• Religion : why does it exist ?
    792 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kingjerome;34050294]oh and Buddhism also denies the existence of god. A Buddhists main principal is just to be happy by doing no harm and meditating, not to be ruled over by a dick in the sky.[/QUOTE] They search for enlightenment. Which in my eyes, is like a mind "realisation" thing.
[QUOTE=kingjerome;34050294]oh and Buddhism also denies the existence of god. A Buddhists main principal is just to be happy by doing no harm and meditating, not to be ruled over by a dick in the sky.[/QUOTE] Wrong. The Buddha's main principle is 'life is suffering' and only through accepting that can nirvana or enlightenment be achieved. Please educate yourself properly before spreading ignorance.
Beliefs came about because humans wanted to have some simple story to base the meaning of life on. These beliefs expanded and grew more sophisticated, developing into rigid structures of faith, religions. If we look at the Abrahamic religions, each of their gods are intelligently designed, possessing the characteristics and traits that the people of the culture they emerged on saw as righteous and proper. The same is observed in their prophets, and how they are the model humans. It may seem that I am, but I'm not casting doubt on the existence of these prophets, my beliefs on that are separate. At heart, all religion is basic human curiosity about the universe and how we all got here.
[QUOTE=mediocrity;34054914]Beliefs came about because humans wanted to have some simple story to base the meaning of life on. These beliefs expanded and grew more sophisticated, developing into rigid structures of faith, religions. If we look at the Abrahamic religions, each of their gods are intelligently designed, possessing the characteristics and traits that the people of the culture they emerged on saw as righteous and proper. The same is observed in their prophets, and how they are the model humans. It may seem that I am, but I'm not casting doubt on the existence of these prophets, my beliefs on that are separate. At heart, all religion is basic human curiosity about the universe and how we all got here.[/QUOTE] Beliefs came from the lack of knowledge. Knowledge must be true. Belief can be true or false. If you do not know then you believe, pure and simple. Religion is the worship of a deity, not the understanding of our origin. If all religion was the understanding of our origin then atheists couldn't make assumptions of how we got here without being called a religion. Since atheists can make assumptions on how we got here and they are not a religious group your attempt to explain what religion is has been shred into pieces by logic. Please hang up and try again.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34056010]Beliefs came from the lack of knowledge. Knowledge must be true. Belief can be true or false. If you do not know then you believe, pure and simple. Religion is the worship of a deity, not the understanding of our origin. If all religion was the understanding of our origin then atheists couldn't make assumptions of how we got here without being called a religion. Since atheists can make assumptions on how we got here and they are not a religious group your attempt to explain what religion is has been shred into pieces by logic. Please hang up and try again.[/QUOTE] Knowledge is not necessarily "true", in that sense. Scientific understanding is subject to change, but I understand what you're getting at. All religion is based on human curiosity about how we got here. Not knowledge about how we got here. Atheism cannot and can never be considered a religion as the idea of atheism itself is not subscribing to the idea of a god or a religion. To quote the cliché, not collecting stamps is my hobby, not killing people is my crime and atheism is my religion. I bet you were very pleased with what you wrote but don't end your badly reasoned arguments like that, it just makes you look like a ponce. :wink:
[QUOTE=mediocrity;34056334]Knowledge is not necessarily "true", in that sense. Scientific understanding is subject to change, but I understand what you're getting at. All religion is based on human curiosity about how we got here. Not knowledge about how we got here. Atheism cannot and can never be considered a religion as the idea of atheism itself is not subscribing to the idea of a god or a religion. To quote the cliché, not collecting stamps is my hobby, not killing people is my crime and atheism is my religion. I bet you were very pleased with what you wrote but don't end your badly reasoned arguments like that, it just makes you look like a ponce. :wink:[/QUOTE] Something tells me you didn't read my post correctly, never did I say religion is knowledge on how we got here. This implies you misunderstood my message. So here it is in step by step, easy to understand process. You say: -All religion is based on human curiosity about how we got here. Logic why that is incorrect: 1-An atheist (doesn't have to be an atheist) becomes curious on how we got here. 2-Curiosity on how we got here must mean he is religious by your explanation. 3-Wait a minute.. atheists aren't religious.. something must be wrong. 4-This must mean that anyone can be curious on how we got here without being religious. 5-I assume that even religious people can not be curious on how we got here. 6-This assumption can be supported by people who join a religion when their life is down. 7-When people down on their luck join a religion, they seek help without curiosity of how we got here. 8-Well look at that, it looks like I can be religious and not be curious of how I got here! Boy, that's great! (From dictionary.com) knowl·edge [nol-ij] noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. 5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: Knowledge MUST be true. That's why it's called knowledge and not belief. Wisdom doesn't have to be true and you may be confusing that with knowledge. Science is belief, not knowledge. Theories, by definition, must be testable and falsifiable which means THEY CAN BE WRONG. What also can be wrong? Belief! Therefore Science = Belief. I'll give science credit that the laws it have are the closest thing to truth it will get. Even then, that's strictly speaking in terms of Physics. My 'badly reasoned arguments' coincide with Plato, Descartes, and Aristotle when talking about knowledge and belief. Funny thing, Aristotle, who originated Physics, believed in a God. Einstein, no introduction needed, tries to prove God through Physics. Well that's interesting, renown geniuses of the scientific world who believe in God. Who would of thought? I'll gladly be a ponce if it means I can also be educated and intelligent at the same time. If that's the case, I am an educated ponce and am proud of it. Mainly because I don't give a damn. Insults stir up emotions. Being controlled by emotions are for the weak minded and animistic ignorance of society. ;)
