Post: #251

(09-07-2013 12:34 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 12:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  My opinion remains unchanged. I see a giant universe with an intricate design and my gut instinct is that something designed it. Everything works too perfectly together for it to be an accident.

I would agree with that to an extent. What I do not believe is in organized religion and its version of "god". I am a little confused. Are you arguing that something is out there or are you arguing that one of the gods from all the organized religions did this.

You still haven't answered if you are really a Christian or practice any other religion for that matter.

However, the point of argument in this thread was that religious people are more red-pill than atheists. Where do you specifically stand on that? So far you have argued in favor of organized religion but what you said above is a very different position than believing in organized religion and its version of god.

I'm not arguing in favor of any specific religion. Right now I'm just battling atheists. Arguing in favor of a greater being isn't too difficult.

Far more difficult is to argue in favor of a specific religion.

Post: #252

(09-07-2013 12:55 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 12:34 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 12:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  My opinion remains unchanged. I see a giant universe with an intricate design and my gut instinct is that something designed it. Everything works too perfectly together for it to be an accident.

I would agree with that to an extent. What I do not believe is in organized religion and its version of "god". I am a little confused. Are you arguing that something is out there or are you arguing that one of the gods from all the organized religions did this.

You still haven't answered if you are really a Christian or practice any other religion for that matter.

However, the point of argument in this thread was that religious people are more red-pill than atheists. Where do you specifically stand on that? So far you have argued in favor of organized religion but what you said above is a very different position than believing in organized religion and its version of god.

I'm not arguing in favor of any specific religion. Right now I'm just battling atheists. Arguing in favor of a greater being isn't too difficult.

Far more difficult is to argue in favor of a specific religion.

That is very interesting to read because so far a lot of your arguments were coming across as defense of organized religion (maybe you intended that). Battling atheists? I think if you just said what you said in your last post in the first place, there wouldn't be as much disagreement. A lot of people here who are speaking out against organized religion (me included) even agreed with thedude who talked about spirituality. Arguing in favor of a greater being is much different than arguing in favor of organized religion.

Post: #253

(09-06-2013 06:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 04:27 PM)Acute Angle Wrote:  The power of science is prediction.

Of course this description of science has been debunked by David Hume over two centuries ago. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss?

Here's a short recap for the non-philosophically literate:

- Anyone can predict the sun will come up tomorrow, doesn't mean you're a scientist
- Anyone can make a prediction without knowing the true cause and effects
- For all we know the cause and effects we witness are purely accidental and may be happening for completely different reasons

Just because you saw the sun come up every day for the past twenty years doesn't mean you know it will come up tomorrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I can't improve on Wadsworth's answer.

But I notice you dodged my question about whether you actually practise science or engineering? From which I conclude that you are an impractical man, an armchair theoretician.

The practical man, in designing the comforts which we in the modern world take for granted, has to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow. Prediction is power. Prediction is the very basis upon which every human being bases his day. Are you seriously saying that you doubt every evening that the sun will rise the next day? That the crops will grow in the fields? Do you think the nitrogen cycle could suddenly be proved to be an abberation and cease to function?

I don't think you do. Let's apply the same skepticism we commonly employ here about women: don't believe what they say, observe what they do. I'm prepared to wager that you, along with most impractical theoreticians, are very happy to enjoy all the benefits of science and engineering, whilst loudly decrying their philosophical bankruptcy. It raises you up and makes you feel superior, perhaps, just as the religious zealot feels chosen by comparison with the unbeliever.

I love books, but all the books in your library will never keep you warm, unless you burn them (which I do not advocate, unless you really fall on hard times). Book-learning is useless without practical application. All animals act upon the world; it's the only way that we can get things done. The essential basis of all life is action - not theorising, not prayer, not moralising, not meditation. And for action, we need predictive capability. Science is the very summit of that capability.

Post: #254

Oh, and Hume wrote this:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/p.../hume.html

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

"David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian and economist. Among the interesting features of Hume's empiricist philosophy are a revolutionary view of causality, the problem of induction, and the distinction between fact and value. Hume advocates various forms of moderate or mitigated skepticism. He was a relentless critic of metaphysics and religion."

Even those you would name drop in your favour are against you.

Post: #255

I've seen a lot of going back and forth about the merits of faith in God. For the record, I believe in God.

Here are my thoughts on morality:

In today's hyper-promiscuous feminist society, the notion of marrying someone and spending the rest of your life with them has been shattered. Indeed, feminist women exploit no-fault divorce laws and hyper-feminist courts to leave their beta husbands and take all their money too.

To even get pussy, a man must learn game, because women in a society without moral values will just line up to fuck the most sexually attractive men while leaving all the other guys to masturbate.

Ultimately, game and promiscuous sex is no substitute for the social structure we had during the most prosperous years of the 20th century when "Till death do us part" actually meant something, and when divorce was a scarlet letter of shame, not a gravy train to get alimony and "child support" that is spent on frivolous shopping.

My answer: I married someone from a country where "Till death do us part" still means something.

Post: #256

(09-07-2013 07:21 AM)placer Wrote:  I've seen a lot of going back and forth about the merits of faith in God. For the record, I believe in God.

Which God? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested. Is it a personal God, or more a 'god' in the sense of what Samseau is professing an acknowledgement of?

Post: #257

I believe in a personal God in the sense that I find my life goes better when I pray regularly.

