This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I respect those who earn my respect. I have intrinsic respect for no one.
You can mount a logical argument without relying on religion to demonstrate why respect irrespective of beliefs is the right thing to do. Notably, because if you didn't respect other people, they have no reason to respect you.I do my best to earn people's respect with my actions and my words, and likewise, I base my respect of people on their actions and their words.
I do not automatically respect you as soon as I meet you, and I don't expect you to respect me.
Post by
Squishalot
We've managed to run through a page in 20 minutes. Nice, guys.
I'm heading off to lunch. When I get back, I fully expect the next three pages to be filled :)
Edit:
I do my best to earn people's respect with my actions and my words, and likewise, I base my respect of people on their actions and their words.
How about your beliefs? Because that's what you're disrespecting about MyTie at the moment. Would it be wrong for someone to disrespect you and $#!7 on you
just for being an athiest
?
Hence, my point - I believe that it's 'right' to respect other people, irrespective of their beliefs.
Post by
Monday
We've managed to run through a page in 20 minutes. Nice, guys.
I'm heading off to lunch. When I get back, I fully expect the next three pages to be filled :)
Lunch? It's 8 here O_o
You guys are forcing me to create a well thought out response... and I don't want to )= (I am aware you can't f
orce
me to do anything, it's a figure of speech.)
Post by
Squishalot
Lunch? It's 8 here O_o
You guys are forcing me to create a well thought out response... and I don't want to )= (I am aware you can't force me to do anything, it's a figure of speech.)
It's 20 past midday over here. See, Australians are way ahead of all of you guys ;)
One nice thing about fast paced discussions is that it makes people think logically on the fly, rather than needing excessive research and drafting and redrafting like traditional essay-writing and debates are like.
Of course, it also brings out horribly illogical thoughts too, sometimes. But if they get ridiculed enough, then hopefully that'll encourage people to be logical, fast. Pavlov ftw :)
Edit: Dammit, now I feel like pavlova... Not a healthy lunch xD
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
I do my best to earn people's respect with my actions and my words, and likewise, I base my respect of people on their actions and their words.
How about your beliefs? Because that's what you're disrespecting about MyTie at the moment. Would it be wrong for someone to disrespect you and $#!7 on you
just for being an athiest
?
Hence, my point - I believe that it's 'right' to respect other people, irrespective of their beliefs.
He came into this debate knowing full well his beliefs would be questioned, so arguing against him is justifiable.
Post by
Skreeran
I do my best to earn people's respect with my actions and my words, and likewise, I base my respect of people on their actions and their words.
How about your beliefs? Because that's what you're disrespecting about MyTie at the moment. Would it be wrong for someone to disrespect you and $#!7 on you
just for being an athiest
?
Hence, my point - I believe that it's 'right' to respect other people, irrespective of their beliefs.Well, first of all, I know many people who do that anyway. I'll just start with that as an aside.
Second, I can provide well thought out and detailed reasons for my lack of belief, and I try to respect those who can do the same.
People who are simply saying "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," however, have done nothing to earn my respect, nor do people who argue solely with the defense of "Well, disprove my theory," rather than trying to prove it themselves.
I didn't say I respect no one. I simply respect those who merit my respect, in my eyes. I don't expect any more from anyone else.
Post by
MyTie
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
Post by
Orranis
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
I fail to see how this is evidence for your side of the argument. Wouldn't this be against intelligent design?
P.S. Pics or it didn't happen. :D
Post by
MyTie
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
I fail to see how this is evidence for your side of the argument. Wouldn't this be against intelligent design?
P.S. Pics or it didn't happen. :D
If you didn't recognise that I was being sarcastic, and actually think such a thing could happen, then I can see how you might be an atheist.
Post by
Orranis
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
I fail to see how this is evidence for your side of the argument. Wouldn't this be against intelligent design?
P.S. Pics or it didn't happen. :D
If you didn't recognise that I was being sarcastic, and actually think such a thing could happen, then I can see how you might be an atheist.
If you didn't recognise that I was being sarcastic... Note the carefully inserted meme/joke.
Even then.
If you found them and they were randomly piled against each other, it would make sense, right?
However, think about the millions of other possible outcomes for this situation. It was 1 out of an unthinkable amount of patterns. Theoretically infinite. And yet that one was picked. One among that many. Because something had to happen, right? Does that mean God did it? No. It could just have easily been anything else, and you could still say God did it.