Religion is anything [I]but[/I] derivative of curiosity. The main reason I abhor so much at religion is because it's so oppressive to one's curiosity. It actively discourages free thinking, through fear of eternal damnation. It's really not a case of someone thinking "hmm I don't understand why I feel such a way about the world. I'll go read some religious texts and see which ones correspond to my perceptions of reality." Because if that was the case we'd all realise most of these texts are fucking silly. They actively contradict the inferences we all make. Virgin births? Walking on water? There's so much silly bullshit in these texts, and they're so devoid of any real logical rigor, that it amazes me that people pretend it's [I]curiosity[/I] that brings religious belief about. It's just indoctrination and other oppressive bullshit like that. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] are you seriously citing [I]Descartes[/I] as a paragon of philosophical rigor? I think if my arguments coincided with Descartes I'd just quit my degree right now. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] I wouldn't call science belief, either. Any [I]good[/I] scientist knows scientific theories are contestable. Science [I]really[/I] tells us "according to all observations, formula X fits", it doesn't say anything about "you should believe in formula X". [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34052855]Wrong. The Buddha's main principle is 'life is suffering' and only through accepting that can nirvana or enlightenment be achieved. Please educate yourself properly before spreading ignorance.[/QUOTE] is this real life the main principle he describes sounds a hell of a lot more like any main buddhist principle I've heard. not doing harm and meditation are certainly parts of buddhism; anyone who's not a daft cunt realises that the degree of importance placed on the principles is up for interpretation. I see the middle way as being the main buddhist principle (and I'm fairly sure most learned people would agree with me there). I don't really know why you decided 'life is suffering' is of such grand importance. open your mind and quit being such a douchebag
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34057179]Religion is anything [I]but[/I] derivative of curiosity. The main reason I abhor so much at religion is because it's so oppressive to one's curiosity. It actively discourages free thinking, through fear of eternal damnation. It's really not a case of someone thinking "hmm I don't understand why I feel such a way about the world. I'll go read some religious texts and see which ones correspond to my perceptions of reality." Because if that was the case we'd all realise most of these texts are fucking silly. They actively contradict the inferences we all make. Virgin births? Walking on water? There's so much silly bullshit in these texts, and they're so devoid of any real logical rigor, that it amazes me that people pretend it's [I]curiosity[/I] that brings religious belief about. It's just indoctrination and other oppressive bullshit like that. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] are you seriously citing [I]Descartes[/I] as a paragon of philosophical rigor? I think if my arguments coincided with Descartes I'd just quit my degree right now. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] I wouldn't call science belief, either. Any [I]good[/I] scientist knows scientific theories are contestable. Science [I]really[/I] tells us "according to all observations, formula X fits", it doesn't say anything about "you should believe in formula X".[/QUOTE] Despite Kant's ideas against Descartes, Descartes was a mathematical genius who learned from Isaac Beeckman upon his military years. The cogito is undeniable proof that we exist. He is, even among philosophy scholars, a great philosopher. If <---(key word) you have a problem with him because he doesn't agree with your ideas, that is bias out the ass. Science [i]really[/i] tells us that "according to all observations, formula X MOST LIKELY fits due to probability." I am an electrical engineering major, Physics is dear to me. There are a good bit of formulas which generate error. Since that error is there it is not the right formula exactly. The formula may be pretty damn close, but it isn't always dead on. Also, if religion is so oppressive then why aren't people being forced to join one at every nook and cranny of the world? Religion gives everyone the freedom to decide to follow it or not. Please, I beg you to bring up brainwashing. It will make my day. ^_^
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057367]Despite Kant's ideas against Descartes, Descartes was a mathematical genius who learned from Isaac Beeckman upon his military years. The cogito is undeniable proof that we exist. He is, even among philosophy scholars, a great philosopher. If <---(key word) you have a problem with him because he doesn't agree with your ideas, that is bias out the ass. Science [i]really[/i] tells us that "according to all observations, formula X MOST LIKELY fits due to probability." I am an electrical engineering major, Physics is dear to me. There are a good bit of formulas which generate error. Since that error is there it is not the right formula exactly. The formula may be pretty damn close, but it isn't always dead on. Also, if religion is so oppressive then why aren't people being forced to join one at every nook and cranny of the world? Religion gives everyone the freedom to decide to follow it or not. Please, I beg you to bring up brainwashing. It will make my day. ^_^[/QUOTE] First of all, [I]cogito ergo sum[/I] can and has been refuted many many times. "I think" is a huge assumption to make because there's not necessarily an "I". The works of Hume prove there's no valid philosophical argument giving us reason to think "I" even exist. My beef with Descartes is because his logic is wank. Have you read his meditations? After he uses his scepticism to destroy the world, his argument to bring it back is [I]literally[/I] that god is good. The meditations argue so circularly it hurts. I think we're really splitting hairs here. Either way you were wrong in saying science = belief, anyway. Religion is oppressive because it threatens you with eternal damnation if you refuse to comply with its silly bullshit rules. Just because nobody's holding a gun to you head, it doesn't mean you're not being pressured into something that's totally not in your genuine best interests. I'm talking about indoctrinating your children into religion and giving them no option but to believe or you'll think the worst of them. Let's suppose that your parents fully respect your decision to not be religious and pressure you in no direct way. They still believe their child is going to fall victim to eternal damnation. What could be more oppressive than your family believing you are objectively a person deserving of that much suffering? It follows from the tenets of religion that they are. I abhor at people who prescribe their unfounded version of morality on other people.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057367]Despite Kant's ideas against Descartes, Descartes was a mathematical genius who learned from Isaac Beeckman upon his military years. The cogito is undeniable proof that we exist. He is, even among philosophy scholars, a great philosopher. If <---(key word) you have a problem with him because he doesn't agree with your ideas, that is bias out the ass. Science [i]really[/i] tells us that "according to all observations, formula X MOST LIKELY fits due to probability." I am an electrical engineering major, Physics is dear to me. There are a good bit of formulas which generate error. Since that error is there it is not the right formula exactly. The formula may be pretty damn close, but it isn't always dead on. Also, if religion is so oppressive then why aren't people being forced to join one at every nook and cranny of the world? Religion gives everyone the freedom to decide to follow it or not. Please, I beg you to bring up brainwashing. It will make my day. ^_^[/QUOTE] religion isn't oppressive? I think homosexuals would argue with you, even the ones from America, land of "separation of church and state".
