(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Other › Chit Chat › Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
(Moderators: Jupp53, RoleyPoley, Smyslov_Fan)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 19
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC (Read 111094 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #166 - 07/25/10 at 11:25:56
Post Tools
Post 500 times and you will be called God Member as well. It happens automatically. So you will have to ask your question to GM Kosten, the administrator of this forum.

PS: S_F, thanks.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #165 - 07/25/10 at 11:13:27
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/25/10 at 01:52:24:
Spree K wrote on 06/24/10 at 01:23:27:
I think that the concept of atheism and agnosticism is a bit confused. For some reason, there seems to be a belief that atheists think that there is no God with absolute certainty. I do not think this is a correct definition. Anyone who thinks this most likely does not understand the principles of science. Since it is not possible to prove anything beyond all doubt in science, we must use our best judgement and accept ideas that have an extremely low likelihood of being wrong. Of course, if the idea does prove to be wrong, the mistake should be admitted. I think, like many other atheists, that the term atheist means basically, one who does not believe in God. An agnostic, on the other hand, is undecided on the question of God or thinks there is no reason to accept or reject a hypothesis based on God. I think that a great deal of atheists would accept God, if he were to show his existence in some way that is not based on ancient books more easily attributed to human fabrication or mistaken beliefs. I would hope that atheists would accept the Christian God if he came down to Earth and showed himself to everyone.


To take the last point first, yes, certainly if Hubert the Magical Slug gave unmistakable indication of his existence and powers, then that would end the discussion.  The whole point is that he doesn't, and very likely never has.  On the other hand, there are very good explanations of why human beings in given social contexts are disposed to believe in gods, spirits and the like, notable among which is that religion is a powerful instrument of social control.

As to what is an atheist, we could get into some fairly deep philosophy about the meaning or absence thereof of such statements as "There is a God" and "There is no God."  But my rough take on this question is that working models of the nature of the Cosmos (and perhaps what lies "behind" it) are useful for organizing activity even if the model isn't subject to disconfirmation in Popper's sense (parenthetically I reject Popper's notion that any complex model of what lies "behind" experience, scientific or otherwise, can be subject to unambiguous disconfirmation; it is only a question of its comparative usefulness).  

So I would say, an atheist is someone who maintains a working model of the Cosmos as sufficient unto itself; definitely not in Man's image; neither loving, caring or the like; and in fact indifferent to Man's interest.  Agnosticism I take to be a polite, or perhaps cowardly would be a more appropriate characterization, form of atheism.  I very much doubt that anyone claiming to be an agnostic maintains genuine doubt on the question of whether an all-powerful, loving spirit is paying attention to his conduct or listening to his prayers.  So he proceeds fully on the basis an atheist working model while refraining from taking an open stand against the popular point of view.  I think that there would be fewer "agnostics" if fewer believers took offense at hearing their most deeply cherished beliefs denied.


For someone who professes not to believe in God, why, in your profile do you call yourself, "God Member?" What does the phrase "God Member" mean to you?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #164 - 07/24/10 at 16:49:27
Post Tools
Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #163 - 07/22/10 at 20:47:13
Post Tools
When it comes to the classic system builders one might say that modern methodology of physics is a synthesis of Hume and Descartes. Knowledge in physics only means that theory (= the outcome of deduction) and experiment (including the outcome of induction) match.
Ernst Mach was a very important physicist, but his epistemology doesn't really seem to have made it in physics. I think modern physicists swear by Karl Popper while writing their articles and by Thomas Kuhn before. Anyhow, the quickest way to win a Nobel Prize is to invent an experiment that is thought impossible based on accepted theory. See superconduction; Bednorz and Müller received their Nobel Prize within a year after publication. The theory they falsified, BCS, had to wait 15 years (published in 1957; NP in 1972).
Being a teacher in physics I cannot deny the importance of materialism. I don't feel materialism does full justice to mathematics and psychology and perhaps history, quite relevant branches of science as well.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #162 - 07/22/10 at 20:43:04
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/22/10 at 15:43:39:
Nfinity wrote on 07/22/10 at 01:46:46:
On an unrelated note and out of curiosity, what sort of philosophy do you follow?


I'm an admirer of the British empiricists, most particularly Hume, and I also am quite attracted to Ernst Mach's ideas in the philosophy of science.  But I'm no expert on these subjects, only a student.

You could call me a materialist, in that I think that the field of experience is (in principle anyway) fully accounted for in terms of matter, energy, and so forth. 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #161 - 07/22/10 at 15:43:39
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/22/10 at 01:46:46:
On an unrelated note and out of curiosity, what sort of philosophy do you follow?


I'm an admirer of the British empiricists, most particularly Hume, and I also am quite attracted to Ernst Mach's ideas in the philosophy of science.  But I'm no expert on these subjects, only a student.

You could call me a materialist, in that I think that the field of experience is (in principle anyway) fully accounted for in terms of matter, energy, and so forth. 
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #160 - 07/22/10 at 02:09:52
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/22/10 at 01:46:46:
If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I did not accuse you of anything but an arrogant attitude, mitigated by it's commonality.

