The function of religion ? - page 27.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you it still makes you just as right as I am, no more. You may call me insane or any other word you can conjure up, and I will still have my own opinion. For me what is important is, that I respect yours and wish you well.

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 03:19:48 PM

You are right ONLY if you have your own personal definition of proof that is not generally accepted by the rest of society, or if you are insane.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 02:31:11 PM

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 02:20:57 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:57:11 PM

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1006

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 03:30:42 PM

Who is to say that our minds and thought processes are not chaotic? If anything, the fact that our minds and thoughts are so random, chaotic, unpredictable, and most importantly unreliable, is proof that they are a product of a "non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness."
No information exists in a sense of physical matter. Books are composed of paper and ink, computer files are composed of steel and electrons, and your memories are composed of carbon-based cells that form neural networks. "Abstract ideas" are just electrical impulses, racing through your complex neural network, that decide to take a detour and try to explore a different neural pathway. There is nothing special about redirecting electrons to go down a different path, no matter how much your ego wishes there was.
Also, atheism isn't a religion or a belief. The "a" in atheism specifically means "lack of." I am an atheist not because I "believe" there is no god, but because I "don't believe" others when they tell me there is a god. I don't have a belief, I just don't find other's beliefs convincing.

Information does exist apart from any human mind. A contradiction is an abstract idea. For example: I can say, "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot." That would be a contradiction that cannot happen apart from the laws of logic being a reality.

Your brain does not need to be processing an abstract thought, in order for information to exist. If this was the case, if you were the only living mind, every time you went to sleep, the universe would implode. Grin

The universe, and our minds, are not chaotic. They are structured, ordered. There is no such thing as chaos in this universe, chaos being the absence of information.

Besides, if what you say is true about the human mind, then how can you argue anything at all? Just give up, its pure chaos in our heads. Grin

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: foggyb on October 02, 2012, 03:07:03 PM

Quote from: dancupid on October 02, 2012, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: foggyb on October 02, 2012, 02:21:44 PM

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

That's funny. I was taught that science is used to explain the physical universe. Information and abstract ideas exist in the absence of any physical matter.

Who is to say that our minds and thought processes are not chaotic? If anything, the fact that our minds and thoughts are so random, chaotic, unpredictable, and most importantly unreliable, is proof that they are a product of a "non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness."
No information exists in a sense of physical matter. Books are composed of paper and ink, computer files are composed of steel and electrons, and your memories are composed of carbon-based cells that form neural networks. "Abstract ideas" are just electrical impulses, racing through your complex neural network, that decide to take a detour and try to explore a different neural pathway. There is nothing special about redirecting electrons to go down a different path, no matter how much your ego wishes there was.
Also, atheism isn't a religion or a belief. The "a" in atheism specifically means "lack of." I am an atheist not because I "believe" there is no god, but because I "don't believe" others when they tell me there is a god. I don't have a belief, I just don't find other's beliefs convincing.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

You are right ONLY if you have your own personal definition of proof that is not generally accepted by the rest of society, or if you are insane.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 02:31:11 PM

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 02:20:57 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:57:11 PM

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1006

Quote from: RodeoX on October 02, 2012, 03:12:15 PM

I think religion does a lot for peoples mental health and to create social order. It doesn't matter that there is no actual God.

You're right. Religion doesn't require a God. Atheism, for example. Everyone believes in something. Call it their religion if you like. The person that believes in nothing at all, is mentally ill.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

I think religion does a lot for peoples mental health and to create social order. It doesn't matter that there is no actual God.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1006

Quote from: dancupid on October 02, 2012, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: foggyb on October 02, 2012, 02:21:44 PM

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

That's funny. I was taught that science is used to explain the physical universe. Information and abstract ideas exist in the absence of any physical matter.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

You may be right 99% of the time, that still does not make your proof any better than anyone else's..

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 02:20:57 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:57:11 PM

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

dancupid

hero member

Activity: 955

Merit: 1002

Quote from: foggyb on October 02, 2012, 02:21:44 PM

Quote from: dancupid on October 02, 2012, 01:45:03 PM

Quote from: grondilu on October 02, 2012, 04:55:02 AM

Quote from: dancupid on September 27, 2012, 12:16:33 PM

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage... for religion. Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist. And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.

You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years. Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

The scientific evidence?

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1006

Quote from: dancupid on October 02, 2012, 01:45:03 PM

Quote from: grondilu on October 02, 2012, 04:55:02 AM

Quote from: dancupid on September 27, 2012, 12:16:33 PM

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage... for religion. Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist. And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.

You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years. Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

How can anyone that believes themselves to be enlightened, possibly think that a non-living chaotic process devoid of consciousness can implant or shape abstract ideas (or manipulate their processing) in a mind?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:57:11 PM

Your proof is just as good as mine..

