Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giga_grif)
    .. *pointless rant*.
    You do know if you took a few minutes to browse this forum you will find majority of people here are atheists. So this is probably one of the most useless threads I have seen. No one here is going to praise you and call you intelligent just because you think people who believe in God have an IQ of below 40.

    Believing in god is based on faith and science is based on evidence. The two are not as related as you may think. I cannot imagine not believing in God, I just do... cannot explain it.

    How about this, it may sound crazy, but why don't you just let people be? it is in human's nature to be aggressive; some hide behind religion, some hide behind racism and some hide behind nationality. Humans are overall selfish and any excuse will do to gain power, money and fame. Religion and science have been living side by side (look at prominent christian/muslim/indian scientists) There are religious people in science and there are religious people in war just like there are atheists in war and atheists in science. You really do not have the right to judge someone just because they believe in something you do not (specially something based on faith...) If someone made a thread saying how can someone not have faith? are atheists stupid? he would have been equally as ignorant as you're being.

    We like to let homosexuals be, why can't we do the same for religious people? threads calling homosexuality disgusting and repulsive will not be welcomed here by anyone (including my self). It may sound crazy but can we start judging people by the content of their character rather than whom they befriend/love and what they believe in?

    If you think religion is the only reason for violence, and if there was no religion there will always be forever peace, then you probably shouldn't be on TSR and you probably do have an IQ of below 40. Murder, rape and theft are all here to stay regardless of the existence of religion.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghim)
    Some atheists use the FSM example because, I guess, they think the existence of, for example, the Muslim god, is no more likely than the eixstence of the FSM. After all, is there reason to believe that the existence of the FSM is less likely than the Muslim god?

    The example I gave, however, is quite different, and there is reason to believe that one is more likely than the other.

    As lightburns said, imagine there is a box and person A claims there's an apple in it, person B claims there is an orange in it and person C believes there is a fruit in the box but doesn't specify which on. Clearly, C is far more likely to be correct.
    And as I told lightburns, this is wrong when attributed to God. You are making an illogical leap here.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    Well now you're asking something different. If you put a banana in the box then obviously we know what the respective probabilities would be.

    What were talking about in regards to God is different. We are talking about something not caused by us nor referential. When it is so, simply making your definition more precise or making it more general has no effect on the probability because we do not know the chance of any God existing or not existing, thus to infer any further is guess work not substantiated by any maths. Think of it this way, putting more and more words on the concept of God has no direct effect on the concept nor the probable (unknown) chance of God. Therefore it is arguably both near 0 and near 1 at the same time.
    I'm sorry, but can you explain this to me? I don't quite understand what you are getting at. We do not know the chance of any God existing, but precision always makes it less likely. Precision, by definition, is slimming the possible choices down. Am I missing something here?

    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    It's like banging your head against a brick wall, it's so simple to understand but somehow he just doesn't get it :confused:
    I know ARGH. He accepts that it is a position to take.. But it is agnosticism. But also, he rejects it as a possible position to take, as it's just semantics. ARGH.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP is really insecure
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by Facticity)
      I haven't equated Gods existence or non-existence to an absolute....
      Why not? The statement "god exists" and "god does not exist" are absolute statements.

      And what does nearing 1 or nearing 0 "at the same" mean?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      media literally portrays religion on the negative side so do dummy of religion , so why dont you grab a Quran or bible read it by yourself and undertand the message in it. Then make a decision whether its 4 you or not. Those who do follow religion they know the importance of it. For instance Religion teaches one moral values , good conduct how to treat others etc ?I wonder why some people say ooh God or some one is about to leave the world you say 'ooh God help Him' why not science Heeeelp... The dying person
      • PS Helper
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lightburns)
      I'm sorry, but can you explain this to me? I don't quite understand what you are getting at. We do not know the chance of any God existing, but precision always makes it less likely. Precision, by definition, is slimming the possible choices down. Am I missing something here?
      (Original post by S-man10)
      Why not? The statement "god exists" and "god does not exist" are absolute statements.

