crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 With all the talk on this subject, I'm surprised nobody brought up "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". :lol: If someone seriously brings up the flying spaghetti monster, it is discussing religion. If someone jokingly brings up the flying spaghetti monster, they are insulting religious people. Either way it's a broken rule. Rule already broken from the start, if you would read my posts, you will see that no matter what angle you go from, its religious. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushrock Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 With all the talk on this subject, I'm surprised nobody brought up "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". :lol: If someone seriously brings up the flying spaghetti monster, it is discussing religion. If someone jokingly brings up the flying spaghetti monster, they are insulting religious people. Either way it's a broken rule. Science and reasoning can prove how existence came to be. We just haven't used those tools to find out yet. If anything finds the answer, it'll be through science. Science doesn't discount religion. The thing is nothing about religion so far is scientific. We just are unable to use science to prove or disprove it - that doesn't make religion unscientific since we don't know. Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. Meh, so what? I'm Catholic, but I still think that joke is pretty funny. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I still disagree that atheism is a religion. Science and reasoning can prove how existence came to be. We just haven't used those tools to find out yet. If anything finds the answer, it'll be through science. Science doesn't discount religion. The thing is nothing about religion so far is scientific. We just are unable to use science to prove or disprove it - that doesn't make religion unscientific since we don't know. If we haven't yet used those tools to find out how existence came to be, what proof do you have that science and reasoning can prove it? Of course, the vaguity of the term religion is the main cause of this disagreement. Both religions and scientific atheism are belief systems based on unprovable assumptions. They are essentially the same, and their followers share a similar devotion. Where do you draw the line between banning discussion of one thought system and allowing another? Why should only "secular" discussions be allowed, when the atheistic point of view is essentially the same as religious points of view? Why should the administration say, "You are only allowed to approach this discussion from this point of view. If you disagree with this belief system, get over it." Anyway, I don't think this topic will lead much of anywhere is only a scientific atheistic worldview is acceptable. I propose that either the ban on religous discussion is lifted now that we've had our little break, or that this topic is locked and abandoned until the ban is lifted. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. The strength of the method is shown each time you perform an experiment. The method wasn't made to be the bearer of 'absolute truth' but to serve the purpose of shedding light on the reality we live in. Besides, if I observe an experiment performed under the guise of the method, and the hypothesis is strengthened, I can come to the conclusion that the method has been strengthened. Anyway, after we die, it would be nice if the good people go to heaven but that would just annoy me because all the bad people would end up in hell. Why are they going to hell? Because thier mother gave birth to them, they existed and they became a victim of the circumstance of having existed. Sure, heaven is a nice thought, but IMO, we just rot and cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The strength of the method is shown each time you perform an experiment. It doesn't matter. My point was that scientists that rely on the scientific method for all truth believe a self-refuting claim. Not to mention that "performing an experiment" requires dependence and faith that your observations can be trusted - something else that cannot be proven. I was simply trying to say that everybody has basic beliefs. Everybody beliefs in things that are unprovable. Since adam was talking about science, I just gave the scientific method as an example of a basic belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1withdragons Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The soul of a person is something too powerful and wonderful (those words don't seem to fit, but I can't think of anything more apt.) to be destroyed physically, Therefore, the person's soul must find new life somewhere, whether in a religious afterlife, or in another body, although it seems memory and knowledge become distorted through this. What I personally believe is not something I discuss on the internet. 7 months ago, shoulen m0nk lured me for everything. If you know anything about him, pm me.lol that was a good story but his eyesight must be poor... it's a well known fact that mods only drop garages on players. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metroid Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Looking at this from a logic standpoint. One would say it'd be the same as before you were born, you were, well.. dead. Same thing after you die. You would have no consciousness. But like I said, that is what one would say looking at it from a logic standpoint. That is not my opinion. But then you requested no religion to be brought into this so there is not much room for anyone to say anything. Protect the Light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I still disagree that atheism is a religion. Science and reasoning can prove how existence came to be. We just haven't used those tools to find out yet. If anything finds the answer, it'll be through science. Science doesn't discount religion. The thing is nothing about religion so far is scientific. We just are unable to use science to prove or disprove it - that doesn't make religion unscientific since we don't know. If we haven't yet used those tools to find out how existence came to be, what proof do you have that science and reasoning can prove it? I'm not saying that they can prove it. I'm saying that if it were to ever be proven, it would have to be through science/logic, which is kind of an obvious statement. (Oh, and sorry I forgot to reply to that one thread awhile ago you commented on. I did a lot of thinking on my reply though - I just put off my reply til the thread died.