If I put down two sticks on the ground, then next to them put down two more sticks, and that way prove to you that 2+2=4, which you can see, feel, and if you listen to the clacks of the sticks as they hit the ground, hear, that is my "good" proof that 2+2=4. If you claim that it's not 4, you better have a damn good proof, and saying "it is in my opinion that 2+2 does not make 4" is not as good a proof as mine. Continuing to claim so will make you seem deluded, and will make your statements irrelevant. Facts don't care about your opinions.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

Your proof is just as good as mine...

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 01:40:16 PM

If your point was that wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as those proposed by religion, should be irrelevant, i.e. should not be taken as truth, or given any value, and should be outright rejected when confronted with contradictory proof, then yes?
My point was that my opinion is relevant and yours is not because I have proof to substantiate my opinion, and you don't. I'm not even sure what exactly you are arguing.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:28:32 PM

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 12:43:48 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 03:07:20 AM

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps

Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

dancupid

hero member

Activity: 955

Merit: 1002

Quote from: grondilu on October 02, 2012, 04:55:02 AM

Quote from: dancupid on September 27, 2012, 12:16:33 PM

Religion is ubiquitous and universal in human culture (in some form for hundreds of thousands of years). Anthropologically that suggests it's a pretty significant component of evolved human behavior.
It's only after the enlightenment that we get any notion of the possibility that it's all nonsense.
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage... for religion. Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:

Parasitism does exist. And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.

You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years. Does that make it a good thing?

I'm not sure evolution cares about good or bad (you think cookoos are bad?)- a human judgement that parasites are bad is irrelevant (unless it gives you an evolutionary advantage).
Morality and good and evil etc are myths just like religion.
We're all parasites (look at what you had for dinner today)

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

If your point was that wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as those proposed by religion, should be irrelevant, i.e. should not be taken as truth, or given any value, and should be outright rejected when confronted with contradictory proof, then yes?
My point was that my opinion is relevant and yours is not because I have proof to substantiate my opinion, and you don't. I'm not even sure what exactly you are arguing.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 01:28:32 PM

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 12:43:48 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 03:07:20 AM

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps

Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

And thats my point, your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine because you cannot prove your point just as much as I cannot prove mine.

Quote from: Rassah on October 02, 2012, 12:43:48 PM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 03:07:20 AM

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps

Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 03:07:20 AM

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps

Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

My answer is:
Then this game's existence would be irrelevant. Reality would be whatever we sensed and detected in this game, and the game itself would be reality. If you claimed you know that this is all a game to trick us, and the reality was different, then we'll have two options.
One would be that you show proof that there is a game, in which case we would adjust our understanding of reality to include this game.
The other would be that you have no proof and there is no way to test for your claim of there being a game, in which case your claim will be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense, just as claims by people who "know" that big foot, fairies, and unicorns exist, until such time that you provide proof, and we go to option one.
In short, your "knowledge" of a game, and it's basis in reality is totally irrelevant without proof.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

Thank you

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 05:51:01 AM

Im telling you man, that the whole universe is playing a game on you and that your senses are in on it too..
I dont think you would believe me and thats why Im telling you, as I am also a part of the game

Thank you. I now have all the evidence I need.

yrtrnc

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

Im telling you man, that the whole universe is playing a game on you and that your senses are in on it too..
I dont think you would believe me and thats why Im telling you, as I am also a part of the game

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 02, 2012, 05:42:38 AM

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 05:37:01 AM

Quote

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too

All that I require from my senses it that they report what the actual state of the universe causes them to report. This is precisely the input I need to try to figure out what that state of the universe is. It's inconceivable that they could somehow report something other than what the universe causes them to report. That the senses are reliable is axiomatic. There is no sense in which they can be unreliable.

If, for example, my eyes first reported one thing and then another, then it would be a fact of reality that my eyes reported things in this way. My eyes would accurately be reporting this fact. If, despite the fact that my eyes had this defect, they still reported the same thing, then I would be fooled by my senses and unable to detect and understand this defect. The idea that senses could be unreliable or defective is self-contradictory.

If they really are unreliable, then by acting unreliably, they accurately report their unreliability to me. If they really were unreliable, but nevertheless acted reliably, *that* would be a problem, since I'd be unable to sense the true fact that my senses were unreliable.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: yrtrnc on October 02, 2012, 05:37:01 AM

Quote

Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too

All that I require from my senses it that they report what the actual state of the universe causes them to report. This is precisely the input I need to try to figure out what that state of the universe is. It's inconceivable that they could somehow report something other than what the universe causes them to report. That the senses are reliable is axiomatic. There is no sense in which they can be unreliable.

If, for example, my eyes first reported one thing and then another, then it would be a fact of reality that my eyes reported things in this way. My eyes would accurately be reporting this fact. If, despite the fact that my eyes had this defect, they still reported the same thing, then I would be fooled by my senses and unable to detect and understand this defect. The idea that senses could be unreliable or defective is self-contradictory.

If they really are unreliable, then by acting unreliably, they accurately report their unreliability to me. If they really were unreliable, but nevertheless acted reliably, *that* would be a problem, since I'd be unable to sense the true fact that my senses were unreliable.

Topic: The function of religion ? - page 27. (Read 18646 times)