catbarf on 21/12/2007 at 00:54
Quote Posted by Shug
Having said that, the whole "HAHA, if God exists so could the Spaghetti Monster!" argument with a smug little smirk written across your face can get pretty fucking annoying. It's such an oversimplified piece of shit that if you brought it out in a religion discussion over a couple of drinks I would be tempted to punch you in the face. Unfortunately it appears Dawkins must do this for some of the rabble to know what he's on about.
I am not using that as an argument for the nonexistence of God. I am using that precise argument as why having no evidence for something is the same as dismissing it completely.
There is no evidence for the FSM to exist, therefore we reject it on that basis. We dismiss ideas that lack grounding in fact.
Any concept which is alien to the beliefs or principles of the reader will require proof in order to convince them. If there is no proof, you have no reason at all to believe.
If you say that there is no evidence for God to exist, you are rejecting the idea that God exists. You are saying that there is no God. There is no in between. You either think there is evidence and believe God exists, or you don't believe there's any evidence and disagree.
Note that evidence in this context can mean almost anything. It can be your personal convictions, otherworldly experiences, and as such the definition varies from person to person. But to suggest that despite having no evidence for a God to exist can still somehow allow you to believe it very well might is idiotic.
Scots Taffer on 21/12/2007 at 00:54
Quote Posted by Shug
What that doesn't change is that I'd love to get drunk with fett and ask him all the crazy shit he knows about the Bible until he spews, passes out and I apologize profusely to his wife
God that sounds familiar.... and it's a date!
Quote Posted by catbarf
If you say that there is no evidence for God to exist, you are rejecting the idea that God exists. You are saying that there is no God. There is no in between.
And therein lies the rub, just because we don't have emperical evidence of a phenomena doesn't mean it can't exist. For example, science posits theories for things that there are as yet no observable evidence on (dark matter, string theory in all its
nth dimensional glory and all that black hole malarkey) and these theories are quite acceptable to many of the Scientific community as they are often extensions of existing scientific groundwork, but we still don't know
if those things actually EXIST. God is a theory.
This relates quite succinctly to my earlier point on Science being unable to handle perception, perception is unique and different to every person; science often tends to get fuzzy and vague when dealing with multiple components all experiencing their own versions of reality, just like statistics can't handle infinitely complex models with differing limits and approximations in the same environment.
Epos Nix on 21/12/2007 at 00:56
Quote:
Epos - do you realize you've blamed everything from society to pet dander for religion's failure to function in the real world? Is it possible that the common denominator in all these scenarios is um...religion?
I would think that if I wasn't already amazed at religions' transformative effects on my being, which is truly the only reason I bother to defend it. Granted its taken a ton of work and every time I think I've reached a milestone, I realize just how much farther, spiritually speaking, I have to go.
That said, I think Christ knew exactly how tough having even a slight bit of faith would be to the average person. He said himself: "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it". Words like that suggest that Christianity is not so user-friendly as everyone here would make it out to be.
Quote:
IT STILL DIDN'T WORK.
Try Buddhism!
catbarf on 21/12/2007 at 01:03
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Words like that suggest that Christianity is not so user-friendly as everyone here would make it out to be.
So... how is it not user-friendly? Would it be the fact that anyone at any time can repent for their sins and be welcomed in? Or the fact that it gives comfort and hope for people? No, neither of those.
Theism, whether there is a God or not, is a crutch. It is something people use to comfort them and support them in their lives. How exactly is that difficult?
Epos Nix on 21/12/2007 at 01:21
Quote:
On another note I hope Epos Nix responds to RBJ's question cos it kind of touches on some of the vague problems I have with Buddhism. Is its logical conclusion everyone rejecting science, art, music and love? They're all desires, right, and the idea is to abandon desire? and sitting there meditating and trying to "destroy the sense of self" and pass off this physical life as an inconvenience or obstacle or something? Cos on some level that seems like rather a waste to me.
Interesting fact about the Dalai Lama: he was named an honorary professor at Emory University not so long ago where he was to lecture on science and spirituality. This man, spiritual head of Buddhism, was lecturing university students on Neuroscience and its implications in Buddhism and other religions.
So no, rejecting science or art of any kind is not a prerequisite of Buddhism.
