Yay, we came to the conclusion that reality is subjective! I think because of that we should all accept other beliefs and realize that we could all be right at the same time! Mostly because i am getting bored of this debate now lol, i've finally found somebody who can give valid doubt on that retarded argument. +r♥p misch and Rorack *I believe that reality is subjective, and that because of that you should always live to what you see as the most fun and fulfilling lifestyle possible. Be it research, worship, ignorance, or a little of all three.
Putting faith in its place hell ya buddy. Welcome to the own zone Christianity. I'm about to run rampant all over these fallacious arguments *elbow drops manger display*
I'm pretty bored of this debate to. But I would like to say even though reality is subjective. If you are going to say anything is true or false, you must first accept reality to be true. By arguing for a higher being, you accept that reality is true. If you accept reality is true, you can argue that a higher being is illogical and improbable. If you don't accept reality to be true, there is no true and false. Only an alternate reality. +rep for wonderful debate yoyo, first time I've argued reality. Inb4 shitstorm.
no problem brah, arguing reality is almost pointless, except you learn so much about yourself when you do it. Always fun because you end up arguing with yourself before you go to sleep
****en sick of this pointless debate Protip: We don't know **** your "logical conclusions" logic doesn't even come into play god damn I hate atheism
It baffles me that someone could be vehemently opposed to this video, because it's not being wildly degrading or insulting, it just illustrates the broad inconsistencies behind all theistic beliefs. I'm not sure whether the anger is because the theists are insecure about their own beliefs, or whether it's just blind hatred of atheists.
Key word here is "wildly". Though the video does suggest that religious people can be annoying and maybe aren't as intelligent (which it shouldn't do), its not nearly as bad as the way religious people talk about atheists. I think it's both, but mostly the second reason.
Pause at 7:27 for a good laugh for it's irony "It's not whether we believe in gods but how we TREAT each other that says the most about our character" This statement is the main point that we should all be looking at, that we should go by the simple plan of, "live and let live." Discussing and debating is fine but just know that your beliefs may be crushed in the process, which may be one reason I'm an agnostic (the most clueless and open group there is). I've deverted to one because logic may exist in religion but there is not one single religion proven to be correct, a simple question would be, "what if we're all wrong?" the christians, the atheists, and every other known religion. I know we're always looking for answers, it's human nature to engage in curiousity and to prove or disprove things. Just be aware that what we believe will be put into question and challenged. I'm aware of it and at the same time, I try not to engage in spewing onto people what I believe because those who are unwilling to look beyond what they believe in aren't worth debating with. If a person is willing to be open minded and willing to exchange knowledge, that is when it's an okay gesture to discuss things like religion with them. I'm not resurecting this post to say, "this is what I believe and you're wrong and rawr! I are teh smrter guy!" I'm posting this to say that no matter what we believe, we should just respect personal boundaries while at the same time remaining strong so that we are not offended so easily. I have too much to say about religion as a whole, both good and bad, but honestly I want to stop myself from ranting. So I say nighty night, as I'm going to bed.... *Urban goes to bed....
That's ignorant and ill-thought out. The idea that religion "clouds the mind and prevents progress" is bullshit. "Religion" isn't a thing, it's not a noun that can be characterized, it's like describing all of the colors with one adjective. Religion can't be generalized, different people react and function with it differently. It varies drastically person-to-person, not to mention the vast selection of beliefs a person might subscribe to and the availability for interpretation in any of them, letting just about no one believe the exact same things. I'm not defending it, because there isn't an "it" to defend. If I were to say "religion is great and it helps people" that would be just as ignorant and appallingly idiotic as saying it "clouds the mind and prevent progress." That's bull, and if anyone were to think about ideas before accepting them blindly, stereotypes like this would not exist. They provoke the reactions like these, and rightly so. Where did you grow up? People aren't stupid. If religions were as illogical and stupid as you seem the think they are, people wouldn't be fooled by it. Millions of people far more intelligent than either of us subscribe to beliefs you seem to think are childish and irrational. Maybe it's you that has a misconception, and the rest of the world isn't the problem. My reactions are disproportionally motivated. For that I am sorry, I do however believe what I have said is justified in the face in of the stupidity it attacks.
