Logic - Religion's mortal enemy

[Rincewind]

If another species created us then who created them? And who created those that created those that created us? I could go on infinitely with this but I'll stop now.

[whoareyaaa]

If another species created us then who created them? And who created those that created those that created us? I could go on infinitely with this but I'll stop now.

But then the same could be said for the Universe where did that come from whats beyond that, who created that, why does it even exist.

Maybe our minds are just uncapable of understanding this for a reason.

[purpleronnie]

Nothing came before the universe because time didnt exist....unless you believe in a creator.

[1964FOX]

Nothing came before the universe because time didnt exist....unless you believe in a creator.

And there's the thing that's impossible to comprehend because if there was no time and nothing how did anything happen.

[Zingari]

I don't think it's worth arsing my pretty little head about it

[Raw Dykes]

A creator doesn't actually answer the question of the origin of the universe, as Nightguard said. If it's true that a supreme being created the universe, then all we've done is changed the question to where the creator came from. I know religious people like to say things like, "he's infinite". Well how convenient. If that answer really satisfies anyone, then why not just believe the universe is infinite instead? It's less of a stretch of the imagination to believe a vacuum with a few bits of rock and some gas in it always existed than it is to believe a supernatural being with the power to break the laws of physics always did, surely?

Let's face it, if there was only one person spouting the words of the Bible or Quran, we'd quite rightly have them sectioned. I know, it's true to say that we can't ever disprove god, but is that really a good reason to believe it exists? It's possible that there's an invisible, omniscient, one-legged chimp ghost living underground somewhere in Colombia that has secretly written every book, film, song, poem, tv show, radio show and game ever created, and telepathically delivered each to their credited writers. Is it reasonable to believe this to be true, just because it can't be disproved? I don't think it is. Which is a more ludicrous idea? God or the invisible chimp ghost? I'd be interested to know why, if you managed to pick one.

There are an infinite number of things that could exist that we could never disprove. I think it's entirely pointless to waste time thinking about them, though. How could they be in any way helpful to us in learning about the real world? God is but one of these things.

For any argument for the existence of life or the universe via god, you can normally substitute the word god with magic, pixies, celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, etc., rendering the argument useless. This is the problem with anything supernatural or unfalsifiable - they might be great subjects for fiction, but they are totally useless and absolutely redundant ideas, by definition, when dealing with questions about the real universe we live in.

[Fox in the North]

[ozleicester]

I don't think it's worth arsing my pretty little head about it

i dont believe this is real... can you prove it?

[ozleicester]

religion should be banned!

Simple, it is an evil controlling influencer that is used to promote evil, guilt and badness.

“Churches are psychologically attractive to sex offenders because they can ask for forgiveness one day and offend again on another day," she said.

“There was one priest in Victoria who admitted when caught that he had confessed 200 times and nobody had reported him, because priests are not allowed to report anyone who confesses in a confessional."

Priests are not subject to mandatory reporting laws so they don't have to report child abusers who confess to them. Generally, a priest who receives such a confession is meant to convince the abuser to report themselves to authorities.

Across Australia people such as doctors, nurses and teachers, who work with children, have to report child abuse but no Australian state or territory has included priests in their mandatory reporting requirements.

Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, says historically people in the Church did not realise that pedophilia was “an addiction".

http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-to-decide-on-a-royal-commission-into-the-catholic-church-today/story-fndo4bst-1226515291821

At last our government has called for a royal commission and there may be at least some chance of these evil cvnts being dealt with, and that goes for the fvckers who covered for them and allowed them to continue.

All this shit about doing good... if you want to do good for society, dont get involved in religion, just do good things.

[Zingari]

i dont believe this is real... can you prove it?

yes

therefore

(x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7! + (x^9)/9! - (x^11)e^x = 1 + (x^1)/1! + (x^2)/2! + (x^3)/3! + (x^4)/4! + (x^5)/5! + /11! + ΔKe + ΔPe + ΔU > ½ (Mass)Δ(Velocity)^2 + GΔ(Height) + ΔP/Ï + ΣFfriction + Wshaft + Q + W(PV) = zingariprettylittlehead

you can't argue with logic and science !!!

[ozleicester]

yes

therefore

= zingariprettylittlehead

you can't argue with logic and science !!!

hm... nope... that doesnt confirm "pretty..OR... little"

I think ill sit back, have a cider and await proof!

[Captain...]

A creator doesn't actually answer the question of the origin of the universe, as Nightguard said. If it's true that a supreme being created the universe, then all we've done is changed the question to where the creator came from. I know religious people like to say things like, "he's infinite". Well how convenient. If that answer really satisfies anyone, then why not just believe the universe is infinite instead? It's less of a stretch of the imagination to believe a vacuum with a few bits of rock and some gas in it always existed than it is to believe a supernatural being with the power to break the laws of physics always did, surely?