The desires Buddhism seeks to extinguish are all of the negative type: greed, lust, pride... anything that fuels the ego yet ultimately leads to some sort of suffering. In Buddhism you are trying your hardest (and it
is hard) to keep your ego at bay so that
you, not your animal instinct or subconscious, are in charge.
Stitch on 21/12/2007 at 01:51
Quote Posted by catbarf
If you say that there is no evidence for God to exist, you are rejecting the idea that God exists. You are saying that there is no God. There is no in between. You either think there is evidence and believe God exists, or you don't believe there's any evidence and disagree.
Dude, just because Dawkins says something doesn't make it so. It's possible there is evidence and we don't recognize it as such. It's possible there is evidence but not any that we are capable of measuring. It's possible there is evidence that we simply haven't yet discovered.
It's also entirely possible that evidence can be applied to god about as effectively as it can to, say, falling madly in love over an extended weekend.
Personally, if there
is a god, which I rather doubt, I'm guessing it to be such a raw, incomprehensible force that a word like "evidence" is meaningless.
SubJeff on 21/12/2007 at 02:22
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
The desires Buddhism seeks to extinguish are all of the negative type: greed, lust, pride... anything that fuels the ego yet ultimately leads to some sort of suffering. In Buddhism you are trying your hardest (and it
is hard) to keep your ego at bay so that
you, not your animal instinct or subconscious, are in charge.
I'd argue that this is just self denial. Why deny what you are? Those "negative" things you describe all have a useful functional purpose and to say that they ultimately lead to suffering shows that you are either not in control of yourself, are too lazy to try to be or just don't understand the necessity of those desires. In my opinion it is better to embrace those things, but to regulate them and use them to their best effect.
In fact I think you've got the wrong idea about Buddism - it's not about spurning aspects of your humanity, but about becoming unchained by them. The difference, imo, with the Judeo-Christian religions is that they use fear or threat of punishment (and actually it's only Christianity and Islam that really do that as the concept of Hell in both is very similar and serves a different purpose to that in many branches of Judaism).
Quote:
Personally, if there is a god, which I rather doubt, I'm guessing it to be such a raw, incomprehensible force that a word like "evidence" is meaningless.
Yes, but not necessarily. If we had but one shred of evidence though...
This is why I wish aliens would arrive someday soon. The religious concepts of an otherworldy race would be interesting indeed.
catbarf on 21/12/2007 at 03:17
Quote Posted by Stitch
Dude, just because Dawkins says something doesn't make it so. It's possible there is evidence and we don't recognize it as such. It's possible there is evidence but not any that we are capable of measuring. It's possible there is evidence that we simply haven't yet discovered.
It's also entirely possible that evidence can be applied to god about as effectively as it can to, say, falling madly in love over an extended weekend.
Personally, if there
is a god, which I rather doubt, I'm guessing it to be such a raw, incomprehensible force that a word like "evidence" is meaningless.
If you, personally, have found something that convinces you that there is a God, more power to you. If, however, you have found absolutely nothing that remotely suggests to you that there is a God, then you have as much reason to believe He exists as that there are fairies in the garden. That's all.
Epos Nix on 21/12/2007 at 03:30
Quote:
In fact I think you've got the wrong idea about Buddism - it's not about spurning aspects of your humanity, but about becoming unchained by them.
Interesting that I have the wrong idea about Buddhism yet you can't understand why negative desires are something Buddhism considers undesirable :weird:
Yes, the things I call 'negative desires'
do serve a useful purpose... at least for the animals we evolved from. Ego itself and the desires it manifests are no more than survival tools, ones that mankind can outgrow. The problem with desire is that it does nothing more than feed the ego. When we can't feed our egos, like when someone wants a pay raise but is rejected, we suffer. When we DO feed our egos, like when someone buys a rug they've been wanting for a while, our egos just demand more and desire kicks back in. Your life becomes an endless loop of desire->suffer->desire...
(The term 'suffer' in this context refers to any amount of discomfort we might experience due to our situation, big or small.)
Buddha started on the path to Enlightenment when he realized that no amount of satiating his desires would make him feel more whole or complete. Rather, the more he satiated his desires, the more his desires would take hold of him and hence the more he would ultimately suffer.
You asked me "Why deny what you are?" but really denial has nothing to do with it. A primary goal of Buddhism is self-discovery, but a person in denial will never discover anything of themselves. Through analyzing and stripping away your desires you come to understand more of yourself. By totally extinguishing your desires you become in-tune with yourself.