      And what does nearing 1 or nearing 0 "at the same" mean?
      I never said making it more precise makes it less, I said it simply does not have any affect. Alright I shall try to simplify this as much as I can, using your fruit example. You can make the guess as to the probability of an apple being in a box as opposed to a piece of fruit. Because we can substantiate these in referrence to the rest of the real world or even limit our guess to just fruit. We know these exist and can verify this. However when it comes to God, there is no relative nor absolute figure for such a being being this being is not 1) contained within our probable limits and 2) we have no basis for presuming His existence or non-existence. Therefore to say that the probability is any more or less (as you become more precise or general) is meaningless. We have no idea what the subject of the probability of the being itself existing or not existing, because probability applies to things contained within logical limits which can often be verified in some ways. Which cannot be applied to God. Therefore it is pretty much almost 0 and almost 1, it would make not sense to make a claim between those figures however it would be baseless to assert it is 0 or 1. It seems that a guess is not possible, semantical debate does not necessitate physical or metaphysical existence. We can only argue the probability to be near 0 and near 1.

      Merely because their is no basis to assert one, the other or anything in the middle. Did this clear up the point?

      "God exists" and "God does not exist" are absolutes but I am not making such claims on probable grounds. Therefore the two are not juxtaposed.

      It is like the schroedinger's cat, the cat is alive and not alive at the same time. Therefore the chance of the cat being alive or dead, is near 0 and near 1 at the same time.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Elipsis)
      It's not about being able to recreate the feeling, it's the fact there is no biological reason or benefit to me enjoying such a thing. Why on earth would humans have a facility to release DXM at death? There is no way breeding would or could ever result in such a function.
      For the same reason our body releases endorphins as pain killers. I think you're underestimated the complexity of humans, especially the brain. Just remember that we are not hunter gatherers anymore. Our needs have evolved beyond purely beyond reproduction and survival.

      Love for instance has a purpose, and those who felt love probably ended up staying together at least in the short term to raise their offspring, so that trait carried on.
      Releasing certain chemicals to ease pain or to ease passing away also has a purpose. Why wouldn't it be carried on?

      If anything stopping to look at a beautiful landscape is detrimental because you let down your guard. Sunsets should if anything scare us, because it means the darkness i.e. our most vulnerable time of day, is coming. It is pretty easy to find the mechanism behind the enjoyment.
      Erm I don't think that's the reason behind people enjoying Sunsets for example. Some people hate the day time and sun sets, some like the moon and night time. Your own individual take on such things is a result of many, many different factors and variables the bottom line is each people have their own stimuli to release "feel good" chemicals. Some of them are universal some are individual.

      I think this sums it up well:

      pleasure is a simple enough answer, but to answer it, you have to understand what 'pleasure' is. evolutionarily speaking, pleasure is the positive stimilus delivered to your brain to reinforce a positive action. for example, your body is designed to want to eat because food is necessary. evolution, however, has not instilled us with the ability to "remember" that eating is necessary. instead what happens is your body begins to deliver negative stimuli to your brain that says "youre hungry, its not a good thing." to remedy this, you eat and your brain gets a chemical stimulus that says "this is good, do this again." this is the nature of "pleasure" and could be expanded to anything that is followed by a positive feeling in your brain.

      relaxation is a little weirder. as far as your body is concerned, the only things that govern your personal traits is your ability to reproduce. anything that furthers your ability to reproduce will influence your evolution. eating is a good thing because it gives you the energy necessary for life, however, working for 10 hours a day isn't necessarily something your body is designed to cope with. your body gives you signals that says "eat food, stay warm, have babies," but working hard beyond that is just additional energy expended that doesn't necessarily have a large impact on your ability to procreate. its true that "have sex, have sex, have sex" isnt the only thing thats necessary for a species to survive, but of all the things it takes to survive, working really hard all the time is not necessarily one of them, but conserving energy is. anthropologically speaking, humans, a hunter gatherer human might only do 1-2 hours of hard work a day gathering food and putting up shelter. beyond that, little is required to survive.