Post by
TheMediator
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
One time when I was carrying a jar of quarters, I stumbled, apparently due to the effects of the quarter genie, and I dropped the quarters everywhere. While said quarters were falling, the quarter genie must have guided a number of quarters to one specific spot, because while I was picking up the quarters, I noticed there was a cluster of quarters that were facing heads. Obviously the quarter genie wanted me to recognize his existence, that's why I stumbled and later noticed the cluster of heads.
Post by
Skreeran
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
I fail to see how this is evidence for your side of the argument. Wouldn't this be against intelligent design?
P.S. Pics or it didn't happen. :D
If you didn't recognise that I was being sarcastic, and actually think such a thing could happen, then I can see how you might be an atheist.First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
Second, if the universe was not hospitible to life, we would'nt be here to talk about it, now would we? So the only possible universe in which we could dicuss it is one in which there are the necessary conditions for life.
In addition, when you consider the fact that the universe is billions of light years wide, contains an estimated 100 billion galaxies each with a few hundred million stars, and that it's been around for roughly 14 billion years, if life has a probability to form, even a miniscule one, it probably will.
Post by
Orranis
Once, when I was drying laundry, I opened the dryer and all the clothes were neatly folded, and stacked in a color coordinated fashion. They just happen to fall that way.
One time when I was carrying a jar of quarters, I stumbled, apparently due to the effects of the quarter genie, and I dropped the quarters everywhere. While said quarters were falling, the quarter genie must have guided a number of quarters to one specific spot, because while I was picking up the quarters, I noticed there was a cluster of quarters that were facing heads. Obviously the quarter genie wanted me to recognize his existence, that's why I stumbled and later noticed the cluster of heads.
To put it in a much better way, this.
Post by
Squishalot
First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
Second, if the universe was not hospitible to life, we would'nt be here to talk about it, now would we? So the only possible universe in which we could dicuss it is one in which there are the necessary conditions for life.
In addition, when you consider the fact that the universe is billions of light years wide, contains an estimated 100 billion galaxies each with a few hundred million stars, and that it's been around for roughly 14 billion years, if life has a probability to form, even a miniscule one, it probably will.
I find it amusing.
Many Christians use exactly your argument to demonstrate the
existance
of a God. The fact that the universe is finite, and the probability of life forming being so miniscule, suggests that the fact we exist must be due to a Creator effect in the past, because probabilistically, we are unlikely to have come into existance.
It just goes to re-demonstrate that you can always find a reason to back up your argument.
Using the quarter genie's example - if you find a million coins that were all heads up, and you know that they've been flipped at random sometime in the past, would you nod and simply assume that probability worked it's magic, or would you state that there's something suspicious and that someone or something influenced the result? That's the counter-argument.
Edit:
Well, first of all, I know many people who do that anyway. I'll just start with that as an aside.
I know many people who do that as well, which is why I pointed out that I think it's wrong.
Second, I can provide well thought out and detailed reasons for my lack of belief, and I try to respect those who can do the same.
Not quite. You can provide well thought out and detailed reasons for your lack of belief in Christianity, or any single religion. I doubt that you can provide a well thought out and detailed reason for why Athiesm has a stronger case than Agnosticism.
People who are simply saying "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," however, have done nothing to earn my respect, nor do people who argue solely with the defense of "Well, disprove my theory," rather than trying to prove it themselves.
They've earned my respect, because they stand up for what they believe in. Such thoughts don't measure up well in a logical discussion (as I pointed out to Queggy), but typically, those who do have such thoughts don't engage in logical discussion on the existance of God, only applications of religion.
I didn't say I respect no one. I simply respect those who merit my respect, in my eyes. I don't expect any more from anyone else.
I work the other way around. I respect everybody, until they give me a good reason why I shouldn't. That way, I never judge a person unreasonably. Look at the way that I handled Vegito. He opened with a comment, I responded respectfully to his comment. He attacked me, and at that point, I lost respect for him. This is how I believe relations should be conducted.
Post by
TheMediator
Using the quarter genie's example - if you find a million coins that were all heads up, and you know that they've been flipped at random sometime in the past, would you nod and simply assume that probability worked it's magic, or would you state that there's something suspicious and that someone or something influenced the result? That's the counter-argument.
If I dropped10^(10^10) or some other insanely large number of coins... I think I might expect to find at least one cluster of a million or more heads.
Anyways, his point is that the probably of the universe supporting life must equal 1 for us to discuss said probability in the first place.
Post by
Orranis
First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
Second, if the universe was not hospitible to life, we would'nt be here to talk about it, now would we? So the only possible universe in which we could dicuss it is one in which there are the necessary conditions for life.