It sounds like a good idea to me that we take each others questions seriously. My counterquestions were meant that way; I regret that you understood them otherwise.
Please let me make explicitly clear that I do not look down on religious opinions. My girlfriend is a board member of one of our local mosks and I keep her in high regard.
At the other hand I probably am oversensitive when it comes to interpretations of atheism by religious people.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nfinity
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Hello chess fiends!

Posts: 39
Joined: 01/28/10
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #159 - 07/22/10 at 01:46:46
Post Tools
Thank you, Markovich.  That was exactly the sort of answer I was looking for.  I think I've heard in passing something of "If something has always existed, I mind as well believe it was the universe" but I've never heard as good of an explanation of the concept before.  On an unrelated note and out of curiosity, what sort of philosophy do you follow?

MNb, apparently, we are talking past each other.  Please understand that I am trying my best to be nice and humble as possible here since these sort of threads can turn nasty without great care.  If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I did not accuse you of anything but an arrogant attitude, mitigated by it's commonality.  I did not say you were trolling, nor do I mean it. Also, FWIW, I'm not a Christian (although I was raised one) so referring to me as "religious guy" is either misleading or a bad assumption.   Either way, I'll assume it was an honest mistake.  Here's to the continuation of a civil discussion about an important issue.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #158 - 07/22/10 at 01:43:04
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/21/10 at 21:39:33:
I accuse you of asking leading questions, ie questions that already contain the answer. You haven't addressed that.

Just a few minutes ago I have learned that this is called "Begging the question", while I actually was looking for another logical fallacy.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #157 - 07/22/10 at 01:27:18
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 07:19:24:
While we're on religious/areligious debates here, as well as questions about the universe, I thought I'd bring something up that maybe some of you could answer.  It seems to me that the atheists have more substantial answers to most questions, but this one is the exception.

Without further ado: Atheists, what is the origin of the universe?  Is it ever possible to know it?  And why shouldn't I (or anybody else) shun your philosophy and gravitate towards a religious explanation since they can actually give an answer to the question while you can't give much more than a "We don't yet know"?  Doesn't having some philosophy with an explanation instead of one without give an infinitely greater chance of being right?


EDIT: Philosophy newbie here.  Please, bear with me.


Please see my reply #98 above, which shows that the set of all things, whether it includes a god or not, is not the sort of thing to which explanation can possibly apply.  Since therefore some sufficiently comprehensive set of things must be taken as sufficient unto itself -- left without explanation -- most economical is to take the observed world of stars and planets and comets and so forth (the Cosmos as I like to call it), as equivalent to the set of all things.  This set of things at least has the merit that its elements are unambiguously known to exist.

The same is not true of god of the Christians, but if he exists and is the creation of no supergod, one thing that he certainly cannot do is explain why he exists.  So why not dispense, in our conception of this world, with this dubious analogue of Santa Claus?  Contrary to what many people assume, positing his existence brings us no closer to solving the unsolvable riddle of existence itself.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #156 - 07/21/10 at 21:39:33
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 19:31:57:
I think atheists would make lots more headway in advancing their views if they weren't so utterly arrogant.  "You are stupid if you don't agree with me" is not a good way to convert people.

That's true for religious people as well. Btw I have no pretention to advance my view. Assuming that is a sign of being biased.

Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 19:31:57:
MNb, if I hadn't see such examples of such attitudes before, I would have guessed from your condescending tone that you were trolling me.

Ah, the religious guy who asks leading questions is sincere, but the atheist who asks relevant counterquestions is an arrogant troll. Great logic.

1a. You suggest that I use snappy one liners and accuse me of being uncivil? Perhaps you are the troll?
1b. Suggesting that the universe could be circular is not a definition, but might be a characteristic feature. Please note the words "might be".
2. You doubt my sincerity and accuse me of being uncivil? If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. There are more than one definitions of "knowledge". Assuming that I use the same as you is a sign of ... well, arrogance.
3. Ah, now we have a good question. Explanations which are not falsifiable don't have value for me. See Karl Popper.
4. OK, let me rephrase, as I might have misunderstood you (though I doubt it; I have long experience with arrogant christians). Do you think atheists don't offer an explanation for the universe? If yes, why?
5. The words "If you judge ...." are entirely yours. I did not write them because I don't think that a priori. I accuse you of asking leading questions, ie questions that already contain the answer. You haven't addressed that.

It is also arrogant that you judge your own questions sincere - something I haven't contradicted - but mine a sign of trolling, just because you don't like them.
If you had cared to read the previous pages you might have noticed that I advocate "objective agnosticism". My reasons to be an atheist are subjective.

I would like you to be a bit more careful with accusations like "soapbox" and "trolling" or our little debate could die prematurely:

Quote:
Moderator's Note:

This is a controversial topic. Please be advised that this thread will be closely monitored. 

This is an experimental thread for the Chess Pub and may be locked if it becomes too volatile. .

  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nfinity
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Hello chess fiends!