Ahem. Scientific method actually isn't reliable. After the first test, it is very rare for the results to continue on for every single other test. In fact, there is a remarkably consistent curve downwards on comparable examinations. Many laws of physics don't apply at subatomic levels.
I'm sorry for lumping religion together like that, I was just referring to it the same way everyone else was. You're completely right that to say that all religions are something or another is stupid. The bandwagon argument is even more stupid though. Saying something is true because many other people believe it is true is an illogical argument. I'd hardly call it being fooled, I'm under the impression people grow up with religion and are eased into it from a very young age. If somebody came up to you now and told you about their religion, you would listen, but not the same way you did when you were young. I grew up in Excelsior, Minnesota.
You can perceive R[sup]2[/sup] because it exists as infinite subspaces of R[sup]3[/sup] but you cannot perceive R[sup]4[/sup] as it would essentially, by the logical extension from R[sup]1[/sup] to R[sup]2[/sup] to R[sup]3[/sup], be the compilation of an infinite number of R[sup]3[/sup]s. As you cannot perceive R[sup]4[/sup] and thus have no idea what can and cannot exist there, why are you arguing about this. Point to line, line to plane, plane to space, rock to life, bacteria to human, human to god. Edit: Just letting you know I'm not religious so don't start thinking I'm all defensive of religion. And lol Meltyourtv
Ive noticed bad arguments on both sides here, so let me explain a few things: 1) The concept of "disproving" something: This is an invalid concept as used here, as there is in fact NO SUCH THING as disproof in the way that those speaking intend it. To disprove something, there are normally two methods, proving an idea or concept that is directly opposite or opposing to be true, thus invalidating the concept that opposes it, or to show that there is no basis in evidence to demonstrate that a concept exists or is valid. Now, as there are no directly opposing ideas that contradict any gods, this option is out. As for demonstrating that there is no evidence, this HAS been done, though many theists still debate it, there has been no observable instances of divinity, no evidence that tales related to any holy book being true, any observed instances of prayer truly being effective, nor any evidence that there is a (more or less) benevolent being watching us all. 2) The Nothing Can Be Known argument: The basis for this is that we 'could' have any number of improbable instances that would render things like science useless, for instance we are all in the matrix and we eventually will get out where everything is different, and science has proven useless. This is false for a number of reasons; it has no basis in evidence, there is nothing to show that it is true. It is also useless in any form, as it adds nothing to anything as it just says that outside of everything that we can know and use, that there is something else that makes it all useless and so we should just give up on it. This for very obvious reasons is extremely false, as to give up for the reason that we cant be sure of something that has basically know chance of being true is useless, and therefore it is better to address the world we DO know, and learn from it to better ourselves. 3) Argument from Population This argument is that if there was something wrong with something, everyone wouldnt believe it. This is faulty for a number of reasons as well: A) People are taught everything they know. Along with the basic facts of life like you must drink to live, many are taught that god exists. All through their lives they never hear more than a bit of argument against it. Therefore, they see no reason to doubt it, and therefore do not look any further. This causes people to accept something merely because it is what they have always been told is true, and to them they see its influence. If you were told all your life that the earth is flat, and you never saw a globe or satellite images, only flat maps, what cause would you have to question it? As far as you can tell, it is. Does that make it correct? No. B) Like the people near you (I am assuming that the reader is christian due to the biases I have noticed throughout the thread, however feel free to substitute whatever you believe in here), you believe in god, jesus and the like. You arent all incredibly stupid. But neither are the muslims, and their communities. Does the fact that they all believe allah exists work as proof of his existence? Of course not. 4) Religion and Science as Opposing faith based positions First off, this is quite evidently a false dichotomy. Religion is not even in anyway related to science. However, many argue this anyway, often saying that science requires faith. The matter is that science is based upon the what we see, what we can test. Science's reliability comes from the fact that people, like the people arguing for faith as opposed to science, often want to see new ideas that (in their minds) oppose theirs shut down, and therefore will attempt to disprove it. If they are able to do so, that idea gets thrown away as untenable. However, if an idea goes through rigorous review and tests, and can NOT be proven wrong, it has the chance to gain higher status, such as theory (explanation for why or how something happens) law (something that is observed to happen in every single instance etc. Ideas or concepts that reach this status are rarely proven wrong, however when they do, it is generally because of a major advancement (ie Theory of Relativity superceding Newtonian Physics). Science has no goal besides progression, and therefore cannot be said to be biased. 