      keep in mind that humans are not designed to survive in the conditions of modern life. we evolved to be good at surviving in the wild and have since moved to a very different lifestyle. while it may seem weird that you like to play games, watch tv, eat lots and lots of food, or do anything else that is "excessively pleasurable," remember that you werent developed to live like you do, so all these motivations are conflicting signals between what modern society requires and what your brain is designed to do.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by giga_grif)
      Anyone else SCARED by those who blindly follow a religion without ever really thinking freely and rationally? I am a strong atheist, and I just find people who follow a set of "rules" of a religion ignorant beyond belief. I am a logical person, and therefore I like to believe something based on EVIDENCE. Science is all about making a hypothesis and then providing evidence to either prove or disprove it, and the evidence for the theory of evolution is now so overwhelming I find it insulting when I meet someone who refuses to believe it due to their religious beliefs. People with religious beliefs have no evidence, and follow ONE book, which supposedly sets out gods will. There are books about unicorns and vampires, and the only argument religious people present to me is "You cant disprove god". You can't disprove vampires and unicorns, and indeed there is a vast amount of "evidence" in books to suggest their existence. This argument is an insult to anyone with an IQ above 40. When you have a debate with a religious person they also say that only a "higher being" could have made the universe, and say that something must have been around to cause the big bang. However this argument is flawed as ultimately someone must have created a "higher being" who then created the universe, and ultimately the creation of the universe is a question which science is alot closer to answering than religion which is in my opinion a cop out way of explaining how the universe was created.

      Just interested in people's opinions on religion on here really, having read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins its an area which I would like to discuss.
      I am an agnostic and while i do not know if a higher power created every thing or not i do not ridicule other peoples beliefs. they cant prove that god exists ,but its the big bang THEORY!! it has yet to be proved. it is also based on certain assumtions which if there wrong would destroy it, so morale of the story if you are going to try and destroy organised religion read more than one source....
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by al_habib)
      so why dont you grab a Quran or bible read it by yourself and undertand the message in it.
      Why the Quran or the Bible in particular? Why not the books of other religions like Scientology? Mormonism? Bahaism? Jainism? Judaism?

      And, why read any of these books?

      (Original post by al_habib)
      For instance Religion teaches one moral values , good conduct how to treat others etc
      That's your opinion. I think certain religions, like Islam, preach immorality.

      (Original post by al_habib)
      I wonder why some people say ooh God or some one is about to leave the world you say 'ooh God help Him' why not science Heeeelp... The dying person
      That's hilarious. When I am unwell, I go to the doctors, not the church - and, that's not just me, it's everyone.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      There is also evidence against evolution. You can't prove anything.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MostCompetitive)
      There is also evidence against evolution. You can't prove anything.
      Why are you bringing evolution into this thread? What does it have to do with this thread?

      Furthermore, to what evidence are you referring? Let us here it.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MostCompetitive)
      There is also evidence against evolution. You can't prove anything.
      how can u believe in evolution when its just a theory (a geuss)?
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Facticity)
      I never said making it more precise makes it less, I said it simply does not have any affect. Alright I shall try to simplify this as much as I can, using your fruit example. You can make the guess as to the probability of an apple being in a box as opposed to a piece of fruit. Because we can substantiate these in referrence to the rest of the real world or even limit our guess to just fruit. We know these exist and can verify this. However when it comes to God, there is no relative nor absolute figure for such a being being this being is not 1) contained within our probable limits and 2) we have no basis for presuming His existence or non-existence. Therefore to say that the probability is any more or less (as you become more precise or general) is meaningless. We have no idea what the subject of the probability of the being itself existing or not existing, because probability applies to things contained within logical limits which can often be verified in some ways. Which cannot be applied to God. Therefore it is pretty much almost 0 and almost 1, it would make not sense to make a claim between those figures however it would be baseless to assert it is 0 or 1. It seems that a guess is not possible, semantical debate does not necessitate physical or metaphysical existence. We can only argue the probability to be near 0 and near 1.

      Merely because their is no basis to assert one, the other or anything in the middle. Did this clear up the point?

      "God exists" and "God does not exist" are absolutes but I am not making such claims on probable grounds. Therefore the two are not juxtaposed.
      How about taking it to other supernatural entities then?
      I have a (rather bigger) box and say that it may be empty, or there may be a unicorn inside.
      Person A "I believe there is a unicorn inside. The unicorn is black."
      Person B "I believe there is a unicorn inside. The unicorn may be of any colour."

      You have no idea if unicorns exist at all. We have no basis for these beliefs. We cannot verify the likelihood whatsoever.
      Person B is more likely to be correct.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Not sure point of thread. Been done a million times and obvious someone religious isn't going to come in here and go "Wow! It's like you've turned a light on! Brb throwing bible away x". DERP.