I think the oppression that comes about through religion runs a lot deeper than the callous things religious do to other people. The very concepts ascribed to them damage both other people's liberty as well as your own. The very fact it prescribes unfalsifiable matters of fact to you should make everyone's alarm bells start ringing. The fact it directly contradicts things you infer through causative reasoning (but you're told these are just [I]miracles)[/I] and makes so many unsubstantiated claims, these sorts of things, complying with them is so damaging to a person. Religion is betrayal to intellectual integrity on an industrial level.
Accidently screwed up a long post. This is what it was in short: Hume, an extremist empiricist and skeptic to the point of all ridiculousness, argues the Bundle Theory that suggests that if we strip down items/people/whatever of it's properties that nothing would be left. This would be a valid argument if properties are what really make an object what it is. Properties rely only on sense data which goes with the empirical mindset. Sound is sense data, sound exists according to the empirical mindset. Words are a manipulation of sound, words exist. Words convey ideas, beliefs, wisdom, and sometimes knowledge. Words are bound by language. Language is created by humans. So what gives off the sound? Humans. Bundle theory just contradicted the empirical mindset in saying that humans don't exist when the properties are gone. Now hold that thought.. What are properties? They are words which describe sense data. So we can say properties = words. Words are sounds which are understood as labels e.i. hard, green, moist, ect. By stripping an object of it's properties you simply remove the labels, not the object itself. Labels or no labels, the object exists. Objects existed before language, thus they are not bound by language. The Cogito poses as another obstacle to Bundle Theory. "I", which is a property and label, describes the self. Something which is labeled must have reasoning for being labeled.... existing perhaps? Point is, I labels something which is there through empirical data. Something must be there to receive and convey the empirical data. Something must be there to be labeled, be is physical or an idea. That something is me and you (and everyone else if you really want me to say it.) Speaking in non philosophical terms, I am sitting in my chair right now typing to you. Descartes says I exist, Hume says I don't. Which do you really believe? In terms of oppression. You are right that oppression isn't right. However, religion isn't the only culprit. In Egypt if you say you are Christian in public you get murdered. Also, atheists who don't allow their children to have anything to do with religion are just as bad. Every belief has it's parents who allow their children to see the world and who 'protect' their children from what they don't want their children to become. In the end, it isn't up to you to decide how a parent raises his/her child. They went through the pregnancy, it's their kid. Right or not, get over it and accept there is nothing you can do about it. So why bother worrying?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34057546]First of all, [I]cogito ergo sum[/I] can and has been refuted many many times. "I think" is a huge assumption to make because there's not necessarily an "I". The works of Hume prove there's no valid philosophical argument giving us reason to think "I" even exist. My beef with Descartes is because his logic is wank. Have you read his meditations? After he uses his scepticism to destroy the world, his argument to bring it back is [I]literally[/I] that god is good. The meditations argue so circularly it hurts.[/QUOTE] I showed this to my friend (who uses the "I think therefore I am" all the time and is apparently a fan of Descartes) and he flipped out, lmao. I'm really weak on philosophy so I can't comment much here, but I'm finding it interesting to read these kinds of posts.