Posts: 39
Joined: 01/28/10
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #155 - 07/21/10 at 19:31:57
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/21/10 at 10:30:08:
Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 07:19:24:
While we're on religious/areligious debates here, as well as questions about the universe, I thought I'd bring something up that maybe some of you could answer.  It seems to me that the atheists have more substantial answers to most questions, but this one is the exception.

Without further ado:
1. Atheists, what is the origin of the universe?
2. Is it ever possible to know it?
3. And why shouldn't I (or anybody else) shun your philosophy and gravitate towards a religious explanation since they can actually give an answer to the question while you can't give much more than a "We don't yet know"?
4.  Doesn't having some philosophy with an explanation instead of one without give an infinitely greater chance of being right?

1. Why should a circle have a beginning?
2. What do you mean with "know"?
3. Is that religious explanation falsifiable by experiments?
4. If not, how can we estimate that that explanation has a greater chance of being right?
Extra: 5. How can you expect to sincerely understand the atheist point of view if you ask leading questions like yours?


Soapbox time!  I think atheists would make lots more headway in advancing their views if they weren't so utterly arrogant.  "You are stupid if you don't agree with me" is not a good way to convert people.  Hitchins, Maher, etc all present compelling cases, but they don't make it accessible at all for those whose views they are challenging because being insulted triggers an emotional reaction likely to shut down ability to listen to the one that insulted you.  MNb, if I hadn't see such examples of such attitudes before, I would have guessed from your condescending tone that you were trolling me.  Long story short, being civil is good for everybody.  /endrant

Anyways,
1.) A circle by definition has no beginning.  Is that how you would define the universe?  Or perhaps there's more to that argument than you could fit into a snappy one-liner?
2.) You know what I mean.  What's your epistemology?
3.) And what does falsifiability have to do with that question?  I'm asking if you see any value in having an explanation, whatever it may be, instead of a unrefutable non-statement.
4.) For any theory with a non-zero percent chance of truth, is that not infinitely more likely than no theory at all?  Or am I framing the question incorrectly?
5.) If you judge that I am hopelessly incapable of understanding something, then say so.  But if I am asking honest questions to try and understand, am I not seeking knowledge and truth?   

@Willempie
Let's be fair here.  "X is unknowable" is not an atheistic view, it is an agnostic one.  I would suspect that the atheistic view would be that "You have no justification for thinking 16 will come up next, so any of them are equally possible"  Also, pardon me, but I fail to understand how that example relates to my question(s).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #154 - 07/21/10 at 14:40:03
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 07:19:24:
While we're on religious/areligious debates here, as well as questions about the universe, I thought I'd bring something up that maybe some of you could answer.  It seems to me that the atheists have more substantial answers to most questions, but this one is the exception.

Without further ado: Atheists, what is the origin of the universe?  Is it ever possible to know it?  And why shouldn't I (or anybody else) shun your philosophy and gravitate towards a religious explanation since they can actually give an answer to the question while you can't give much more than a "We don't yet know"?  Doesn't having some philosophy with an explanation instead of one without give an infinitely greater chance of being right?


EDIT: Philosophy newbie here.  Please, bear with me.

Person A believes (due to divine intervention, the gambler bible or any explanation that is not founded in facts) that at the roulette table the next spin will turn up number 16.

Person B says that you can't know which number will turn up next.

Who has the better chance of being right?
  
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #153 - 07/21/10 at 10:30:08
Post Tools
Nfinity wrote on 07/21/10 at 07:19:24:
While we're on religious/areligious debates here, as well as questions about the universe, I thought I'd bring something up that maybe some of you could answer.  It seems to me that the atheists have more substantial answers to most questions, but this one is the exception.

Without further ado:
1. Atheists, what is the origin of the universe?
2. Is it ever possible to know it?
3. And why shouldn't I (or anybody else) shun your philosophy and gravitate towards a religious explanation since they can actually give an answer to the question while you can't give much more than a "We don't yet know"?
4.  Doesn't having some philosophy with an explanation instead of one without give an infinitely greater chance of being right?

1. Why should a circle have a beginning?
2. What do you mean with "know"?
3. Is that religious explanation falsifiable by experiments?
4. If not, how can we estimate that that explanation has a greater chance of being right?
Extra: 5. How can you expect to sincerely understand the atheist point of view if you ask leading questions like yours?
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nfinity
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Hello chess fiends!

Posts: 39
Joined: 01/28/10
Re: Religion WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
Reply #152 - 07/21/10 at 07:19:24
Post Tools
While we're on religious/areligious debates here, as well as questions about the universe, I thought I'd bring something up that maybe some of you could answer.  It seems to me that the atheists have more substantial answers to most questions, but this one is the exception.

Without further ado: Atheists, what is the origin of the universe?  Is it ever possible to know it?  And why shouldn't I (or anybody else) shun your philosophy and gravitate towards a religious explanation since they can actually give an answer to the question while you can't give much more than a "We don't yet know"?  Doesn't having some philosophy with an explanation instead of one without give an infinitely greater chance of being right?


EDIT: Philosophy newbie here.  Please, bear with me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 19
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge