next »

[C.A. Silbereisen]

i think i can answer this: little. i tried having a conversation about chemistry with him one day, and he not only insulted me for even being interested in it, but said that there is absolutely no use in knowing anything about chemistry. from that point on i decided not to talk to phubans about anything related to science.

I agreed with Phubans about people being "dogmatic" about science they don't understand, but likewise, if you're going to make claims that amount to "science is bullshit", you better know what the hell you're talking about.

This is further complicated by the fact that, even though you may not fully understand science, you see its results basically every waking minute of your life. For instance, I don't know all the details of how a computer works. But the fact that I'm using one to post this message onto the internet (another invention I don't understand 100%) leads me to assume, and reasonably so, that the scientific theory behind it is legit.

So I'm more inclined to "believe" in science than in the pseudoscientific aspect of religion.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

it's not really death if he was immediately revived by god. that was kind of pointless. if he really wanted to make a point of jesus suffering for our sins god should have destroyed jesus's soul permanently, or sent jesus to hell for eternity or something. but dying for a few days? pointless. even i would die for a few days if i knew i was going to be revived. i'd even do it for free, just for the experience.

[im9today]

that was kind of pointless.

saving all the souls of all the people on the planet now and forever doesn't seem too pointless to me  

have you ever read vonnegut (slaughterhouse five) on jesus btw?

[im9today]

i can edit it onto a wikipedia page for you real quick if you havent

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

yeah but if they were that easy to save, anyone could have saved them. saving everyone's souls by dying and being revived is about as impressive as saving everyone's souls by beating cave story

and no, but regarding vonnegut and slaughterhouse an interesting thing happened. there was this drunk guy visiting the US on our college who stayed over our dorm room one day (i forget why, maybe he was a friend of one of my roomates). we talked a bit about philosophy, he was a vonnegut fan and told me to read "breakfast of champions" and that it would change my life. he wrote this down on a piece of paper. i still haven't read that book, but i still have that piece of paper, even 10 years later.

[im9today]

you let him down, just like you are letting jesus down...

when i moved into my new apartment a few months ago the previous tenant had left a sign on the back door that reads NOTHING IN HEAR (sic) IS WORTH YOUR LIFE

sometimes i just stare at that sign

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

well jesus let me down by saving my soul in a particularly uninspiring and trivial fashion, so it's even. why couldn't the savior of humanity have killed satan with his bare hands after punching his way through the 7 layers of hell to get to him

[Pineapple]

It's impossible to win an argument against Paul Eres just FYI.

I find that if it's impossible to win an argument against somebody, that means one of two things. Either they know exactly what they're talking about and are certainly correct, or they haven't got a clue and just refuse to admit so. It looks to me like Eres knows his stuff, and Drum, I can't say that everything you've said has made as much sense as it should.



Also, I challenge someone to explain how, based on the christian faith, you achieve salvation without contradicting the new testament of the bible, most notably Ephesians 2:8-9 or James 2:24



@Heinz
Explain how Isaiah 45:7 - I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. - doesn't invalidate your argument that evil is not god's fault.

[Drum]

It's impossible to win an argument against Paul Eres just FYI.

I find that if it's impossible to win an argument against somebody, that means one of two things. Either they know exactly what they're talking about and are certainly correct, or they haven't got a clue and just refuse to admit so. It looks to me like Eres knows his stuff, and Drum, I can't say that everything you've said has made as much sense as it should.

well that settles it then

[Zest]

Throwing in my own two cents on religion/science:

-Both have functional role in society; religion gives purpose to life, science helps us understand how our world works. You don't necessarily need religion to be happy, but that's what it does for a large part of society. Respecting their need to be comforted in times of strife (God's plan, etc. etc.) is just plain polite.

-Science and religion to me operate on totally separate systems. Religion requires faith, which is belief in a concept without evidence. Science requires evidence that can succeed in repeated tests. Scientific beliefs change constantly as new data arrives and new hypotheses are proposed. Religious beliefs tend to change slowly as the needs/views of the culture changes (views on homosexuality, for example).

-Where people run into trouble is mixing the two. Young Earth Creationists, for example- they believe that the Earth is only 5,000-10,000 years old, as opposed to scientific consensus that the Earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years. This I find a bit silly, but otherwise acceptable. What bothers me is when members of this group feel the need to produce their own studies that try to discredit entire branches of study, just to justify their literally-interpretive religious beliefs.

-My own personal take on the Bible is that it is meant to be allegorical/interpretive. Many of the acts described are either impossible or else historically implausible- the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, for example, is one such part that may or may not be true.