because of god
Apart from the power that the church has as well as religions as a whole on society, that's kind of where I can draw a line against religion. But also if anyone's heard of "Pascall's Wager", it pretty much asks for ridicule. "What have you got to lose, you'll die anyway so believe in God". I respect the man, but this is poor.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34056993]Something tells me you didn't read my post correctly, never did I say religion is knowledge on how we got here. This implies you misunderstood my message. So here it is in step by step, easy to understand process. You say: -All religion is based on human curiosity about how we got here. Logic why that is incorrect: 1-An atheist (doesn't have to be an atheist) becomes curious on how we got here. 2-Curiosity on how we got here must mean he is religious by your explanation. 3-Wait a minute.. atheists aren't religious.. something must be wrong. 4-This must mean that anyone can be curious on how we got here without being religious. 5-I assume that even religious people can not be curious on how we got here. 6-This assumption can be supported by people who join a religion when their life is down. 7-When people down on their luck join a religion, they seek help without curiosity of how we got here. 8-Well look at that, it looks like I can be religious and not be curious of how I got here! Boy, that's great! (From dictionary.com) knowl·edge&#8194;[nol-ij] noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. 5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: Knowledge MUST be true. That's why it's called knowledge and not belief. Wisdom doesn't have to be true and you may be confusing that with knowledge. Science is belief, not knowledge. Theories, by definition, must be testable and falsifiable which means THEY CAN BE WRONG. What also can be wrong? Belief! Therefore Science = Belief. I'll give science credit that the laws it have are the closest thing to truth it will get. Even then, that's strictly speaking in terms of Physics. My 'badly reasoned arguments' coincide with Plato, Descartes, and Aristotle when talking about knowledge and belief. Funny thing, Aristotle, who originated Physics, believed in a God. Einstein, no introduction needed, tries to prove God through Physics. Well that's interesting, renown geniuses of the scientific world who believe in God. Who would of thought? I'll gladly be a ponce if it means I can also be educated and intelligent at the same time. If that's the case, I am an educated ponce and am proud of it. Mainly because I don't give a damn. Insults stir up emotions. Being controlled by emotions are for the weak minded and animistic ignorance of society. ;)[/QUOTE] Point out to me where I say religion is based on knowledge, and where I say you are saying it is. By my explanation, it does not mean a man must be curious to be religious. Curiosity is not something bestowed upon us by a god, it is a human feeling. Babies are atheists, yet they are curious about the world around them, are they not? Because theories can be wrong that doesn't mean they are all wrong, and I think you have gotten hypotheses mixed up with theories: "The term "theory" implies that scientists have high confidence that a theory's predictions will prove accurate in the future. Theories differ from hypotheses in that the latter are more speculative and tentative. Scientists propose hypotheses to explain and predict observations that are poorly understood. If evidence accumulates that an hypothesis makes accurate predictions, then that hypothesis become a theory." [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]Source[/URL] I'm not even going to start on Aristotle and Einstein as you are picking out two scientists from a whole catalog of great scientific minds. You can give me more scientists if you want too, Newton was a fervent Christian. You're making an argument to authority, i.e. because a scientist believes in an omnipresent deity, it must be true. That said, you're not staying on topic, this thread as expressed in the original post, is about the origins of religion and not religion itself.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34056993]Knowledge MUST be true. That's why it's called knowledge and not belief. Wisdom doesn't have to be true and you may be confusing that with knowledge. Science is belief, not knowledge. Theories, by definition, must be testable and falsifiable which means THEY CAN BE WRONG. What also can be wrong? Belief! Therefore Science = Belief. I'll give science credit that the laws it have are the closest thing to truth it will get. Even then, that's strictly speaking in terms of Physics.[/QUOTE] The difference being that scientists will readily admit that they were wrong if new credible evidence comes up. Religious texts and religious leaders have always claimed that they are preaching the truth, and that it is definite for all time (as one would expect, seeing as it's supposedly from God). However, science is based on trials and experiments to at least put some backing behind hypotheses and theories, but religion doesn't even attempt to be scrutinizing of itself. So no, science is not 'belief' in the same sense that religion is 'belief'.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057943]Hume, an extremist empiricist and skeptic to the point of all ridiculousness, argues the Bundle Theory that suggests that if we strip down items/people/whatever of it's properties that nothing would be left. This would be a valid argument if properties are what really make an object what it is. Properties rely only on sense data which goes with the empirical mindset. Sound is sense data, sound exists according to the empirical mindset. Words are a manipulation of sound, words exist. Words convey ideas, beliefs, wisdom, and sometimes knowledge. Words are bound by language. Language is created by humans. So what gives off the sound? Humans. Bundle theory just contradicted the empirical mindset in saying that humans don't exist when the properties are gone. Now hold that thought.. What are properties? They are words which describe sense data. So we can say properties = words. Words are sounds which are understood as labels e.i. hard, green, moist, ect. By stripping an object of it's properties you simply remove the labels, not the object itself. Labels or no labels, the object exists. Objects existed before language, thus they are not bound by language.[/QUOTE] Bundle theory is distinct from Hume's rejection of self. I don't really see how this is relevant. Hume reduces our false belief in self to a bundle of [i]perceptions[/i], not properties. I haven't decided what my stance on bundle theory is, but you don't need to to reject self. I can go into the argument denying self if you like; it would be useful for my exam revision actually. But at the moment I don't have much time to go into it (and it's a really long-winded, difficult to articulate argument). While we're on the subject of properties, properties aren't merely words which describe sense data. You seem to be implying that properties are just abstract entities that only exist contingently on human beings when that's just not the case. But anyway, either way bundle theory and the reduction of objects to bundles of properties is distinct - though admittedly quite similar - to Hume's rejection of self. I'll talk about that tomorrow maybe. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057943]The Cogito poses as another obstacle to Bundle Theory. "I", which is a property and label, describes the self. Something which is labeled must have reasoning for being labeled.... existing perhaps? Point is, I labels something which is there through empirical data. Something must be there to receive and convey the empirical data. Something must be there to be labeled, be is physical or an idea. That something is me and you (and everyone else if you really want me to say it.) [/QUOTE] That's incredibly circular. You're trying to prove you exist, by referring to the alleged fact that you exist? Philosophically redundant. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057943]Speaking in non philosophical terms, I am sitting in my chair right now typing to you. Descartes says I exist, Hume says I don't. Which do you really believe?[/QUOTE] This is an interesting point actually, and a subject of massive controversy in Hume scholars. Hume would believe he exists, that you exist, that the external world exists. Except when he adopts the philosophical method. when Hume was in philosophy mode he knew that, no matter how absurd, we have no reason - deductive or causal - to think we, or the external world, exist. Of course I believe you are in your chair typing to me. But I know I have no philosophical reason to think I do, and that is a, irresistible defect in human understanding. Belief in self is irrational. I'll explain the argument tomorrow if I feel up to it. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34057943]In terms of oppression. You are right that oppression isn't right. However, religion isn't the only culprit. In Egypt if you say you are Christian in public you get murdered. Also, atheists who don't allow their children to have anything to do with religion are just as bad. Every belief has it's parents who allow their children to see the world and who 'protect' their children from what they don't want their children to become. In the end, it isn't up to you to decide how a parent raises his/her child. They went through the pregnancy, it's their kid. Right or not, get over it and accept there is nothing you can do about it. So why bother worrying?[/QUOTE] Of the type of oppression I described, where your very values and beliefs are oppressed, religion is easily the biggest offender. I'm actually a little less worried about all of the homophobia, hate for atheists, wars, etc, than I am about our very minds being denied the right to think freely. And are you seriously implicating that we shouldn't have any concern for things we can't do anything about? I can't do anything about the holocaust or natural disasters but I still abhor and their existence.
