| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Pastafarianism; The atheist religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 23 Jul 2009, 08:03 PM (3,247 Views) | |
| Deleted User | 7 Nov 2009, 04:40 PM Post #46 |
|
Deleted User
|
i beleive in reasonless Love,Grace & mercy |
|
|
| Concolor | 7 Nov 2009, 04:42 PM Post #47 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe that beliefs should be based on reason as I have yet to find a better alternative to base my beliefs on. All other alternatives I have been presented with so far have demonstrated to be conflicting, unproductive or downright misleading and dangerous as far as I can tell. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 7 Nov 2009, 07:06 PM Post #48 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@arazec: I think grace and mercy are an extension of love, but I'd agree with that. The question is: WHY? @concolor: I find that fairly circular, and you must too. You have no reason to base your beliefs on anything but reason. However your point about the alternatives is valid |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 7 Nov 2009, 07:46 PM Post #49 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: I see it as more of a potential endless row of questions: What is your reason for basing your beliefs on reason? What is your reason for basing your reasons for basing your beliefs on reason on reason? ...and so forth. I would assume that the appearance of circularity is a result on the similar writing of reason (as in rationality) and reason (as in argument for choosing something). I could phrase it like this: "I have come to the temporary conclusion that beliefs should be based on rationality as I have yet to find a better alternative to base my beliefs on." or "I have no better alternatives to base my beliefs upon than rationality." If you still see a circularity please tell me, as I'm having difficulties seeing this myself. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 7 Nov 2009, 07:58 PM Post #50 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
but the metric by which you're judging the alternatives is a rational one. If you chose which method by consulting your horoscope or by special revelation you might receive a different answer. I realise that this is a needlessly academic discussion, but it does demonstrate that we value rationality, irrationally. another, annoyingly long youtube series on the topic can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7-pg0En-_4 If you have time, check it out and let me know what you think. |
![]() |
|
| cheesebug | 7 Nov 2009, 09:14 PM Post #51 |
|
Ultimate Threadkiller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
omygrosh i just realized im not the only crazy person here PRAISE JEBUS! |
|
http://masochistic-goddess.tumblr.com/poetry "You will hear thunder and remember me, and think: she wanted storms." | |
![]() |
|
| dragonshardz | 8 Nov 2009, 12:07 AM Post #52 |
![]()
Troll
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What would you praise the bus? That makes no sense. All religions are based on the belief that it is correct to be Religion A and not Religion B, even atheism. The funniest thing is that it takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution that creationism. Case in point: It's said that an organism with more chromosomes is more advanced than an organism with fewer chromosomes. A fern has 1200 chromosomes, while humans have only 46. If you look at this list and sort by "Diploid Number of Chromosomes*", you will see that by the logic of macro-evolution, the human race's next evolution will be into...tobacco? And our ultimate goal is to become...ferns? Yet, macro-evolutionists clearly state that Homo sapiens is the most advanced species even though we have fewer chromosomes than a plant. Thus, macro-evolution disproves itself due to an irreconcilable paradox: humans are the most advanced species, yet are not. Now, I'm not saying the Bible does not have contradictions; I am well aware that it does. However, it was written over a long period of time and changes between the Old and New Testaments, so there will be mistakes. Few branches of Christianity believe that if it is in the Bible, it is true and correct, because that is not the case. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is accepted as pure and true fact even though it contains an irreconcilable paradox, while the Bible only has contradictions. Point, set, and match. The Creationists have it. Macro-evolutionist/Atheists, the ball's in your court. Rebuff me, I dares ya. *To sort from most to least chromosomes, click on the arrow next to the word "Chromosomes" in the table twice. Edited by dragonshardz, 8 Nov 2009, 12:08 AM.