Let's face it, if there was only one person spouting the words of the Bible or Quran, we'd quite rightly have them sectioned. I know, it's true to say that we can't ever disprove god, but is that really a good reason to believe it exists? It's possible that there's an invisible, omniscient, one-legged chimp ghost living underground somewhere in Colombia that has secretly written every book, film, song, poem, tv show, radio show and game ever created, and telepathically delivered each to their credited writers. Is it reasonable to believe this to be true, just because it can't be disproved? I don't think it is. Which is a more ludicrous idea? God or the invisible chimp ghost? I'd be interested to know why, if you managed to pick one.

There are an infinite number of things that could exist that we could never disprove. I think it's entirely pointless to waste time thinking about them, though. How could they be in any way helpful to us in learning about the real world? God is but one of these things.

For any argument for the existence of life or the universe via god, you can normally substitute the word god with magic, pixies, celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, etc., rendering the argument useless. This is the problem with anything supernatural or unfalsifiable - they might be great subjects for fiction, but they are totally useless and absolutely redundant ideas, by definition, when dealing with questions about the real universe we live in.

I disagree with the second part, I think it is very important to investigate these religions a lot of science started out as religion whether it be explanations of the stars, or scared plants that cured illnesses, all science has done is refine these ideas to a logical conclusion.

There are still a lot of things we don't understand the how or the why, to me all those things currently fall under the banner of spirituality, more so than religion, but things like yoga and acupuncture where considered weird and non scientific, but now scientific values have been placed on these things even if only through anecdotal evidence and without a true understanding of how it works.

Remember all we are is a collection of vibrations and reflections

[Guest]

I disagree with the second part, I think it is very important to investigate these religions a lot of science started out as religion whether it be explanations of the stars, or scared plants that cured illnesses, all science has done is refine these ideas to a logical conclusion.

There are still a lot of things we don't understand the how or the why, to me all those things currently fall under the banner of spirituality, more so than religion, but things like yoga and acupuncture where considered weird and non scientific, but now scientific values have been placed on these things even if only through anecdotal evidence and without a true understanding of how it works.

Remember all we are is a collection of vibrations and reflections

Are you more vibration or reflection?

[Zingari]

hm... nope... that doesnt confirm "pretty..OR... little"

I think ill sit back, have a cider and await proof!

Ah , you're obviously not scientifically minded .

Values such pretty and little are what we boffins call basic assumptions .

I assumed you'd know that already .

There you see , I just did it again .

[Captain...]

Are you more vibration or reflection?

Myself, I am vibration but as I am observed I am only light reflected.

[The Doctor]

yes

therefore

(x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7! + (x^9)/9! - (x^11)e^x = 1 + (x^1)/1! + (x^2)/2! + (x^3)/3! + (x^4)/4! + (x^5)/5! + /11! + ΔKe + ΔPe + ΔU > ½ (Mass)Δ(Velocity)^2 + GΔ(Height) + ΔP/Ï + ΣFfriction + Wshaft + Q + W(PV) = zingariprettylittlehead

you can't argue with logic and science !!!

woah woah woah - I've checked that and you forgot to divide by zero.

[Guest]

woah woah woah - I've checked that and you forgot to divide by zero.

I thought he had to multiply by zero to get his true value.

[Zingari]

Stop being so impatient and showing off to the rest of the class.

I was going to get to that after lunch.!!

[ozleicester]

wait... wait... ive got it

[The Doctor]

No, no. It's Length x Diameter plus Width divided by Girth all over the angle of the tip squared.

[purpleronnie]

And there's the thing that's impossible to comprehend because if there was no time and nothing how did anything happen.

But it can but i'm to stupid to explain it, i think it has something to do with thermodynamics and the way energy can be transformed but can't be created or destroyed and quantum mechanics where 'nothing' transforms into something all the time.

[notnow john]

But it can but i'm to stupid to explain it, i think it has something to do with thermodynamics and the way energy can be transformed but can't be created or destroyed and quantum mechanics where 'nothing' transforms into something all the time.

Well,you got the first part right.

[Raw Dykes]

I disagree with the second part, I think it is very important to investigate these religions a lot of science started out as religion whether it be explanations of the stars, or scared plants that cured illnesses, all science has done is refine these ideas to a logical conclusion.

I'm not sure about that, really. I'm sure people wondered about those things before religion existed. In fact, I'm fairly sure the mysteries of the world had a huge hand in the invention of religion. People use religion as a substitute for a real answer for questions that we aren't able to answer yet. People once used god to try to explain thunder, rainbows, the sun, etc. We now know the real explanations for these things. There are still things we cannot yet explain, but using something supernatural and unfalsifiable does not help us. It's worse than that - it hinders us. It makes some people lazy thinkers. If they think they have the answer when they haven't, they will stop looking for the true answer.