[QUOTE=mediocrity;34062086]Point out to me where I say religion is based on knowledge, and where I say you are saying it is.[/QUOTE] You said: "All religion is based on human curiosity about how we got here. Not knowledge about how we got here." This indicates that you misunderstood my point, I said nothing about you saying that religion is based on knowledge. Though, for all purposes, it could very well be, we don't know that though, do we? [QUOTE=mediocrity;34062086]By my explanation, it does not mean a man must be curious to be religious. Curiosity is not something bestowed upon us by a god, it is a human feeling. Babies are atheists, yet they are curious about the world around them, are they not? Because theories can be wrong that doesn't mean they are all wrong, and I think you have gotten hypotheses mixed up with theories: "The term "theory" implies that scientists have high confidence that a theory's predictions will prove accurate in the future. Theories differ from hypotheses in that the latter are more speculative and tentative. Scientists propose hypotheses to explain and predict observations that are poorly understood. If evidence accumulates that an hypothesis makes accurate predictions, then that hypothesis become a theory." [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]Source[/URL] I'm not even going to start on Aristotle and Einstein as you are picking out two scientists from a whole catalog of great scientific minds. You can give me more scientists if you want too, Newton was a fervent Christian. You're making an argument to authority, i.e. because a scientist believes in an omnipresent deity, it must be true. That said, you're not staying on topic, this thread as expressed in the original post, is about the origins of religion and not religion itself.[/QUOTE] Babies are curious of the Physical world around them, I doubt they have thoughts of the after life upon birth. Hypothesis, a low level belief that needs support. Theory, a supported belief that is more likely to have truth to it. Think of beliefs in terms percentages. A hypothesis may be 25% accepted knowledge, meaning that it falls in the realm of belief since complete knowledge is absolute 100% (regardless of what we believe.) Once it becomes a Theory, it may raise up to 80% knowledge, still in the realm of belief as it isn't yet absolute 100%. Let's say now that that Theory has gained incredible support and raised up to being 99% accepted knowledge, it is still not complete knowledge because there is still something wrong with it to where it can be shot down the hole, thus it is is still belief. Note: when I say accepted knowledge, that does not mean truth, it means what we belief to be knowledge. Another belief in itself. When I say absolute knowledge, it is the truth that we strive to understand. Also, in regards to [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory[/url]. "The term "theory" implies that scientists have high confidence that a theory's predictions will prove accurate in the future." The only thing the scientific method proves is accuracy. Not truth, not knowledge, accuracy. Accuracy is the same as belief. You can't pick and choose what to believe. You page also says, "The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic." You're source is harming your argument more than supporting it. Aristotle was a Philosopher who is responsible for the biggest advancements in science for his time as well as other subjects ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle[/url]) Wouldn't you think that such an enlightened mind has more credibility than the people who followed him? Aristotle was pretty much put to death for being too smart. No, this doesn't "prove" anything just because he believed in God. Proof must be undeniable. It does, however, support the likelihood of God. Also: This is not going off topic as Religion is belief based. To be able to understand Religion you must first understand belief and why it is not knowledge. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;34062338]The difference being that scientists will readily admit that they were wrong if new credible evidence comes up. Religious texts and religious leaders have always claimed that they are preaching the truth, and that it is definite for all time (as one would expect, seeing as it's supposedly from God). However, science is based on trials and experiments to at least put some backing behind hypotheses and theories, but religion doesn't even attempt to be scrutinizing of itself. So no, science is not 'belief' in the same sense that religion is 'belief'.[/QUOTE] You are correct in saying that it is not the same system of belief. Science uses an Empirical mindset of belief where Religion (mainly Christianity;Hinduism;Muslim;Buddhism) uses a Rational mindset of belief. Empirical mindsets rely on sense data from the physical mind (scientific method.) Rational mindsets rely on taking the sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic (similar to math.) Regardless of which path is taken, a belief is a belief. That is, not necessary knowledge but potentially knowledge at the same time. If you read my reply to mediocrity above you will see where I am coming from. Robbobin, I just saw you post, ill reply later on. I'm not ignoring you. =p
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34063458]You are correct in saying that it is not the same system of belief. Science uses an Empirical mindset of belief where Religion (mainly Christianity;Hinduism;Muslim;Buddhism) uses a Rational mindset of belief. Empirical mindsets rely on sense data from the physical mind (scientific method.) Rational mindsets rely on taking the sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic (similar to math.) Regardless of which path is taken, a belief is a belief. That is, not necessary knowledge but potentially knowledge at the same time. If you read my reply to mediocrity above you will see where I am coming from.[/QUOTE] In what way is religion comparable to math? How is the concept that god created the universe in 6 days 'relying on taking sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic'?