-On that note, I feel like the lessons and stories in the Bible should be considered in context of the historical era they were written in. I'm sure you've heard about all the sorts of strange passages about shrimp and tatoos and other sorts of things that don't really apply to modern times and aren't really brought up (except by people who engage in religious discussions, of course). The stories that do survive to today touch on universal themes, and shouldn't be ignored.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

side note, but since the topic came up, i don't consider myself to be 'arguing' with anyone (even if such people see themselves as arguing with me) -- my discussions are more about exploration of ideas, i don't try to win anything or prove that i'm right. for instance, i'm not trying to prove to anyone that christianity is false, i'm just explaining why i think it is.

a lot of people treat discussions too militantly, and get angry at and insult the "other side" and so on, it's ridiculous, people are too attached to their ideas and treat disagreements too personally, as if it's offensive that someone believes something other than what they see as true. so perhaps it's more apt to say that you can't win arguments against me because i refuse to argue, i'm more interested in how people think than in what they think

anyway, regarding religion, my understanding of it as a creation of social control (rather than simply superstition) still seems more likely to me than jesus being revived after a few days, because priests don't act as if they were teaching the salvation of humanity and bringing people good news, rather priests try to control how people behave and think and operate. if priests weren't as controlling and manipulative and weren't so good at controlling people's minds and getting them to believe in things which serve the state i'd put more stock into the idea that religion might be true.

[Drum]

side note, but since the topic came up, i don't consider myself to be 'arguing' with anyone (even if such people see themselves as arguing with me) -- my discussions are more about exploration of ideas, i don't try to win anything or prove that i'm right. for instance, i'm not trying to prove to anyone that christianity is false, i'm just explaining why i think it is.

a lot of people treat discussions too militantly, and get angry at and insult the "other side" and so on, it's ridiculous, people are too attached to their ideas and treat disagreements too personally, as if it's offensive that someone believes something other than what they see as true. so perhaps it's more apt to say that you can't win arguments against me because i refuse to argue, i'm more interested in how people think than in what they think

Kill yourself.

[Dacke]

No, science and religion don't exist in two separate spheres. Religions make claims about reality and science shows that many of the claims are false (consequently showing that the religion that made the claim is false).

In other spheres, religions are "countered" by other things. Religious ethics are based on dogma or tradition, where the modern alternatives are based on reason and empathy. The comfort provided by religions are either through fellowship (which can be supplied without believing in untrue things) or by saying untrue things about reality (proven to be untrue by science). Other cultural and supportive structures work just as well for giving comfort - in many cases much better. In a real emotional crisis, I would prefer to get help from someone who has studied psychology and knows how to help someone in that situation. Science provides a way to figure out those things too, you know.

But this is about creating positive changes in society as a whole, rather than attacking the practices of individuals. Religions have been integrated into society for such a long time, it can be hard to replace them. Most people in Sweden wouldn't know how to celebrate the birth of a child, without the ceremony related to baptism. It can be hard to find good alternatives to the rituals and traditions that the religions have established/taken over. It will take time.

[Blademasterbobo]

paul eres you are a condescending piece of shit 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

i'm uncomfortable basing ethics on an emotion like empathy, because empathy differs for different people (with some people having almost no empathy) -- would ethics be different for people with different levels of empathy? should people with no empathy be held to the standards of people with a lot of empathy, even if it's a biological difference?

[Drum]

paul eres you are a condescending piece of shit  

A condescending piece of shit and a pathologically dishonest retard.  CA Sinclair was wrong - he constantly loses arguments, then he puts it down to 'exploring ideas'.  Hey Paul, you could explore ideas a lot better if you didn't persistently mangle facts and misrepresent arguments.  You psychotic, fatuous, bloviating cunt.

[Dacke]

i'm uncomfortable basing ethics on an emotion like empathy, because empathy differs for different people (with some people having almost no empathy) -- would ethics be different for people with different levels of empathy? should people with no empathy be held to the standards of people with a lot of empathy, even if it's a biological difference?

Perhaps empathy isn't the best possible word. Perhaps "the human will to do/be good" would be a better description for what motivates us to create ethics.

[Dacke]

Haha, yeah. I remember the first big argument I had with Paul. It was about piracy and plums. At the end of it I was maaaaad. But since then I have learned to enjoy it at times and take a step back if I get annoyed,

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

that's better phrased, yea, but it still has a similar issue -- some people want to be good more than others do. and even those that do want to do good sometimes want it for varying reasons, some of which aren't good (such as to be admired, or to feel superior to others). there's also the issue of *basing* ethics on a *will to do good* being a bit circular: how do you know what good is without ethics? those people who want to do good would already have to some idea of ethics (of what is good and what is bad) prior to basing ethics on that desire to do good

[Dacke]

Seeing how ethics aren't ontologically real, you have to find a reason to construct them. My guess is that people want to do this because of our innate will to do good. It's more of a "how it does happen" rather than a "how it should happen".