5) Argument of Religion as A Negative Influence This point is directed to the atheist side, as well as the theist side: Religion cannot truly be attributed to be either good nor bad, as its manifest in a large variety of ways. Many people are influenced by religion to do good acts for the sake of mankind. That said, I realize that the way people who argue non-factually in the name of a deity IS negative, however the umber of people who do this is much lower than the number of people that take the positive influences from religion. Generally these people fall less under "religious" than they do under "creationist". Creationism IS demonstrably false and detrimental to society, and DOES hold us back. 6)Pascal's Wager What if you are wrong? This is invalid for the reason that the number of possibilities for things that could exist is innumerable, and thus it is not reasonable to assume that you could get the right one just by guessing. 7)Atheism Claims... Atheism says nothing whatsoever. Atheists are as broad in their beliefs as theists, the only common thread is lack of belief in gods. Where this comes from is atheists attempting to show why they believe as they do, getting told they are bad people as atheists (I have had this happen countless times, some people have told me that I must be downright evil in order even not to believe in their god), and then responding often more vehemently than is necessary. Theres more, but ima stop for now. Qualia soup (maker of the video) is actually quite unbiased for the most part, though of course there will be a slight bias, it is impossible to argue for something well if you do not believe in what you are selling, which is bound to show through, however he keeps from making unjustifiable claims. Oh and just a personal contribution, I dont believe in your god for the same reason you dont believe in any of the other gods (I bet you dont believe in Zeus or Thor!). Think about that, what is it that makes your god better than either of those gods?
I'll do this a sentance at a time. It has no basis in evidence for one reason... it simply states that all of our EVIDENCE is based on assuptions (thats exactly what postulates are,) and by that standard cannot be used as proof. Therefore, you fail. ...wat? This sentance makes no sense, I wont even bother to refute that. It contradicts itself. This reasons for obvious very extremely is false to as up give the for reason cant we that sure be that something of basically has know of change true being useless is is therefore it and better adress to world we the know DO learn and it to from ourselves better. Did you see that? I just scrambled up your words and they STILL DONT MAKE SENSE!!!! Are you as drunk as me? I started out intended to have a good argument but I cant even understand what you are saying. Your lack of any reason behind your writing makes your argument invalid. Also, there is a much more intelligent way to disprove this theory. I think I am, therefore I am. If you can contemplate your own reality, wether it is you thats thinking or something making you think or whatever the hell else rene descartes was talking about, you are still thinking. Even if you are just a computer program you are still thinking. This means that you are irrefutabley real and it CANNOT BE DISPROVEN. Use that as your Postulate and shove it. Or something. Anyway, I just proved you wrong then did your own job for you so i'll go read the rest of your post now and see if anything is as fail. luuuuuv youuuuuuuu <3 Okay Im sorry and i dont mean to be rude, but this is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. No bias? You arent on the planet earth. Science can prove things? Bullshit, it can prove things to always work according to ITS OWN WORLD VEIW. It IS a religion unto itself because any advance requries that you believe previous conceptions. The whole IDEA behind modern science is that nothing can EVER be proven true and that EVERYTHING can be proven wrong, but is assumed true until proven otherwise. This is also why god is, according to science, real. Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Grrrrrrrrrrrr the more i read your post the more i rage.
I don't want to dive too much into this topic again but just a couple things @ Orlando: You said that there is "no evidence that tales related to any holy book being true" which is actually inaccurate. Many stories in religious texts, like the Bible, have evidence of being true and accurate. Any reference to a culture or civilization, as obscure as they may be, have been proven to be accurate through the discovery of artifacts from those civilizations. So while we can't prove say the supernatural part of it, all of the historical facts are intact which gives some weight to the stories. As for the what makes one god better than the rest? Well, one of them is real (I know that's asking for a can of worms to be opened but that's my opinion and belief and I'll just leave it at that).