Yeah I'm not really sure where he's going with this rationalist/empiricist dichotomy. The dichotomy has absolutely nothing to do with science vs religion, except in that most religious philosophers use rationalism as opposed to empiricism to prove their doctrines (unsuccessfully). Also the way he drew the dichotomy is wrong. He says "rational mindsets rely on taking the sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic" which simply [I]isn't what rationalism is.[/I] Rationalism is an appeal to [I]pure reason,[/I] it is purely [I]a priori[/I] and is totally detached from sense data or [I]a posteriori[/I] experiences. The reason religious people defer to rationalism is because the world is simply devoid of any experiences of god or meaningful purpose. It's nothing to do with piecing experiences together like maths equations. An example of a rationalist proof of god is like the contingency argument which states that everything has a cause, therefore there must be god. But it turns out even this fails to be rationalist because our whole belief in cause and effect is based on a posteriori experiences anyway. Rationalism is just silly.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34063458] Snipped because of ridiculously long yet awful argument[/QUOTE] Read the first post. "We are not here to argue which religion is the best or if religion should or shouldn't exist, but to discuss about why religion was "invented" in the first place." I never once implied that you said belief was based on knowledge, I simply reaffirmed what I stated and I actually agreed with you that it came from the lack of knowledge. If this did confuse you, I apologise. I'm not going to indulge you with a response to your spurious copy-pasting of information about one philosopher.
Religion was twisted by leaders to control the masses but I believe it was made to put moral standards for people to follow, also to explain the unexplainable. Alot of people here like to talk about the Old Testament of the Bible, which was rendered obsolete by the New Testament made by Jesus, which preached peace and love for EVERYONE saying that God was a being made of love not hate. Same goes for the prophet Muhamad and the Q'uran. It preaches peace but leaders twisted the words in those books and use Religion as a tool to create hate towards their enemies.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34063268]Bundle theory is distinct from Hume's rejection of self. I don't really see how this is relevant. Hume reduces our false belief in self to a bundle of [i]perceptions[/i], not properties. I haven't decided what my stance on bundle theory is, but you don't need to to reject self. I can go into the argument denying self if you like; it would be useful for my exam revision actually. But at the moment I don't have much time to go into it (and it's a really long-winded, difficult to articulate argument). While we're on the subject of properties, properties aren't merely words which describe sense data. You seem to be implying that properties are just abstract entities that only exist contingently on human beings when that's just not the case. But anyway, either way bundle theory and the reduction of objects to bundles of properties is distinct - though admittedly quite similar - to Hume's rejection of self. I'll talk about that tomorrow maybe.[/QUOTE] Hume states Bundle Theory is based off of properties, not perceptions. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory[/url] I would like to hear you argument denying the self before proceeding with this part of the argument. I hope to be able to help you on your paper as an opposing argument. ^_^ [QUOTE=Robbobin;34063268] That's incredibly circular. You're trying to prove you exist, by referring to the alleged fact that you exist? Philosophically redundant. [/QUOTE] Plato's Ontological argument for God has elements of the same concept I am trying to convey. The idea that we are here is evidence that we are here. It's circular, yes, but life is full of circles from the planets, to stars, to magnetic fields, to electrons, to gravitation, to protons, to history, to paradox, to torque, ect. Circles are important to life in some way or another. A circular thought process may hold a clue that can only be seen by understanding the circular thought process. [QUOTE=Robbobin;34063268] This is an interesting point actually, and a subject of massive controversy in Hume scholars. Hume would believe he exists, that you exist, that the external world exists. Except when he adopts the philosophical method. when Hume was in philosophy mode [B]he knew that[/B], no matter how absurd, we have no reason - deductive or causal - to think we, or the external world, exist. Of course I believe you are in your chair typing to me. But I know I have no philosophical reason to think I do, and that is a, irresistible defect in human understanding. Belief in self is irrational. I'll explain the argument tomorrow if I feel up to it. [/QUOTE] By Hume's own logic he didn't know anything, but I would like for you to continue with the argument. [QUOTE=Robbobin;34063268] Of the type of oppression I described, where your very values and beliefs are oppressed, religion is easily the biggest offender. I'm actually a little less worried about all of the homophobia, hate for atheists, wars, etc, than I am about our very minds being denied the right to think freely. And are you seriously implicating that we shouldn't have any concern for things we can't do anything about? I can't do anything about the holocaust or natural disasters but I still abhor and their existence.[/QUOTE] Example of my experience: I am a Christian and I think freely all the time. Just because free thinking isn't promoted doesn't mean it is restrained. In fact, Christians encourage philosophy as it is required to defend it's beliefs. A group call Christian Philosophy does indeed exist and favors Plato as well as Aristotle. To limit philosophy to a certain group of people, not saying you are but it feels like it's being implied, is incredibly biased. Always consider the opposite of your beliefs to be our there. To worry about matters you can't control is a fool's game. Why dwell on the past when you can only impact the future? Also, how do you really know the holocaust happened or any natural disaster happened for that matter? Look at the holocaust thread that was locked, there is just as much convincing support against it as there is supporting it. You have the freedom to feel how you want about it. It doesn't mean it's mentally healthy for you to do so. