[Illuyankas]

Really? Perhaps I should imply horrible things about member's members more often then.

Slightly on topic though, while I haven't read it myself, I keep hearing that The Selfish Gene is great if a little outdated now. And The God Delusion is an acquired taste. I've always found Dawkins entertaining, if only because the reactions he engenders are so damn funny.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 17 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

Cougar, on Jan 16 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

Terez slags someone off and then puts a smiley at the end, why? Did you not mean it?

No, just to indicate that I'm not angry. I especially do this when I'm arguing with friends (like CI).

I used to get lots of rep for arguing with CI cause everyone seemed to get that I annoy him just as much as he annoys them...

Ha. Champion of the mob 'reza? You're so conformist you should go back to the church

[Terez]

Took you 10 days to come up with that, eh? Lame.

[Cold Iron]

Your mum's lame

[Terez]

You would know.

[Camel]

I'm reading a book by the Dalai Lama called "The Universe In A Single Atom" or something like that. It's basically about the Dalai Lama's fascination with science and his thoughts about it. And he explicitly says multiple times throughout the book that "Anyone who rejects scientific fact in favor of scriptural authority is [an idiot]". Seriously. This guy is my new favorite religious figure.

He says that Buddhism teaches to accept reality over its teachings. That is, if the teachings are proven to be wrong, then reject them in favor of the truth.

He also suggests that there is a fundamental rule about whether science can explain something or not. Some guy named Popper came up with this rule: In order for something to be a scientific theory, there must be a test to prove it false. For instance, if I have a theory that an object weighing two metric tons will fall faster than an object weighing only one metric ton, then the proof that it is false is to drop both items and find out that they both fall at the same speed. Or, for instance, the theory that you have the flu. I can do a blood test and determine that you do, in fact, have the flu virus. The absence of such a result will prove the theory false.

On the other hand, "God exists because this book says so" isn't provable -- you can't prove it false! There's no test that can show that theory is false.

The Dalai Lama also makes the excellent point, of which we're all well aware, that NOT FINDING AN OBJECT is not the same as THAT OBJECT NOT EXISTING. In other words, just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can use deduction and inference to figure out that things exist even though we can't see them. Watch an episode of House and you'll understand. He'll infer that his patient's wife is cheating on him because his skin is orange. He hasn't seen his patient's wife nor caught her in the act of cheating, but that doesn't mean she's not cheating. In fact, we find out that she is.

In a converse example, I've never seen a black hole large enough to swallow the Earth, but I know that there isn't one that size anywhere near Earth. I can conclusively state that it doesn't exist near us. How, if I can't find it? Because it hasn't swallowed us yet.

The fact that we haven't found aliens doesn't mean that they don't exist.
The fact that we haven't found God or some other heavenly being doesn't mean that they don't exist.

But at the same time, when science proves evolution or the rate of acceleration or the flu virus or the speed of sound, the Dalai Lama and I agree that you'd be a fucking moron (my words, not His Eminence's) to reject that science in favor of a book written by people who didn't know any better.

There's a part of the Buddhists texts that state that all matter is made up of eight particles -- earth, fire, wind, water, smell, taste, sound and touch. The Dalai Lama indicated that he didn't understand how smell, taste, touch and sound could be particles, but that it's what the text say. He also spends at least one chapter talking about protons and electrions and quarks and gluons and other elementary physics particles, and how science has disproved the Buddhist texts assertions as to the elementary particles of the universe. He has instituted a widespread policy in Buddhists schools of teaching modern physics and chemistry alongside the Buddhists texts, with the same assertion that he makes in his books: when you experience something or read a credible witness statement by an expert that something exists, you can safely reject the scriptural authority that says otherwise.

Basically, he's saying "Teach the Buddhist texts, because they're important for a variety of reasons, including spiritual and metaphysical reasons, but when science contradicts assertions from the text, believe science."

Rock.

[Cause]

Camel, very interesting however just remeber that inference is a two way street.We can use deduction and inference to figure out that things dont exist even though we can't see them.

[Cold Iron]

I love John Safran

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=igIBSeaJ9YI

[stone monkey]

Oh dear. Seeing as most things can't be seen, as our particular sensitivity to the em spectrum is tiny and our magnification weak, then we extend our senses with instruments to allow them to be detected. The inference that this is in anyway similar to relying on faith in the existence of a supernatural being is an egregious fallacy. When the theists come up with an instrument (other than the the kilo or so of mush inside our heads, 'cause we all know that that one isn't especially reliable) that allows one to, repeatably, detect God and can also explain its operating principles; then I'll consider believing in the existence of a being that has hitherto escaped detection by all other means...

And it's be horrible if there were no god, wouldn't it... See?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 03 March 2009 - 07:41 PM

[tiam]

duno whether its been mentioned but theres a whole load of books on this. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobl, then the God Delusion by Dawkins then the Dakins Delusion by Lee Strobl. Apparently good arguements for god

[Sindriss]

I fail to see how any person can make good arguments for god tiam

[Darkwatch]

I fail to see how any person can make good arguments for an entire religious sub forum considering that it's always the same thread.

[Illuyankas]

Hey, it means the other forum is clear of them. And they're still amongst the most polite and well-written ones I've seen online.

[Darkwatch]

Darkwatch, on Apr 20 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

I fail to see how any person can make good arguments for an entire religious sub forum considering that it's always the same thread.

Illuyankas, on Apr 20 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Hey, it means the other forum is clear of them. And they're still amongst the most polite and well-written ones I've seen online.

Well that was actually a very good argument.
I concede defeat.

[cauthon]

Haha @ the slogan. "Probably." Meaning he does not know for sure, in spite of all he claims. Seems like he just believes as much as I do, only the opposite.

[cauthon]

Camel, on Feb 3 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

The Dalai Lama also makes the excellent point, of which we're all well aware, that NOT FINDING AN OBJECT is not the same as THAT OBJECT NOT EXISTING. In other words, just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can use deduction and inference to figure out that things exist even though we can't see them.

Agreed. So, I see the universe around me, and I infer the existence of a creator from that. Not seeing God does not mean he does not exist. Well duh.

[Use Of Weapons]

The 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' argument gets very tired very quickly. Especially as it cannot be supported logically. And 'infer' above -- it is to laugh.

[cauthon]

jitsukerr, on Aug 20 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

The 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' argument gets very tired very quickly.

Well, I thought it was mostly the evolutionists who used this argument.

[Use Of Weapons]

cauthon, on Aug 20 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

jitsukerr, on Aug 20 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

The 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' argument gets very tired very quickly.

Well, I thought it was mostly the evolutionists who used this argument.

No. Religious people use the argument I state above. Evolutionists use the superficially similar 'burden of proof' argument, which states that, because it is logically impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof for any positive statement rests with the party that makes the positive claim.

[cauthon]

jitsukerr, on Aug 20 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

No. Religious people use the argument I state above. Evolutionists use the superficially similar 'burden of proof' argument, which states that, because it is logically impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof for any positive statement rests with the party that makes the positive claim.

So God showing himself would do the trick? Of course, then we have the problem that a lot of people would not want to listen to him even then :-)