      Threads like this do nothing but incite flames and pseudo-intellectual crap by people who think they know everything WHEN THEY KNOW NOTHING.

      STOP IT PLEASE AHHHHHHH. Why can't we all just sit at home and read poetry and do philosophy and crap and not sit around debating **** that will not change and will have no effect on ANYTHING.

      AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH not even mad.

      ritsuko i am sorry for my sins <3
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by al_habib)
      media literally portrays religion on the negative side so do dummy of religion , so why dont you grab a Quran or bible read it by yourself and undertand the message in it. Then make a decision whether its 4 you or not. Those who do follow religion they know the importance of it. For instance Religion teaches one moral values , good conduct how to treat others etc ?I wonder why some people say ooh God or some one is about to leave the world you say 'ooh God help Him' why not science Heeeelp... The dying person
      I have read a lot of the Bible, and have been shocked by the horrific actions of this deity, particularly in the Old Testament. I have more respect for theists who have read their holy book than ones who have not, though. So I do agree with you on this.

      Dying people ask doctors to help them. Even religious people normally seek medical science. And it is far more effective than their deity.
      • PS Helper
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lightburns)
      How about taking it to other supernatural entities then?
      I have a (rather bigger box) and say that it may be empty, or there may be a unicorn inside.
      Person A &quot;I believe there is a unicorn inside. The unicorn is black.&quot;
      Person B &quot;I believe there is a unicorn inside. The unicorn may be of any colour.&quot;

      You have no idea if unicorns exist at all. We have no basis for these beliefs. We cannot verify the likelihood whatsoever.
      Person B is more likely to be correct.
      Once again, the assumption here is that when the box is examined there will be a unicorn of any sort or (when you say there may be a unicorn) there may not be any unicorn at all nor even probability of one nor does this exclude all else. The assumption your making here is that the unicorn is present in some form. It is like the schroedinger's cat, the cat is alive and not alive at the same time. Therefore the chance of the cat being alive or dead, is near 0 and near 1 at the same time.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by thisisnew)
      For the same reason our body releases endorphins as pain killers. I think you're underestimated the complexity of humans, especially the brain. Just remember that we are not hunter gatherers anymore. Our needs have evolved beyond purely beyond reproduction and survival.



      Releasing certain chemicals to ease pain or to ease passing away also has a purpose. Why wouldn't it be carried on?



      Erm I don't think that's the reason behind people enjoying Sunsets for example. Some people hate the day time and sun sets, some like the moon and night time. Your own individual take on such things is a result of many, many different factors and variables the bottom line is each people have their own stimuli to release "feel good" chemicals. Some of them are universal some are individual.

      I think this sums it up well:

      How on earth would a chemical in your brain released upon death be passed on genetically or evolve? The vast majority of humans procreate long before they are ever get to feel such a thing. There is absolutely no biological advantage to it, it is just there. I can see how humans who can tolerate pain would survive better, and that would therefore be passed onto their offspring. The only reason we need to enjoy beauty is because we have enjoyed it before. Monkeys, whose complexity is also relatively high, feel no need for it. Indeed many of the things that set us humans apart from them serve very little purpose in survival terms, and the fact that humans go beyond survival into being super complex for no apparent reason only backs up my point. And if we are to suppose that we just do need to look at sunsets in order to cope with a hard day and a hard life, who is to say that belief in God isn't a biological mechanism as well?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Elipsis)
      How on earth would a chemical in your brain released upon death be passed on genetically or evolve? The vast majority of humans procreate long before they are ever get to feel such a thing. There is absolutely no biological advantage to it, it is just there.
      I have not been following this particular argument, so I may not understand the greater context to these points, but I feel compelled to point out of the fact that the release of DMX upon cellular degredation does not need to be selected. If anything, it is most likely just a by-product of pre evolutionary-attained physiology. But I get the feeling this is exactly your point.

      But I agree that it would not really even be feasible for such a thing to be selected naturally as it is beyond the point of survival and conception.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ghim)
      Why are you bringing evolution into this thread? What does it have to do with this thread?

      Furthermore, to what evidence are you referring? Let us here it.
      If you had read the very first post of this thread properly, you'd know that it was the thread starter who said there is 'overwhelming evidence' of evolution. There are so many reasons why it is wrong that this post will be too long if i post them here. Google it - there are loads of sites highlighting the major flaws in the theory.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.