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;34064782]In what way is religion comparable to math? How is the concept that god created the universe in 6 days 'relying on taking sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic'?[/QUOTE] Sense data - Words in the bible Rational part - Figuring out what exactly went on Math connection - Logic, if A then B else C. Statistics, Logistics and Probability are parts of mathematical thought. Belief coincides with Probability. Religion is based off belief. There is your connection. [QUOTE=Robbobin;34065566]Yeah I'm not really sure where he's going with this rationalist/empiricist dichotomy. The dichotomy has absolutely nothing to do with science vs religion, except in that most religious philosophers use rationalism as opposed to empiricism to prove their doctrines (unsuccessfully). Also the way he drew the dichotomy is wrong. He says "rational mindsets rely on taking the sense data from the physical and putting pieces together through logic" which simply [I]isn't what rationalism is.[/I] Rationalism is an appeal to [I]pure reason,[/I] it is purely [I]a priori[/I] and is totally detached from sense data or [I]a posteriori[/I] experiences. The reason religious people defer to rationalism is because the world is simply devoid of any experiences of god or meaningful purpose. It's nothing to do with piecing experiences together like maths equations. An example of a rationalist proof of god is like the contingency argument which states that everything has a cause, therefore there must be god. But it turns out even this fails to be rationalist because our whole belief in cause and effect is based on a posteriori experiences anyway. Rationalism is just silly.[/QUOTE] Yes, pure reason neglects sense data. I am not talking about pure reason when I say rational mindset. Kant says to walk the middle ground between Rational and Empirical, that is what I do. One can be 90% rational and 10% empirical just as much as one can be 70% empirical and 30% rational. It's not one or the other, no black and white, just different shades of grey. You also cannot be certain that the world is devoid of God because there is no certainty of every attribute of God and where exactly He comes into play when it comes to the physical world (although I did write a paper on God's existence through multi-dimensional attributes.) For all you know, God is in all of us. If true, we now have aspects of God around us all. I am also working on mathematical equations for knowledge, truth, and belief. They are still incomplete but I will be sure to post them whenever I have the time to do so. Pure Rationalism is just as silly as Pure Empiricism. Without Rationalist, we would be nothing more than animals without reason. You wouldn't be looking at your computer right now if it weren't for reason. Don't take it for granted. Mediocrity my argument is not awful simply because you don't agree with it. I would appreciate respect as I don't call your argument stupid. There is obviously confusion between us, i'd rather sort out the confusion than fling insults.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Hume states Bundle Theory is based off of properties, not perceptions. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory[/url] I would like to hear you argument denying the self before proceeding with this part of the argument. I hope to be able to help you on your paper as an opposing argument. ^_^[/QUOTE] oh noo, what I mean is, the argument Hume uses to reject self isn't actually anything to do with bundle theory. Bundle theory is more or less what you say it is; objects are bundles of properties. But that's totally distinct from what Hume calls the self: a bundle of perceptions. I'll talk more about this tomorrow, not feeling up to such intense philosophy tonight! [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Plato's Ontological argument for God has elements of the same concept I am trying to convey. The idea that we are here is evidence that we are here. It's circular, yes, but life is full of circles from the planets, to stars, to magnetic fields, to electrons, to gravitation, to protons, to history, to paradox, to torque, ect. Circles are important to life in some way or another. A circular thought process may hold a clue that can only be seen by understanding the circular thought process.[/QUOTE] While when I adopt my naive, vulgar, day-to-day existence (i.e. whenever I'm not doing philosophy) I assume I exist, it's still philosophically redundant. Maybe it just turned out to be of biological, evolutionary usefulness for our brains to treat the body as one entity, I don't know. But rationally speaking, its pretty redundant. I'm not totally settled on my denial of self, though. I'm open minded to arguments positing its existence, but so far none of them seem particularly convincing, unless I assume their conclusion is true... but I can say that of absolutely any arbitrary premise. I actually think most of the beautiful philosophies, buddhist, taoist, nihilist, etc, its their denial of the self that is such an integral part of what makes them beautiful. Of course this isn't of much philosophical importance because being beautiful doesn't make it true... I'm just saying that really in case people feel sorry for me adopting such destructive philosophies (and they really, really do). [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]By Hume's own logic he didn't know anything, but I would like for you to continue with the argument.[/QUOTE] Hume wouldn't say he knows [i]nothing[/i]. For instance I have indisputable knowledge that perception exists. I think this is really what Descartes meant to say with the cogito. He'd have avoided all of the controversy if he said "there is thought. something exists" instead of "I think therefore I exist". Hume's not quite as sceptical as people insist he is.. or maybe he's even more sceptical than people realise... Either way he thinks certain kinds of non-deductive reasoning (namely causal reasoning) is one of the most valuable items of human understanding. However belief in the self [i]does not[/i] get inferred causally, and Hume contends that the belief in self is simply a muddled, confused, irresistable part of human understanding. