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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostCompetitive)
    There are so many reasons why it is wrong that this post will be too long if i post them here.
    You're such a loser. You can't even back up your claims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spasmos)
    I am also a strong atheist, but your post is almost hypocritical. What your post read to me was as a summary of the God Delusion by Dawkins. Therefore, your views, whilst not based on this book, use this book as an evidence and follow closely the criticism that Dawkins presents - is this not reminiescent of a religious activity to you? Religion is not simply the belief in God, but the following of a Ethos and morals. To literal meanings in religion are all but eradicated in modern society - for a closer example look towards Buddhism.

    Richard Dawkins is a poor excuse for a social scientist, and whilst some of his book (such as the selfish gene) are informative and accessible, The God Delusion is a prejudice and stagnant example of anti-monotheism.

    To criticise religion, you need to be prepared to understand it, and be specific - every religion is different and cannot be tarred with the same brush. The best critic for religion is the person who knows it inside out - the theologist.

    Lastly, you should allow people to have faith, if it helps them to live a better, more fulfilled life, then who are we to criticise. Speak to any modern person who follows a religion, and you will probably be surprised by their reasons and method of following. Media reports only on the extremes of religion, not the vast majority who are sensible, objective citizens. How much better are you then those who preach about their religion, if you preach about atheism?
    Brilliant
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    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.
    It's quite probable that a unicorn is not in the box. However, we can agree that there is a possibility, however low, of a unicorn being in it.

    If there is a unicorn in the box, then Person B is more likely to be correct. This is because a white unicorn would mean that Person B is correct, but Person A is wrong.

    In the event that we don't know if there is a unicorn in there or not, it is still more likely that Person B is correct. This is because there is a possibility of there being a unicorn in the box, and should that possibility be true, then Person B has more chance of being correct. If that possibility is not true, then both Person A and Person B are wrong.
    We have no information about whether unicorns exist or not, which means that there is a possibility of my box containing a unicorn.
    • Offline

      0
      To quote the genius of Terry Pratchet.

      Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
      Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
      Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
      Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
      Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
      Susan: They're not the same at all.
      Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
      Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
      Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

      Religion in my opinion is something we need to explain things we don't understand and to give out lives some meaning, otherwise what is the point? we might as well crawl under a rock and shoot ourselves in the head the moment we are born.

      DrTux

      P.s. I personal don't believe in any god/religion, but I do accept the general principles of most religions, to be 'good'.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Facticity)
      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.
      You could make the same argument in the fruit example: Why does it have to be a fruit at all?. Not knowing exact probabilities doesn't invalidate anything. If you had to put your money on one of them before looking in the box, you'd put it on the one who makes fewer claims. Whether it's fruit, unicorns or God.

      With Schroedinger's cat, the probability isn't near 0 and near 1 at the same time. In fact, I don't think something having two different probabilities at the same time makes any sense at all. For the cat, the probability af being dead is equal to the probability associatied with whatever quantum event would cause it to die.
      Offline

      1
      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 do kinda agree with you...
      the majority of people who have a religion only follow that religion are brought up with it!!!!
      if you had no influences what so ever as a child on religion... do you really think you would choose to follow the religion that you have been brought up with?? i very much doubt it..
      there are a few people who choose religion later in life, and fair enough... but i think parents should let their children decide what to follow without putting their personal influences on it
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Facticity)
      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.
      Oh, also, Schrödinger's cat is not what actually happens. It is just to show how insane quantum physics is applied to the macroscopic world, I believe? Obviously, the cat is either alive or dead in the box. It doesn't matter whether you look inside or not. It is one or the other. However, quantum physics is mental, and apply it to the macroscopic world, you can see how mental it is.
      We need a physicist to get here and tell me if I'm spouting rubbish here....
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Religion provides a comfort and guidance to billions of people world wide. Whether you think its a load of crap or not you should respect what other people believe and not openly criticise because that's disrespectful.
      I know it's hypocritical because many religious people openly insult other religions and those who don't believe at all (my religious studies teacher is one of them) but they're just as disrespectful.
      • PS Helper
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SsEe)
      You could make the same argument in the fruit example: Why does it have to be a fruit at all?. Not knowing exact probabilities doesn't invalidate anything. If you had to put your money on one of them before looking in the box, you'd put it on the one who makes fewer claims. Whether it's fruit, unicorns or God.

      With Schroedinger's cat, the probability isn't near 0 and near 1 at the same time. In fact, I don't think something having two different probabilities at the same time makes any sense at all. For the cat, the probability af being dead is equal to the probability associatied with whatever quantum event would cause it to die.
      No, you fall into the same trap. You are making a claim based on nothing. It is just as probable as me claiming God is a magical table which can also become a chair. Both of the concept we are trying to make probable claims about have no probable base for assuming any kind of probability. They are not entities defined in actuality, conceptuality nor metaphysic-ality by our semantics.

      With Schroedinger's cat, i was using it as an analogy. Not quite the same as what we are talking about but quite relevant. And no, you are confused. The probability of the cat being alive is 0 and 1 at the same time because they're exists multiple worlds in which the two outcomes are just as likely. So the probability of the cat being alive in one universe (where the cat is alive) thus probability 1 and (in another it is dead) probability 0. So your claims about them not making sense is wrong. It is (simple) quantums. This is my point regarding God here in claiming the probability of His existence or non-existence. It is near 0 and 1 at the same time because we have no cause nor ability to discern one way, the middle, nor the other.

      (Original post by lightburns)
      It's quite probable that a unicorn is not in the box. However, we can agree that there is a possibility, however low, of a unicorn being in it.
      No we cannot agree that there is a unicorn in it, that is baseless and very presumptive. A logical failing.