In addition, when you consider the fact that the universe is billions of light years wide, contains an estimated 100 billion galaxies each with a few hundred million stars, and that it's been around for roughly 14 billion years, if life has a probability to form, even a miniscule one, it probably will.
I find it amusing.
Many Christians use exactly your argument to demonstrate the
existance
of a God. The fact that the universe is finite, and the probability of life forming being so miniscule, suggests that the fact we exist must be due to a Creator effect in the past, because probabilistically, we are unlikely to have come into existance.
It just goes to re-demonstrate that you can always find a reason to back up your argument.
Using the quarter genie's example - if you find a million coins that were all heads up, and you know that they've been flipped at random sometime in the past, would you nod and simply assume that probability worked it's magic, or would you state that there's something suspicious and that someone or something influenced the result? That's the counter-argument.
But that's contradictory. You state that it's possible for something to 'just be,' yet the formation of what created the big bang could not 'just be.'
In the coins problem, there are one of two possible outcomes. In the universe, there are infinite. Think of it this way. Because there is an equal chance for everything to happen, then any outcome would be truly miraculous and you could say the same. The idea that it's all heads and no tails is no less strange then 17% heads, rest tails, 38.483929% heads, rest tails etc.
Post by
Squishalot
Using the quarter genie's example - if you find a million coins that were all heads up, and you know that they've been flipped at random sometime in the past, would you nod and simply assume that probability worked it's magic, or would you state that there's something suspicious and that someone or something influenced the result? That's the counter-argument.
If I dropped10^(10^10) or some other insanely large number of coins... I think I might expect to find at least one cluster of a million or more heads.
Anyways, his point is that the probably of the universe supporting life must equal 1 for us to discuss said probability in the first place.
That's not a probabilistically correct argument.
Probability that we exist, given that life-creating event occured = 1
Probability that we exist, without knowing whether life-creating event occured = X = 0.00000...01 (insert whatever numbers you like here)
Therefore, probability that life-creating event occured = X
Now, if the probability of that life-creating event is suitably small, then it would be reasonable to query how likely it was to be a simple probabilistic result, or whether it was a 'Creator' effect result (rigged, in a manner of speaking).
Your argument about how many coins are dropped is a legitimate one. However, I believe that the probability of sentient life evolving in the 15 billion years of the universe is still calculated to be fairly low, considering the way scientists believe the universe was formed. (I say 'I believe', because I don't know the exact numbers, and I think I recall reading that it was still in the 1/10^14 sort of range.)
But that's contradictory. You state that it's possible for something to 'just be,' yet the formation of what created the big bang could not 'just be.'
Where did I say that it's possible for something to 'just be'?
In the coins problem, there are one of two possible outcomes. In the universe, there are infinite. Think of it this way. Because there is an equal chance for everything to happen, then any outcome would be truly miraculous and you could say the same. The idea that it's all heads and no tails is no less strange then 17% heads, rest tails, 38.483929% heads, rest tails etc.
Firstly, there are not infinite coins in the universe. The universe is finite, according to the most recent scientific evidence. Its lifespan is around 15 billion years, according to the most recent scientific evidence. To suggest that the universe is infinitely large goes against all scientific evidence in the same way that suggesting God exists does.
Secondly - I agree with your point about the proportion of heads and tails. This is the same point about the lottery numbers coming out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, it's no less likely. However, the 38.483929% heads has no meaning to us, other than the fact that you can't get 38.483929% heads from 1 million coins, only 38.4839% heads. The key thing is that 100% heads is remarkable, because it represents an important result, the existance of all of us.
100% heads is remarkable because it has a different result to the other million combinations of heads and tails. 38.4839% and 17% and 99.8742% all have the same end result - no life.
Post by
Adamsm
You state that it's possible for something to 'just be,' yet the formation of what created the big bang could not 'just be.'Isn't that already contradictory; after all, the Big Bang just sorta happened, no one knows what caused it, and I doubt we ever will; and there's multiple theories about it; either something old reached the end of it's life and the Big Bang was it starting over, or the hundred + creation myths out there that speak of how everything came to be.
Post by
Squishalot
You state that it's possible for something to 'just be,' yet the formation of what created the big bang could not 'just be.'Isn't that already contradictory; after all, the Big Bang just sorta happened, no one knows what caused it, and I doubt we ever will; and there's multiple theories about it; either something old reached the end of it's life and the Big Bang was it starting over, or the hundred + creation myths out there that speak of how everything came to be.
Isn't the current theory that the big bang started the universe over again, from a rapid contraction -> rapid expansion? And that our universe will continue to follow that?
It raises a reasonable question for scientists though. Irrespective of what our universe is, is there a 'start of time'?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