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Example of my experience: I am a Christian and I think freely all the time. Just because free thinking isn't promoted doesn't mean it is restrained. In fact, Christians encourage philosophy as it is required to defend it's beliefs. A group call Christian Philosophy does indeed exist and favors Plato as well as Aristotle. To limit philosophy to a certain group of people, not saying you are but it feels like it's being implied, is incredibly biased. Always consider the opposite of your beliefs to be our there. [/QUOTE] Actually I'd say I'm trying to imply the opposite of limiting philosophy to certain people. Foremost, you're a human being, a [i]person[/i], not a religious person. I'd like to liberate everyone from religious dogma so we can walk on our own two feet without being prescribed systems of belief or value. Not that I expect to do anything about it, beyond talk about it (in a probably very unconvincing manner I'm sure), but to realise that the world is objectively purposeless, valueless and godless, is for me, the most liberating feeling there is. What people tell me god does for them, Jean-Paul Sartre does for me. And he does it without making any huge, unfounded metaphysical assumptions. Bertrand Russell says some of my favourite things on the subject. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw[/media] [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]To worry about matters you can't control is a fool's game. Why dwell on the past when you can only impact the future? Also, how do you really know the holocaust happened or any natural disaster happened for that matter? Look at the holocaust thread that was locked, there is just as much convincing support against it as there is supporting it. You have the freedom to feel how you want about it. It doesn't mean it's mentally healthy for you to do so.[/QUOTE] Well I totally agree with your message. But I feel it's kind of irrelevant. Just because I can't rid the world of religion, it doesn't mean I can't evaluate it and abhor it. And hopefully along the way, by discussing my ideas I'll be able to liberate or inspire a few people. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Sense data - Words in the bible Rational part - Figuring out what exactly went on Math connection - Logic, if A then B else C. Statistics, Logistics and Probability are parts of mathematical thought. Belief coincides with Probability. Religion is based off belief. There is your connection.[/QUOTE] Where the sweaty hell is the rationality when people believe in virgin births? Or walking on water? So many parts of religion actively defy rationality and inductive/deductive reasoning. [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Yes, pure reason neglects sense data. I am not talking about pure reason when I say rational mindset. Kant says to walk the middle ground between Rational and Empirical, that is what I do. One can be 90% rational and 10% empirical just as much as one can be 70% empirical and 30% rational. It's not one or the other, no black and white, just different shades of grey. You also cannot be certain that the world is devoid of God because there is no certainty of every attribute of God and where exactly He comes into play when it comes to the physical world (although I did write a paper on God's existence through multi-dimensional attributes.) For all you know, God is in all of us. If true, we now have aspects of God around us all. I am also working on mathematical equations for knowledge, truth, and belief. They are still incomplete but I will be sure to post them whenever I have the time to do so.[/QUOTE] For all I know there's an invisible elephant standing behind me. But there's absolutely no reason to think there is one. And this is ignoring all of the metaphysical assumptions you need to make before the concept of god even begins to be coherent. Omnibenevolence for example. I've yet to see a convincing account of objective morality, so how can conceive of an entity that is perfectly good a priori? [QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Pure Rationalism is just as silly as Pure Empiricism. Without Rationalist, we would be nothing more than animals without reason. You wouldn't be looking at your computer right now if it weren't for reason. Don't take it for granted.[/QUOTE] Sure, while I may need a few rational ingredients to function as a human being, such as the ability to make causal inference, to deduce and to understand a few logical axioms such as it never being the case that any proposition is both true and false, I don't need any of the silly baggage rationalism spouts. Innate knowledge and all of those rationalist concepts are just silly.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502] Mediocrity my argument is not awful simply because you don't agree with it. I would appreciate respect as I don't call your argument stupid. There is obviously confusion between us, i'd rather sort out the confusion than fling insults.[/QUOTE] I say your argument is awful as it is a string of logical fallacies and standard clichéd arguing methods used by religious apologists. You should read the rest of that post instead of the part that just interests you.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502]Sense data - Words in the bible Rational part - Figuring out what exactly went on Math connection - Logic, if A then B else C.[/QUOTE] Religious texts can hardly be called 'data'. Especially considering the definition of data is: 1. Plural of datum. 2. Individual facts, statistics, or items. 3. A body of facts or information.
[QUOTE=Holywiremod;34066502] By Hume's own logic he didn't know anything, but I would like for you to continue with the argument[/QUOTE] Isn't there a quote from Socrates like "I know that I know nothing"?
snip wait what wrong page [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;34069184]Isn't there a quote from Socrates like "I know that I know nothing"?[/QUOTE] Yes, he just knew that for example the Sun that gave them warmth wasn't actually a God, and other citizens thought they knew all about it. Then he concluded that nobody knew nothing. But today, we DO know all about our planet and the sky which Socrates found baffling.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34078124]snip wait what wrong page [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] Yes, he just knew that for example the Sun that gave them warmth wasn't actually a God, and other citizens thought they knew all about it. Then he concluded that nobody knew nothing. But today, we DO know all about our planet and the sky which Socrates found baffling.[/QUOTE] what That's not what socrates' doubt consisted of at all. His scepticism was a lot more profound than that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.