1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I think I 'hate' religion.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Guinevere, 23 Apr 2014.

  1. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    Can you scientifically prove what made your day enjoyable? I guess it's not the only relevant human perspective then. :D
     
  2. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    You are an odd one, Nexxo. :)
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    Nope, I'm just saying that there is light with a wavelength of 510nm, and there's the colour green. The former is a useful scientific fact, but I also quite like the colour green.
     
  4. Teelzebub

    Teelzebub Up yours GOD,Whats best served cold

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    15,796
    Likes Received:
    4,484
    Every time I see the title I keep thinking it should be "I think religion hate's me" lets be honest if you don't follow the party line of whatever religion it is it will normally preach some kind of hate and damnation towards you.
     
  5. megamale

    megamale Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2011
    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not it's not a scientific viewpoint. To make your comments compatible with the scientific viewpoint I took the liberty to edit it below:

    God , if it exists, would be outside our currently testable realm, so it's pointless to speculate about something that is so wildly unlikely, is claimed to have no observable effect on the physical realm and we have no way of testing. This is why you won't find any scientists trying to disprove God any more than disprove the existence of Santa .

    What makes you Deist, rather than Scientific on this topic:
    - Making a distinction between the physical realm and another distinct realm (spiritual perhaps?).
    - Implictly assuming that that whatever started it was sentient and non casual (why would you call it God otherwise, rather than "Initial phenomenon" for example).
    - Giving the hypothesis of God as a starter a higher weight than the other infinite (unprovable) possibilities on how things could have started.

    Don't want to get on a pointless discussion over semantics but your viewpoint is textbook Deist:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    No. God is conceptualised (hypothetically, like) as an entity that created our physical universe. Logic dictates that therefore this entity would have had to exist before our universe did, and outside of it. God can therefore be hypothesised as being outside our physical realm. I am not making any assumptions as to where that is; could be another physical universe, could be something totally different that we are unable to conceptualise because our only frame of reference is our physical universe. It's just not here, is all I'm saying. With me so far?

    Now, if God per definition is logically outside our physical realm, His existence cannot be scientifically tested. We therefore cannot make statements about the probability of his existence either.

    Santa, by the way, is conceptualised as a physical being in our physical realm. His existence can therefore be proved or disproved. No scientist bothers though, because it is pretty much accepted fact that he is made up.

    What makes my viewpoint scientific is:

    - Making a distinction between the physical realm and not the physical realm.
    - Not making any assumptions either way about the existence or non-existence of something that is unprovable
    - Giving the hypothesis of God as a creator a no weight at all because it cannot be proved or disproved.

    Your Wikipedia link defines Deism in its first sentence as:

    While I clearly state that the existence of God (defined as the hypothetical creator of our physical universe) can never be determined by observation of the natural world because by definition He would lie outside of it.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
  8. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    Being pedantic:

    You're incorrect. While the 'mass' of a cow may remain constant, the weight of a cow can vary, depending mostly on latitude and altitude.

    I tried to find an pictorial representation of cow mass, but the best I could do was these:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Cow... Mass.... Geddit?

    Sheesh I'm tired. Sorry guys.

    Edit: This entire post is because I saw a 'cow mass' joke and couldn't resist it. Can't believe I couldn't find a picture of a real cow inside a real church.
     
    Last edited: 26 Apr 2014
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    LOL :D

    Oh, crap. Does that exist too? :p

    Well, no, I'm not that either, because it is possible to have a word for something that may or may not exist, as long as we can define or conceptualise it in our imagination. But I do agree that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of its existence can be meaningfully discussed. But generally God is a metaphysical concept; hence He is unknowable and unprovable and (being a scientific agnostic) irrelevant from a scientific viewpoint.
     
  10. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    Hmmm by that notion we can't make statements about the probability of 'any old crap' that I could make up on the spot. Such as "I have faith that I can levitate myself to a height of 1 meter, but I can only do it on a planet with zero other living organisms... while wearing orange socks". You say you can't comment on the probability of this being correct. I say I'm talking out of my butt.

    While I understand where you're coming from I disagree. If a notion meets all of these criteria:

    A) Is impossible based on our current understanding of science.
    B) Has no source other than heresy and Chinese whispers.
    C) Has no physical evidence to back it up.

