1730 replies to this topic

[Tetiel]

Some doctors are scientists. Some scientists are politicians. Not all doctors are scientists and that has no bearing on the quality of doctor. As doctors, we are taught all sorts of fun things like physics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, pharmacology, anatomy, symptomology, etc. But information does not a scientist make. A scientist's job is to create a hypothesis which may be falsified. A scientist will test that hypothesis. Not all doctors experiment, in fact, not all doctors should. We are interpreters of information, we solve puzzles. We do not always create solutions to the puzzle, but we most certainly do the best we can to utilize them.

My beliefs have changed drastically from 2009 when I initially posted here. The closest I believe in a god is a being similar to what Christians would call a Holy Spirit. I do not believe in a conscious creator. I believe instead in the spirituality of energy transfer between objects and their environment. I believe in the second law of thermodymanics - that out of order came chaos, and chaos brought life. Chaos will eventually end life and then after much time has passed everything will start again. I believe in personal will, the psychological manipulation of biochemistry, and the communion and betterment of mankind. I believe in the Gaia hypothesis. In other words, I have become a newage hippie - but at least I'm a sensible one? I think?

[Kaddict]

I say good because a good doctor takes things learned from school, CMEs, studies etc and uses them on their patients. With success, they will continue using. If no success, they will change approach. That is a simplified way of testing hypotheses, but that is part of what I was getting at with that statement.

[Sabre]

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling.

 

But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. 

 

Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

[Eagles]

yes. anyone that doesnt is.. well.. really unfortunate for them. 

[redlion]

yes. anyone that doesnt is.. well.. really unfortunate for them.

It's fine to believe this I guess, if you have something that tells you it's true. In a secular context that something would be a fact or evidence. This debate always invokes the faith word though. Faith is not proof. Facts and evidence are proof.

So if you could, convince a poor unfortunate why anyone should believe as you do.

[GirlFierce]

No.

Reason: logic + secular family (so, freedom to believe in whatever I want to) + reading habit.

[Frizzle]

Of course faith is not proof. The very definition is complete trust or confidence in something, even if you don't have every piece of data needed to justify such trust

Exactly, which is why it should be disregarded completely.

[Eagles]

Wouldn't it make more sense to live as though the God of the Bible does exist? As apposed to him not existing?

[cara]

Exactly, which is why it should be disregarded completely.

 

If faith is disregarded when deciding whether to believe in god or not there would be no debate here.

[Frizzle]

Wouldn't it make more sense to live as though the God of the Bible does exist? As apposed to him not existing?

No, Pascal's wager describes why this is an awful idea.

If faith is disregarded when deciding whether to believe in god or not there would be no debate here.

I know, yet people who follow religion want to feel important and try to argue anyway.

[Eagles]

It is wonderful that you believe in Pascal's Wager. I have never read any of that crap nor do i care to. It all comes down to beliefs i guess. You could point out all the inaccuracies/flaws you want. One day something will happen in your life and you will finally realize there is a god. I am convinced of it. Just wait

[Frizzle]

This is the debate section, not the " condescendingly make up shit up to appease a sky granddaddy that may or may not exist".

If you can't be bothered to read up on the basics on fundamentalisim, religious fallacies and the counter points of both arguments, you may as well not post here. At all. Ever.

[Cupcakes]

Which god? There are a lot of them.

[Mizk]

It is wonderful that you believe in Pascal's Wager. I have never read any of that crap nor do i care to. 

 

any of that crap

Spoiler

 

It's funny, because Pascal's Wager describes *exactly*, exactly what *you* propsed... AND it arrives at *the same conclusion*  you did

But no, it's easier to remain willfully ignorant, isn't it? Because here's what I read:

*condescending laughter* Oh, my boy... my dear boy. Because you've taken a stance that appears to be contrary to my own, I simply must assume that your head is full of drivel, and so -- not wanting to fill my own head with your silly thoughts and not wanting to think *at all* about my own beliefs -- I have no option but to ignore what you've posted entirely! Pish posh!

 

I'll sum up my understanding of Pascal's Wager for you, because you obviously can't be assed to spend even 1 minute googling it:

Wouldn't it make more sense to live as though the God of the Bible does exist? As apposed to him not existing?

 

Hmm... oops! It seems that I've accidentally quoted you! Because... wait for it... they are exactly the same! But seriously, here is a proper quote:

The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness.

You see? Exactly what you said. The problem with Pascal's Wager, which you actually believe yourself even though it's "crap" (your words, not mine) exists only when you examine it further:

You don't actually "lose nothing" by following God. For 1, and imo it's a BIG one, you can't have sex before marriage. That alone, to me, is worth not believing in God. There are countless other completely outdated fairy tale "rules" that God wants you to follow, like not eating bacon, not wearing blended materials, not wearing torn clothes, not remarrying, not eating fish after wednesday, not letting a woman teach a man, etc etc. I'm not here to list all the ridiculous things the bible wants you to do, but I guarantee that you aren't 100% adhering to your own God's rules.

Luckily for you though, apparently all you have to do is ask forgiveness, and you can have all the premarital sex that you want, so -- like Whose Line is it Anyway? -- the rules don't actually matter!

^{I still can't believe that you dismissed someone else because they mentioned a theory that agrees with you}

[Eagles]

Well of course. I don't need to get my beliefs from someone's wager, I am perfectly fine without spending one minute reading that. I have NO idea what its about, and i probably will never know what its about. The fact that you think its a fairy tale rule to not have premarital sex says a lot about you

 

 

you may as well not post here. At all. Ever. 

