can conceptualize enough stuff for their belief in god to be more than either vacant words or misplaced words.

i don't like to argue for this too hard, but take when someone says "i believe there's something greater out there, and that it loves me." what the fuck is that? what is "something greater"? you mean something bigger than you? something more complex? you think the Whole Outside World has a personality maybe? but if so, what the fuck does that mean? are you part of it? are you just trying to capture an indescribable feeling with words? because those words... what do they say??

there's different ways for language to have meaning; or rather, there's different views you can have as to what amounts to meaning. if you ask me, a linguistic form has meaning if it can be used for something--its use *is* its meaning. if you ask the majority of philosophers of language (or linguists), the meaning of a sentence is its truth conditions (or for a command, "satisfaction conditions", etc). very few people who have thought about these things at all and are worth talking to fail to hold one of these two views of meaning.

so when i say, "god exists," *how does the world have to be* for my sentence to be true??? i would contest that very few (if any) people could even get started in answering that question satisfactorily... but that's just to say that no one understands the sentence 'god exists'. it feels like we understand it, but that's just because we use the word 'god' for a lot of very practical things. "what are those catholics doing in there?" "worshipping god." "oh word?" but when it comes down to it, we don't know what the world is like if "the supreme being" exists.

i'm rambling a bit. time to drink some fantôme saison. i feel like i want to post in the recent beer thread, but i fear that i would be drawn into some troll-like talk and come off like a snob. (shrug)

I'm bad with strict philosophical discussion, but I think I get and agree with your point. I tend to stray away from purely conceptual reasonings about god because I know why I have my position and people who don't share my position will undoubtedly feel the need to tell me what theirs is and why I should feel bad for not agreeing. I very rarely get the point in any conversation with someone who believes where they would even entertain the conceptual argument of "what is god", because, from what I've experienced people seem to have a sort of mental image of what god is and if anyone tries to shake that from them they become rabid and will bite you in the face.

All in all though, I do get what you're saying and I'm not sure I do agree entirely but I agree mostly. Sometimes it does take a little bit of strange and seemingly retarded thinking to kickstart ideas. Intelligence and reason just come into play when you know enough to not let those flimsy hypotheticals direct the path of your life. I don't think that ever trying to figure out what god could be, conceptually, would be a bad thing. I do think that thinking about what god wants and then forcing that on other people is horrible.

Some fine lines, like anything else. Thinking is harmless and in most cases productive no matter what the topic in my opinion. Claiming ridiculousness as canonical law or legislation or theist values is where you run into trouble.

[Dontkare]

I don't know. I like to read horoscopes and go "Haha hey that's kind of close to accurate" but theres always the stuff thats totally wrong. Believing some blinking light in the sky is your future is totally retarded.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Believing some blinking light in the sky is your future is totally retarded.

Dinosaurs probably said that and look where it got them. Just sayin'

[Sylvrdragon]

It's ok Sath... I'm easily trolled too.

I too spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking/writing up detailed counterpoints to issues that people brought up specifically to piss me off.

[BerenTebogo]

It's ok Sath... I'm easily trolled too.

I too spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking/writing up detailed counterpoints to issues that people brought up specifically to piss me off.

The main reason I respond sometimes, despite the trolling, with very long and articulated statements is that the topic doesn't exist in the vacuum of the initiator and the respondent. Whether I responded today, or at other times, to trololololololan the fact remains that many will read my post, many will skip it, many will disagree with what I say, many will agree. It's just probability.

And if in writing a big, long-winded diatribe I impart some critical knowledge on even one person who was on the fence about what to believe or not believe or how to analyze something, etc, then it's been worth it.

Nobody ever steps up and has such poise that everyone stops, listens, and agrees instantly. You say what you have to say and hope that it all matters on some level in the end.

[Sylvrdragon]

The main reason I respond sometimes, despite the trolling, with very long and articulated statements is that the topic doesn't exist in the vacuum of the initiator and the respondent. Whether I responded today, or at other times, to trololololololan the fact remains that many will read my post, many will skip it, many will disagree with what I say, many will agree. It's just probability.

And if in writing a big, long-winded diatribe I impart some critical knowledge on even one person who was on the fence about what to believe or not believe or how to analyze something, etc, then it's been worth it.

Nobody ever steps up and has such poise that everyone stops, listens, and agrees instantly. You say what you have to say and hope that it all matters on some level in the end.

Yeah, when I try to do that, people call me a sociopath...