    Then I would say it would be reasonable to claim that the probability of the notion being true is VERY low. For a notion to be in some way 'probable' there must be some pull in that direction.
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    No, because levitation, planets with no living organisms and wearing orange socks are all parts of this physical universe, so empirically testable.

    A) We can never know if it is possible because it lies outside of the domain of science.
    B) imagination is not a condition nor a prohibition to possibility
    C) Again: outside of our physical realm, so unprovable.
     
  12. Krazeh

    Krazeh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,118
    Likes Received:
    56
    Doesn't 'God', as described in most religions, get involved with this physical universe for various reasons? If so, does the argument that 'God' is outside the physical realm still hold up?
     
  13. megamale

    megamale Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2011
    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Nexxo,

    I understand what you are saying, to paraphrase:

    Let's conceive of a God hypothesis.
    This God is outside of our physical world.
    We can only test in our current world.
    Hence we can't test whether this hypothesis is true or false.

    Ok then. You have this hypothesis. Now what? Is it likely, is it plausible? Is it worth pondering on? How about the hypothesis that instead of God, it was a random chemical reaction that took place in this other realm? does it hold the same weight?

    Do you see the issue? Think of that teapot, it's in orbit around Jupiter, it can't be detected like the God in the distinct realm. We still have no reason to believe it. And yet, it could be possible.

    All you are saying is that the hypothesis is out there. Great, now what?
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    That's my whole point: now nothing.

    Is it likely? We can never know.
    Is it plausible? We can never know.
    Is it worth pondering on? No, because we can never know.
    How about the hypothesis that instead of God, it was a random physical event that created the Big Bang? We can't look back further than the Big Bang, so we can never know.

    If you ask me if God exists, I will ask: what do you mean by God?
    If you mean God as creator of the universe, I'll say: I don't know.
    If you ask me if I believe in God, I'll say: I have no reason to.
    If you ask me if that matters to me, I'll say: logically, no.
    If you ask me if I believe that it would matter to God if He existed, I'll say: logically, no.

    Russell's teapot? We can some day know, when our technology allows us to do a high-rest survey of Jupiter and its environs, because it's in the physical realm. Moreover, extrapolating from what we know about this physical universe, it's pretty certain that there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter because teapots are man-made and someone would have had to put it there. It's how the physical universe works.
     
  15. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,347
    Likes Received:
    697
    Do you seriously need me to explain why Kim Jong-Un, or any mortal leader, is more fallible than an untouchable god?
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,353
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    I think that you lost track of the argument here. Let's recap:

    Any cult does that, no religion required. To the North Koreans, Kim Jong Un is god.
     
  17. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    I counter with my belief that nothing can be outside the domain of science, only outside the realm of known science.

    If a notion is not only contradictory to all that is provable but it also claimed to be outside of this reality, separate to science, outside this existence and has zero measurable impact on what is known and real then by any measure it does not exist. I use the word measure literally.

    For to exist and be 'real'; to jump from idea - to truth, there has to be more than the ancient cop-out 'leap of faith'. Religions are nothing but collected leaps of faith. There's belief because... you know... belief.

    A shared socially acceptable leap of faith passed from generation to generation, is no more reliable than the spontaneous one off ramblings of your neighbourhood Crazy Cat Woman™.

    People can of course believe anything they want. Have their own beliefs; their own faith. I could believe these god theories too... but then I'd too be wrong.

    I believe that claims such as 'It cannot be scientifically proven to be false' is a very pro-religion argument that while it may be correct 'from a certain point of view' should not be seen as a valid part of any scientific counter argument to someone's personal leaps of faith.

    It's possible to come up with an infinite number of mystic stories that by design cannot be proven. We should not give credence to their built in non-provability as a reason why they are compatible with an evidence based scientific outlook of the universe.

    Crazy Cat Woman® ideas are crazy even when wrapped up in centuries of pomp and doctrine.

    Ignore one - Ignore 'em all.
     
    Last edited: 26 Apr 2014
  18. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,207
    Likes Received:
    155
    linky to more info please.
     
  19. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,476
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    If you'd just think beyond the level of a 12 year old for a moment then you'd be able to deduce the validity of the statement.
     
  20. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,207
    Likes Received:
    155
    Not gunna h4ppen!!!1! :) :) :)
     

Share This Page