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktor Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I've had my moments in thinking about possible theories to do with when you die. Each as unlikely as the next. :roll: Seriously, it's like ancient Greece at the Birth of Philosophy in there (exaguration). I saw the Cowboy Bebop movie the other day, and I like the idea they mention there. It says that death is nothing more then a new endless dream, so I don't know what I believe in now. I watched Pirates 2 the other day and have been thinking as Davy Jones said, 'Life is cruel, why should the after-life be any different?' :-k Thanks Ronnii :D98% Of teenagers surround their minds with rap music, if you're part of the 2% that stayed with rock, put this in your signature, ROCK IS BETTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. The strength of the method is shown each time you perform an experiment. The method wasn't made to be the bearer of 'absolute truth' but to serve the purpose of shedding light on the reality we live in. Besides, if I observe an experiment performed under the guise of the method, and the hypothesis is strengthened, I can come to the conclusion that the method has been strengthened. Though the point we are trying to make here is that in terms of after life, and existance, science hasn't been proven, thus when used in these discussions it is considered the same as religion, and seeing as religion is banned, this should be locked. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. The strength of the method is shown each time you perform an experiment. The method wasn't made to be the bearer of 'absolute truth' but to serve the purpose of shedding light on the reality we live in. Besides, if I observe an experiment performed under the guise of the method, and the hypothesis is strengthened, I can come to the conclusion that the method has been strengthened. Though the point we are trying to make here is that in terms of after life, and existance, science hasn't been proven, thus when used in these discussions it is considered the same as religion, and seeing as religion is banned, this should be locked. Science isn't as far fetched as religion. Sure, from whats been said here it would seem that absolute truth is unattainable, everything is a matter of belief and hence subject to opinion, but science has the ability to change when new information/knowlege or capacity comes along, unlike religion, so placing the two together dosent make sense. But back on the topic, im sure you've heard of mediumship, so perhaps you believe that and there is an afterlife, and those who are living have the capacity to communicate with those that are dead? Just an idea, discuss what you think if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 We can not prove science and reasoning created all that exists, thus athiesm is as plausible as any other religion. I still disagree that atheism is a religion. Science and reasoning can prove how existence came to be. We just haven't used those tools to find out yet. If anything finds the answer, it'll be through science. Science doesn't discount religion. The thing is nothing about religion so far is scientific. We just are unable to use science to prove or disprove it - that doesn't make religion unscientific since we don't know. But, if science and reason was created alongside our existance, they do not necessarily point to the truth of our creation, because whatever created us wouldn't have had to go by the same rules as what it creates. Think of it this way, put yourself in the place of an animator, you make your character drop an anvil on its head and have it live through it, even though it is flattened like a pancake, does that mean the animator can do the same? Not in this plane of reality. We are the animation and our creator is the animator, our creator doesn't necessarily go by the same rules we do, its possible, yes, but its not necessarily true. Thus, religion, this arguement is over. Mods, I suggest you lock this thread. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Thus, religion, this arguement is over. Mods, I suggest you lock this thread. Why not try to get the discussion back on topic then instead of just saying 'lock it'? I find the concept of what happens after you die interesting, so if there is some grudge or reason you want this thread locked, just let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Though the point we are trying to make here is that in terms of after life, and existance, science hasn't been proven, thus when used in these discussions it is considered the same as religion, and seeing as religion is banned, this should be locked. You are using the religion ban as a shield. I never talked about religion. You're bringing it up to avoid the arguments I have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Though the point we are trying to make here is that in terms of after life, and existance, science hasn't been proven, thus when used in these discussions it is considered the same as religion, and seeing as religion is banned, this should be locked. You are using the religion ban as a shield. I never talked about religion. You're bringing it up to avoid the arguments I have made. Sorry, was I argueing with you? Every post I have made has been saying that anything said on the subject would be religious, I don't quite remember getting in any arguement with you over the subject itself. If you have an arguement against what I have said, then I would like to hear it. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Every post I have made has been saying that anything said on the subject would be religious If you're only saying the same thing over and over again, why post more than once? I don't quite remember getting in any arguement with you over the subject itself. I have made discussion on the topic without referring to religion. That invalidates your argument, so stop posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Every post I have made has been saying that anything said on the subject would be religious If you're only saying the same thing over and over again, why post more than once? I don't quite remember getting in any arguement with you over the subject itself. I have made discussion on the topic without referring to religion. That invalidates your argument, so stop posting here. For 1 I haven't exactly noticed that I have been posting the same thing more than once, I have only posted against the debate brought up before me how I saw fit, if that includes repeating an arguement, then it was needed to get my point across to someone else. For 2 unless you talk about the effects death has on your physical body, you can not talk about this without bringing religion into it. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 first of all, we can prove how. look at the world around you. do you think evolution somehow brought us here? second, you're forgetting something, Soul. there is a soul and you can't leave that out. a soul means that, after our brain shuts out, there is something more. nothing here has gotten to that, only once you die will you really know what death is. humans are (just to put it kindly) stupid. (i'm sorry if this is bringing religion in, but, i wanna know how you atheists can possibly live without any religion...) humans can't comprehend everlasting things. nothing is everlasting until you die. we can say something we can't comprehend and believe it, but we can't know anything without faith. First, yes it is possible evolution brought us here. Think about a huge city. It's very complex, but not all of it was done at once. It starts with a basic plan then expands to what we see today. Second, you're assuming there's a soul, but you can't prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 first of all, we can prove how. look at the world around you. do you think evolution somehow brought us here? second, you're forgetting something, Soul. there is a soul and you can't leave that out. a soul means that, after our brain shuts out, there is something more. nothing here has gotten to that, only once you die will you really know what death is. humans are (just to put it kindly) stupid. (i'm sorry if this is bringing religion in, but, i wanna know how you atheists can possibly live without any religion...) humans can't comprehend everlasting things. nothing is everlasting until you die. we can say something we can't comprehend and believe it, but we can't know anything without faith. First, yes it is possible evolution brought us here. Think about a huge city. It's very complex, but not all of it was done at once. It starts with a basic plan then expands to what we see today. Second, you're assuming there's a soul, but you can't prove it. Agreed. Evolution brought us here... :roll: It's a sensible theory, much more sensible than... (use you imagination). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 *Sighs* There is no open mindedness in the world is there? ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 *Sighs* There is no open mindedness in the world is there? I jjust said it is possible evolution brought us here, spirit says it's impossible, and warrior says it's sensible. Not sure what you're refering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonking Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Not necessarily directing it at you. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Just assuming you're talking to the most recent post/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 *Sighs* There is no open mindedness in the world is there? I consider myself a very open minded person. Thats if you were directing this at me, that is. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 No, the word you are thinking of is agnosticism(Having no religion, but doesn't discount any religion because any of them could be possible), thats what I am, Athiesm believes in no other religion and puts everything in scientific and logical terms, thats a common mistake though. We can not prove science and reasoning created all that exists, thus athiesm is as plausible as any other religion. Many Eastern Religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't believe in a God, however it doesn't stop them from believing in something. Atheism doesn't stop you from believing in anything else, it just means that you don't believe in a God. Atheism is a negative claim, the onus of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim. If someone seriously brings up the flying spaghetti monster, it is discussing religion. If someone jokingly brings up the flying spaghetti monster, they are insulting religious people. Either way it's a broken rule. It's no more insulting then Mormonism, Scientology or any other wacky cult religions. Science is based on self-refuting claims though. Science claims that the only way to knowledge is the scientific method, correct? However, the scientific method cannot test itself, leaving the scientific method completely self-refuted. What is the scientific method? As far as myself and philosophers of Science, it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now