|
|
I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM. GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. | |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 8 Nov 2009, 04:41 AM Post #53 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't want to get onto this in this thread, because we already have one about evolution. However, your challenge is more of a question mal posee The theory of Evolution does not look at life as a ladder: humans are not the most advanced life form or are ferns one of the least. I'm surprised that you don't say our next step would be to become gorillas or chimpanzees seeing as they both have 48 chromosomes. Nor does the theory of evolution suggest that the more chromosomes a species has, the more advanced it is. There may be any number of reasons why a species will have fewer or more chromosomes than another. In this case, it is because ancient ferns copied their genome without dividing resulting in what is known as polyploidy, this has been shown examining the genome for gene duplications and finding a LOT. However, they now behave as biploid organisms by suppressing most of the duplicate genes. Humans have fewer than gorillas because our chromosome 2 is made up of two gorilla chromosomes stuck together (that last bit a simplification, but not a heinous one) The fact is it takes no faith, only doubt to study evolution. The more doubt you have the better. However, you also have to want to know the answer: why is it that people come here with questions challenging evolution? Why not look up the answers yourselves? I'm sure some one has given a better explanation for it at some point than I will Edited by conradw, 8 Nov 2009, 07:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 8 Nov 2009, 06:37 AM Post #54 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: You obviously know a lot about biology, so I can only back you up on that one. Regarding rationality, I do not mind the discussion getting complex, but be prepared to correct any faults I may make if it gets too confusing. I saw the youTube-series and found it interesting. Though I agree with the conclusion of his chosen example (which, as he says, has little to do with the overall point other than to act as an example) I have problems following his main argument. I won't accuse him of making a straw-man when he argues that western philosophy has some sort of either-or attitude towards reason and emotion (in fact I may myself be oversimplifying just by saying that). To a certain degree I agree with what i perceive to be a point that emotions and rationality do not always conflict. But I get the feeling that he claims that emotions can be rational in themselves, when I in those cases would say that they are merely aligned with rationality. It is unclear to me how he seeks to draw anything else from his examples. I would argue that sometimes it is rational to follow one's emotions, sometimes arational and sometimes irrational. I am NOT however claiming rationality to answer everything, I'm just stressing the point that there are things one should only use rationality for and things one can only use emotions for. Rationality does not give us goals. It is our emotions that makes us wish for a better world where there is less suffering and pain. But we can only learn how the world is through our reason and our rationality is the tool to show us how we can reach that goal. Both reason and emotion are master's of each their domain, in my opinion. I'm not sure if I agree that you have demonstrated that we value rationality irrationally. It looks more to me like you're saying that if we start out with a rational approach we will value rationality, but if we start with an irrational approach we will value irrationality. This bit is just rambling, but I just made an observation that the two approaches have a fundamental difference in that the rational approach has a lock-in effect I do not see in the irrational one. Your horoscope CAN tell you to be rational, after which (in a simplistic sense) you'll stay rational. But your rational approach will not lead you to irrationality. I'm not sure if this contributes to the discussion at all, just throwing it out there. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 8 Nov 2009, 07:17 AM Post #55 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Concolor, I think we've worked this down to a point of agreement (yet again). I agree with your point about rationality within irrationality being coincidental rather than necessary (we can all think of situations where are our gut feeling is irredeemably irrational). Given no other information, we will follow our emotions, and in such a contrived situation, it is entirely rational to do so. I think irrationality comes in when you have other information to go by but ignore it in favour of your gut instinct. On valuing rationality, I think its interesting that astrologers and homeopaths (and apologists) go out of their way to push the notion of their beliefs being rational, even if reason and rationality are eventually their undoing. I think my point is that there is a funny little paradox justifying rationality rationally without using reason. As soon as you use reason, it becomes circular (as if I read my horoscope because my horoscope said I should), but if you don't, you're surrendering your rationality (Zeus told me to listen to reason - but why should I listen to Zeus?). This isn't a problem if you're happy to say "Logic and reason are the best ways we have to arriving greater understanding, but there may be others that we are not aware of (which themselves would have to be tested to see if they arrive at a greater understanding)", but to assert that logic and reason are the only way to arrive at a better understanding of the world around (or within) us takes a further step (and possibly a leap of faith). |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 8 Nov 2009, 07:24 AM Post #56 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: As far as I can see I completely agree with you. Especially your final paragraph. Oh well, at least it was fun the few posts it lasted EDIT: But there must be something somewhere we disagree on. I mean I know several deists, and I have no rational disagreements with them other than the fact that they prefer to suppose a supernatural realm of existence that I find superfluous. But you are a theist, and believe in a personal God with distinct and knowable properties who interacts with the observable universe (as far as I've been able to deduct from your writings at least). Surely there must be some level where we see things in a profoundly different way? Edited by Concolor, 8 Nov 2009, 07:30 AM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 8 Nov 2009, 07:59 AM Post #57 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the difference may be purely semantic. I don't call myself a deist because honestly, I think its a little pretentious. I don't know many people who call themselves deists, so I don't know if they're "allowed" to be somewhat specific in what religion they follow. I'm not sure I understand your definition of theist though, or even if it applies to me. There is quite an embarrassment of loaded words in that sentence alone: personal, distinct, knowable, interacts. Take interacts for instance: A new mother holds her child for the first time - I can happily call the feeling you get just imagining that scene an act of God (just because its the action of cells, neurotransmitters and hormones doesn't preclude God). I don't think burning the image of Mary on a slice of toast however is an act of God. I've heard one person describe it in terms of aliens: I might believe in the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting Earth, but I don't believe they visited you. |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 8 Nov 2009, 08:42 AM Post #58 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The difference, as far as I understand it, is knowledge. A theistic God is knowable, this God has certain qualities other than merely being a supernatural entity, a personality and will than man can gain knowledge of. The theistic God has relevance to physical reality and can interact with it in observable ways such as miracles and divine intervention. Deism is the belief in a supernatural entity or force that is unknowable in nature (this is all just my impression), it may be anything from an "energy" or life-force, or "love", or even a prime mover. But it is not addressable in the way that most theistic religions describe their Gods. I personally find the theistic stance to be far more pretentious than the deistic one ![]() EDIT: Here you can find a list of what I'm used to label as theism and deism. Edited by Concolor, 8 Nov 2009, 09:08 AM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 8 Nov 2009, 09:27 AM Post #59 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I called it pretentious only because describing yourself as it lends and air of pretentiousness "Oh, I'm not a Christian like you plebeians, I'm a Deist." Maybe that's just my prejudice showing up as well, I don't know... |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 8 Nov 2009, 09:48 AM Post #60 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's only valid in places where theists are in majority I find it more pretentious to claim knowledge where no evidence of knowledge can be produced. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



6:47 PM Jul 10