      If there is a unicorn in the box, then Person B is more likely to be correct. This is because a white unicorn would mean that Person B is correct, but Person A is wrong.
      Okay.... yes...

      In the event that we don't know if there is a unicorn in there or not, it is still more likely that Person B is correct. This is because there is a possibility of there being a unicorn in the box, and should that possibility be true, then Person B has more chance of being correct. If that possibility is not true, then both Person A and Person B are wrong.
      We have no information about whether unicorns exist or not, which means that there is a possibility of my box containing a unicorn.
      No, for the multiple reasons I have given you. You keep falling into the same logical anomaly. Just take a look at the comment above to SsEe.

      If you cannot see this, I will concede my position, because I only came on here to tell the OP that he was generalising. I do not want to get into a long debate about maths, philosophy and quantums.
      Let us agree to disagree because I tire of arguing :yy:
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by emiliee21)
      Religion provides a comfort and guidance to billions of people world wide. Whether you think its a load of crap or not you should respect what other people believe and not openly criticise because that's disrespectful.
      I know it's hypocritical because many religious people openly insult other religions and those who don't believe at all (my religious studies teacher is one of them) but they're just as disrespectful.
      I agree that people should be able to believe what they like.

      I will not run into a Church and criticise them - that is disrespectful. I will not shout to people on a train about how Christianity is wrong - that is disrespectful. I will not knock on stranger's doors to tell them they are wrong - that is disrespectful.

      Likewise, I expect them to keep their beliefs out of scientific matters, such as abortion and stem cell research, to not stand at the side of the road to tell us their beliefs, and to not knock on my door to preach to me - that is disrespectful.

      Places like this, an open forum, I think everyone is free to criticise. This is because we have all basically made an agreement coming into this thread that we are going to discuss religion.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Facticity)
      No we cannot agree that there is a unicorn in it, that is baseless and very presumptive. A logical failing.
      No, but we can agree that there could be a unicorn in it, because that possibility has not been disproved.

      (Original post by Facticity)
      If you cannot see this, I will concede my position, because I only came on here to tell the OP that he was generalising. I do not want to get into a long debate about maths, philosophy and quantums.
      Let us agree to disagree because I tire of arguing :yy:
      Haha, this has been a rather longer discussion than either of us originally intended, hasn't it?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lightburns)
      I agree that people should be able to believe what they like.

      I will not run into a Church and criticise them - that is disrespectful. I will not shout to people on a train about how Christianity is wrong - that is disrespectful. I will not knock on stranger's doors to tell them they are wrong - that is disrespectful.

      Likewise, I expect them to keep their beliefs out of scientific matters, such as abortion and stem cell research, to not stand at the side of the road to tell us their beliefs, and to not knock on my door to preach to me - that is disrespectful.

      Places like this, an open forum, I think everyone is free to criticise. This is because we have all basically made an agreement coming into this thread that we are going to discuss religion.
      Yes, I agree
      Although (even though I haven't seen it done on this forum as yet) if someone was to get personal with someone saying 'your stupid for believing that' (maybe something a little more offensive haha) that's wrong as its getting personal. But saying perhaps 'I think people who believe in God are shallow minded' thats fine as its not getting directly personal at someone as that is when it turns to bullying.

      I had a teacher last year who was a strong Christian of some sort and there was a girl in my class who believed in the Trinity (which my teacher didn't believe in) she used to bully this girl constantly and insult what she believed directly at her. It was really horrible
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ghim)
      You're such a loser. You can't even back up your claims.
      One argument: evolution contradicts mathematics (statistics). You can't prove maths wrong and evolution is yet to be proven correct.
      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.
      Religion is obviously flawed. It's only a tool to keep people's minds off the meaninglessness and mystery of their own existence. But you can't say all of that because of PC.
      • PS Helper
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lightburns)
      No, but we can agree that there could be a unicorn in it, because that possibility has not been disproved.



      Haha, this has been a rather longer discussion than either of us originally intended, hasn't it?
      Yes we did go much further than I intended lol I do not think our argument here is substantial so let us leave it.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MostCompetitive)
      One argument: evolution contradicts mathematics (statistics). You can't prove maths wrong and evolution is yet to be proven correct.
      Wtf? Elaborate now.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MostCompetitive)
      One argument: evolution contradicts mathematics (statistics). You can't prove maths wrong and evolution is yet to be proven correct.

      That's just so wrong on multiple levels.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MostCompetitive)
      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.
      No there isn't. You'll find that these sites have no scientific backing whatsoever.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Facticity)
      And no, you are confused. The probability of the cat being alive is 0 and 1 at the same time because they're exists multiple worlds in which the two outcomes are just as likely. So the probability of the cat being alive in one universe (where the cat is alive) thus probability 1 and (in another it is dead) probability 0. So your claims about them not making sense is wrong. It is (simple) quantums. This is my point regarding God here in claiming the probability of His existence or non-existence. It is near 0 and 1 at the same time because we have no cause nor ability to discern one way, the middle, nor the other.
      Although you've dropped the God/probability argument, I'll still point out that with Schroedinger's cat (and indeed any quantum effect), you don't say it has both probability 1 and 0 at the same time. Before you make the observation, the cat is in a quantum superposition of two states. When you make the observation, the superposition collapses to one of the alive state or the dead state with a particular probability (dependent on the process used to kill the cat).
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ghim)
      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?



      That's your opinion. I think certain religions, like Islam, preach immorality.



      That's hilarious. When I am unwell, I go to the doctors, not the church - and, that's not just me, it's everyone.
      islam preaches immorality:eek: prove it
     
     
     
  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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.