Tocky on 10/9/2010 at 04:09
But religion gets around that by making god infinite, arbitrary, unknowable, and quite possibly silly.
Also, the why of religion is different in intent. Religion treats the answer as an end product whereas science treats the answer as an expansion of an existing body of knowledge where the edge of it is like a bubble and the more known the more we realize there is to know. Wait. This was already said. Wasn't it? Why am I even in this thread?
Nicker on 10/9/2010 at 06:30
Quote Posted by Kolya
So we're all vain because we all fear death? What sense does a moral standard make that no one to whom it is applied to can reach? Makes me feel just awful.
The vanity isn't in fearing death or even in pondering what might happen after we die. The vanity comes in when someone insists that they know what actually happens and that they can mediate for you in the afterlife.
If you can get someone to believe that you have influence in the hereafter, you can get them to do almost anything. Heck, if you can convince them that the disembodied souls of evil aliens are trapped in terrestrial volcanoes, you can make a killing too.
Vasquez on 10/9/2010 at 07:41
Quote Posted by Pardoner
Vasquez's "I understand why scientists want to 'prove' god's nonexistence" get free rides. Exactly what laboratory preparations are required to conduct Science's desperate revenge fantasy? What petty peer-reviewed journal are these divine vivisections published in? How easily is God made into detergent?
I didn't say it makes sense try to "prove" god's nonexistence, I thought it was clear after what I said first in that post - just that I can understand it, from the human behavior point of view. If someone has attacked your line of work for centuries (and based the attacks on something as subjective as their own superstitions), it's not surprising if you want to give a bit of that shit back once you get the chance.
But my main point was that it's impossible to prove or disprove god's existence, because the core of religion is mystery, and therefore it's not comparable to science in any way.
june gloom on 10/9/2010 at 08:34
Quote Posted by Nicker
The vanity isn't in fearing death or even in pondering what might happen after we die. The vanity comes in when someone insists that they know what actually happens and that they can mediate for you in the afterlife.
That's not what you said.
Quote Posted by Nicker
I don't see questions like, 'why are we here, what is our purpose, what happens after we die', as transcendent. I think they are incredibly vain and selfish.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Asking "why" appeals to our egos.
Nicker on 10/9/2010 at 10:04
I felt that Kolya mangled my words so I issued a clarification.
There is still a smack of vanity in even considering the matter of what happens to us after we die but nothing like "So we're all vain because we all fear death? ".
Our egos have abstracted our natural fear of death and made it into a personal matter. That's where the vanity creeps in. It starts gaining momentum once the ego conceives of the idea of an afterlife then hits the afterburners when the hereafter becomes a place to reward people we like and punish those we hate. The rest is literally, history.
Pardoner on 10/9/2010 at 10:34
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I didn't say it makes sense try to "prove" god's nonexistence, I thought it was clear after what I said first in that post - just that I can understand it, from the human behavior point of view. If someone has attacked your line of work for centuries (and based the attacks on something as subjective as their own superstitions), it's not surprising if you want to give a bit of that shit back once you get the chance.
Saying, "wouldn't you feel like shitting on someone if they shat on you" is cynical and absurd, and I don't think you can produce any examples of 'science' enjoying a generous shit all over the papal vestments.
Vasquez on 10/9/2010 at 12:37
Quote Posted by Pardoner
Saying, "wouldn't you feel like shitting on someone if they shat on you"
I didn't say that. My english is notoriously bad, but I'll try one more time: I understand, in theory, the psychological pattern that seems to lie behind the acts of scientists who openly oppose religion and try to "disprove" god's existence. I'm not saying it's smart or right, nor that I agree with it.
Quote Posted by Pardoner
I don't think you can produce any examples of 'science' enjoying a generous shit all over the papal vestments.
I was talking of what's happened throughout history, not today.
Queue on 10/9/2010 at 13:19
Quote Posted by Tocky
Why am I even in this thread?
Because God told you to.
Quote Posted by Tocky
But religion gets around that by making god infinite, arbitrary, unknowable, and quite possibly silly.
Which goes back to my "over-simplified" statement of religion requiring the believer to hold true an ideal -- a way of living and acting -- because paradise may lie somewhere beyond the second-star on the left after we die. And to ensure your premiums have been paid for this afterlife insurance you must have praised a God, lived by this certain set of rules (but don't worry, if you break the rules, 9 times out of 10 you can just ask for forgiveness), and, quite often, have given generously to the church. All these notions of living a good life are fine and dandy, but in truth they come from what the church has dictated, not from any proven facts.
I could say, I have the Church of Queue, and to make God happy everyone must be completely nude at all times. We were borne into this world in the buff, and clothes are the work of the devil. And see, I have proof this is what God wants because it's written right here. *pointing* Ignore the wet ink, it's a miracle...the Virgin Mary wept tears on it... NOW PROVE ME WRONG! Because if you do, I won't punch your golden ticket for the afterlife ride, and you'll have to sit outside the gates eating cotton candy for all of eternity.
Remember what I once said, there's basically two types of people in the world: Rubes and Carnies. And in too may cases religion has become the carny, praying on the fear of dying.
In the end, we should all just worship Batboy. ...that'd be the perfect coexistence of religion and science.
Kolya on 10/9/2010 at 13:19
I think that everyone is religious to a degree. I'm not even talking about spirituality but that we all hold on to a system of things we believe, because we just don't have the time to check most of it ourselves. That's just one thing we have to accept. And that's why the dispute between science and religion cannot be won by any single person.
This thread started out with a positively constructive drive that tried to see past who's right or wrong. Predictably we've lost that a bit and turned more into a regular science vs. religion slugfest.
DDL on 10/9/2010 at 16:13
Could you clarify that a bit? "Cannot be won by any single person": are we talking 'them proving it to themself', or 'to everyone'?
And surely there's a huge difference between "things you may not have the time to check" and "things that are by their nature inherently uncheckable"?
I mean, I take gravity for granted, but if I wanted to rigorously investigate it, I still could. The afterlife? Less so.