That really is not "all science has done". The religious explanations for questions about life, the real world, the universe, etc. are nearly always wrong, and on the few occasions they have been correct, it has been by chance. It's a bit like saying Matt Mills can pass well, because one in twenty of his punts finds a teammate. I can't think of an example of religion helping science, but I'm all ears.

The way religion tackles these questions is it makes a guess, then ignores all evidence to the contrary. Evolution is a fact, yet there are still people who can't accept it, because of a book written thousands of years ago. Science lets the evidence lead to the answer, and it never sets that answer in stone, because new evidence shows up all the time. Scientists love finding out they are wrong, because that means new knowledge has been gained.

The Bible is a good example of very bad science. It attempts to answer difficult questions way above its station, based on little to no knowledge. It's exactly what I'd expect from a group of primitive bronze age people.

There are still a lot of things we don't understand the how or the why, to me all those things currently fall under the banner of spirituality, more so than religion, but things like yoga and acupuncture where considered weird and non scientific, but now scientific values have been placed on these things even if only through anecdotal evidence and without a true understanding of how it works.

Remember all we are is a collection of vibrations and reflections

I don't like the word spirituality, because I don't think anyone really knows what it means. I think it's a useless word, but I'd be happy to hear anyone's definition.

I think yoga is clearly beneficial. Any sort of physical exercise is. I don't lump acupuncture in with all the other ridiculous alternative therapies, purely because I have scratched myself in one place but felt it somewhere else entirely at the same time, which is weird. I don't think it belongs in the same category as homeopathy, but I don't know too much about it.

I'm not really sure what your point was, though. I don't know what science has to say about yoga or acupuncture.

[Reynard Bleu]

I have Chinese friends, a family of four. A more logical bunch you will never meet, science is their forte, as a family, Mum and Dad both teach sciences at a University and both children are studying for science degrees. Yet their belief in their ancient heritage is imoveable, whether it be medicine or the phylosophy of their ancestors, they seem to be able to marry the science with their beliefs quite easily, We are so set in our western ways sometimes, we expect everyone to think like we do - black and white.

[Captain...]

I'm not sure about that, really. I'm sure people wondered about those things before religion existed. In fact, I'm fairly sure the mysteries of the world had a huge hand in the invention of religion. People use religion as a substitute for a real answer for questions that we aren't able to answer yet. People once used god to try to explain thunder, rainbows, the sun, etc. We now know the real explanations for these things. There are still things we cannot yet explain, but using something supernatural and unfalsifiable does not help us. It's worse than that - it hinders us. It makes some people lazy thinkers. If they think they have the answer when they haven't, they will stop looking for the true answer.

That really is not "all science has done". The religious explanations for questions about life, the real world, the universe, etc. are nearly always wrong, and on the few occasions they have been correct, it has been by chance. It's a bit like saying Matt Mills can pass well, because one in twenty of his punts finds a teammate. I can't think of an example of religion helping science, but I'm all ears.

The way religion tackles these questions is it makes a guess, then ignores all evidence to the contrary. Evolution is a fact, yet there are still people who can't accept it, because of a book written thousands of years ago. Science lets the evidence lead to the answer, and it never sets that answer in stone, because new evidence shows up all the time. Scientists love finding out they are wrong, because that means new knowledge has been gained.

The Bible is a good example of very bad science. It attempts to answer difficult questions way above its station, based on little to no knowledge. It's exactly what I'd expect from a group of primitive bronze age people.

I don't like the word spirituality, because I don't think anyone really knows what it means. I think it's a useless word, but I'd be happy to hear anyone's definition.

I think yoga is clearly beneficial. Any sort of physical exercise is. I don't lump acupuncture in with all the other ridiculous alternative therapies, purely because I have scratched myself in one place but felt it somewhere else entirely at the same time, which is weird. I don't think it belongs in the same category as homeopathy, but I don't know too much about it.

I'm not really sure what your point was, though. I don't know what science has to say about yoga or acupuncture.

I will answer more later, but to me spirituality is any belief that has no scientific basis, the implication is that there is other worldly influence, things such as ley lines don't have any scientific proof, but they could very easily in my mind by true and at some point be proven as scientific fact.

Things such as yogis being able to perform unbelievable feats of strength and endurance that previously were viewed as channelling god like powers have now been proven as man's ability to control mind over matter, to enter trance like states and do things they were previously unable to do. This can now be repeated under scientific control, and are now considered fact and not spiritual or god like.

Things like Yoga and meditation were considered spiritual mumbo jumbo and have their roots in religion, but after going through a fad of being trendy, are now considered exercise and normal, things like Reiki, haven't really progressed to the scientific world and are still considered spiritual nonsense.

A lot of drugs (good and bad) have their origins in witch doctors and shamens and faith healers.

I will reply in greater detail later, but I am in the middle of training ATM.