Also.. you think i am posting to appease the Lord? Thats pretty sad. What do you live for? lets hear it.

[Romy]

Well of course. I don't need to get my beliefs from someone's wager, I am perfectly fine without spending one minute reading that. I have NO idea what its about, and i probably will never know what its about. The fact that you think its a fairy tale rule to not have premarital sex says a lot about you

Also.. you think i am posting to appease the Lord? Thats pretty sad. What do you live for? lets hear it.

 

I'm dying. If you aren't willing to read his counterargument, why the heck are you posting here at all?

 

Why should I not be allowed to fuck whoever I want as long as I take the proper precautions? Condoms, birth control and STD tests are all available (and in a lot of cases for free). 
 

Lots of people that don't believe in a god still have a purpose in life. That the fucking beautiful thing about being able to make our own decisions, we choose what gives us purpose or decide that we have no purpose.

 

A mother can live for her children, a college kid can live for video games, I can live for crappy RPGs. Just because you decided that "living for god" is your purpose doesn't invalidate anyone else's conclusions.

[Romy]

Because I believe the physical and emotional connection that sex brings should only belong to those committed to love each other forever. There's still a good amount of people that don't have sex before marriage, regardless of religion.

 

Am I obligated to adhere to this rule because you personally believe it?

Am I forced to believe that you believe?

 

Who died and left you in charge?

[Mizk]

I have NO idea what its about, and i probably will never know what its about. 

But dude, I told you what it's about. I told you exactly what it says, and you... ignored it? I don't know. You tell me. 

 

Pascal's Wager is what you stated earlier: "Wouldn't it make more sense to live as though the God of the Bible does exist?"

 

The fact that you think its a fairy tale rule to not have premarital sex says a lot about you

I'll choose to ignore this blatant ad hominem and instead counter with a challenge: I dare you to have 0 sex -- no "2nd base", no "3rd base"; only kissing -- until you're married.

If you're not married to that person, the only thing you're allowed to do is kiss them.

It's a very tough challenge, and not one that *anyone* should want to complete. Would you buy a car without test driving it? No? Then why would you say "I want to be with this person forever" (but let's be real here, "forever" means <10 years; until you're divorced) yet have no idea what how well they "drive"?

[Mizk]

Funny enough, this "challenge" is what I plan to carry out in my life. Sure it won't be easy but I believe in a particular principle about sex that I have stated earlier in this thread.

Well, then more power to you ^{(and good luck)}

 

For the record, I (personally) don't believe that sex should be thrown around to every crush you may have as I've seen some college students do*, but I also think that to be completely unable to be sexually intimate with someone whom you love, unless you're married to them, is too great a request, and is certainly the cause of a few divorces; the marriage was only so they could finally have sex, and sex changes things.

^{*no judging, that's what they choose to do. I personally wish that I could just have sex with people, but I need to be pretty emotionally invested in order to do so}

[Eagles]

I'm not here to convince anyone that God exists. The topic is not "does god exist". It just says if i believe in God. There is absolutely nothing you could say to me that would ever change my opinion on the Lord. I wish all of you luck in your religion/lack of religion. Remember, if you are ever struggling, the Lord will be there for you. No matter what prior sins you have committed. 

[Sweeney]

I'm not here to convince anyone that God exists. The topic is not "does god exist". It just says if i believe in God. There is absolutely nothing you could say to me that would ever change my opinion on the Lord. I wish all of you luck in your religion/lack of religion. Remember, if you are ever struggling, the Lord will be there for you. No matter what prior sins you have committed.

The debate section is for discussion, not for mindless proselytising. If you are unable, or unwilling, to make actual responses to the posts of others, by engaging with their arguments, then simply leave the thread.

[Eagles]

You post and say that i am proselytizing.. when i just said i am doing EXACTLY opposite that. I clearly said i am not trying to change anyone's views. and lol chill out. Why so serious?

[cara]

Because I believe the physical and emotional connection that sex brings should only belong to those committed to love each other forever. There's still a good amount of people that don't have sex before marriage, regardless of religion.

 

But you're using a religious institution to force yourself to be with that person 'forever'. If you're not religious then what's the difference between married and sitting down with your significant other and deciding to be together forever? Because marriage comes with divorce and the other person is a lot more tied down? Also let me tell you right now that being married does not ensure you will love each other forever.

 

Also I do realize that some people see marriage as a gesture or as an appreciation to the other person, and it's all good and well to declare your love but using marriage as a way to ensure the other person doesn't leave you and as a green light to lose your virginity .. I don't know about that.

 

Ivysaur used the word 'allowed'. I think he's saying that he disagrees with how religion disallows you to have sex before marriage. I don't think he's saying that he's disagreeing with someone's personal choice and morals when it comes to when they will have sex.

[cara]

Religion should NEVER be used to force someone to do something IMO. I choose to be chaste because I believe in the principle. It happens that my religion agrees with me

 

I don't think that marriage should be a green light to lose virginity either. Rather, you should have sex when you are prepared to do so, and I believe that people are ready after they are willing to love the other person forever.

 

Abstaining from sex is just fine in my books as long as a person's not doing it because they think god wanted them to wait to co-sign some man made legal agreement.

 

Also I have to admit that I was curious as to how old you were so I went your profile and I saw 1915 as your birth year and for a split second .. just a split second .. i thought 'oh my god he's a 99 year old virgin'.

[Sweeney]

You post and say that i am proselytizing.. when i just said i am doing EXACTLY opposite that. I clearly said i am not trying to change anyone's views. and lol chill out. Why so serious?

You're posting non-arguments. Please don't.