I think there is an intelligence behind seemingly coincidental events and leave it at that. I have little in the way of religious nor dogmatic beliefs; I keep God simply "God". Any better understanding of Him is beyond human knowledge and pretentious.

That said, there are valuable things to learn from religious writings and religious traditions.

Post: #258

Could that just be because it makes you feel better, rather than what you call God being interested in your insignificant (in reality) personal affairs? Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate - I said I was done with this thread.

It's like the Mafia:

Post: #259

I used to be an atheist, so I understand your discomfort with people saying "I believe in God". The reason why I had that discomfort was because I knew God was real for me, and was just denying something I believe in.

Post: #260

(09-07-2013 04:00 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  I love books, but all the books in your library will never keep you warm, unless you burn them (which I do not advocate, unless you really fall on hard times). Book-learning is useless without practical application. All animals act upon the world; it's the only way that we can get things done. The essential basis of all life is action - not theorising, not prayer, not moralising, not meditation. And for action, we need predictive capability. Science is the very summit of that capability.

No one denied the need for practical action, I'm merely pointing out that the things we think we "know" are usually 100% bullshit that won't be talked about in 300 years.

People today are arrogont and believe what we have represents knowledge, yet even the most cursory examination of basic historical science shows virtually everything Western Civ used to believe is now regarded as false.

Quote:"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

The irony behind this claim, of course, is that it would mean Hume would have to throw away his own books since none of it contains any quantity or number, or experimental reasoning concerning matters of empircal fact.

The even greater irony is that Hume was one of the biggest influences on Kant, a philosopher who's reasoning was nearly 100% metaphysical and epistemological, whose influence on science is industpustable as he was read by nearly every scientist for the next 150 years after The Critique was published. Einstein read Kant as a teenager, and, for just one example, Einstein's theory of an finite unbounded universe is a direct response to Kant's antinomy of whether or not the universe was infinite.

Given the extreme influence Kant had on scientists and mathematicians of the past 150 years, it's doubtful if many of the theories developed would even exist without Kant's influence, much like it is doubtful if Newton and Galileo would have developed their theories without Aristotle.

Behind every great scientist lies an even greater philosopher.

Post: #261

(09-07-2013 08:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  No one denied the need for practical action, I'm merely pointing out that the things we think we "know" are usually 100% bullshit that won't be talked about in 300 years.

People today are arrogont and believe what we have represents knowledge, yet even the most cursory examination of basic historical science shows virtually everything Western Civ used to believe is now regarded as false.

I can agree with some of that, but "100% bullshit" is hyperbole. Science is our best tool for approaching the Truth, through iterations, refinements and ever-closer approximations.

The best test of science, for me, is whether or not it improves everyday life. I am happy that Newton's laws of motion, whilst inapplicable at sub-atomic and interplanetary levels, have given us enhanced power over objects in our everyday lives. Kindly point to one religious idea that has similarly expanded our power over the world of objects.

(09-07-2013 08:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Behind every great scientist lies an even greater philosopher.

And underneath the rump of every philosopher is a chair made by a carpenter or an engineer. He holds a pen designed and produced by engineers. He writes on paper ..... I could go on.

I don't doubt the power of ideas. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, whatever our profession, but philosophy is an indulgent luxury we can afford only once practical men have taken care of more immediate concerns.

Post: #262

(09-07-2013 09:27 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  Kindly point to one religious idea that has similarly expanded our power over the world of objects.

(09-07-2013 08:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Behind every great scientist lies an even greater philosopher.

And underneath the rump of every philosopher is a chair made by a carpenter or an engineer. He holds a pen designed and produced by engineers. He writes on paper ..... I could go on.

I don't doubt the power of ideas. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, whatever our profession, but philosophy is an indulgent luxury we can afford only once practical men have taken care of more immediate concerns.

Without religion, there wouldn't have been a peaceful and stable society enough to create the conditions necessary for artisans like engineers to survive in the first place.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the rise of agriculture and organized religion go hand in hand.

Religion is to polite society as rich soil is to plants.

Post: #263

The scientific method as we know it in modern times is a philosophical idea/method. Francis Bacon was the one who is usually credited with it. The way we do and practice science is a matter that is outside of actual science.

I do not discount the importance of science and I think has been a great boon to mankind in general as of yet but I find that in our era there is a tendency for people to think that it has powers to answer questions that are beyond it's scope. And let's not forget the reason it has mostly been a net benefit to mankind is thankfully the people behind the practice of science have tended to be people without cruel and malignant characters. Science could just as easily be pressed into the service of evil. Can you imagine what would have happened if Germany had discovered the atomic bomb first in World War 2? Also the question of what is good and what is evil is something that is beyond science. You can't measure evil in a lab.

Post: #264

Even if god was real, why would you worship it?

Post: #265

(09-07-2013 09:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Without religion, there wouldn't have been a peaceful and stable society enough to create the conditions necessary for artisans like engineers to survive in the first place.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the rise of agriculture and organized religion go hand in hand.

Religion is to polite society as rich soil is to plants.

Yet that is no reason to prefer one religion over another if both produce equally stable societies, so it has nothing to say about the truth or falsity of the Gods involved (and they are many, many). I already agreed with Roosh that religion is evolutionarily adaptive.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if religion and agriculture go hand in hand - the latter requires a system to manage ownership of land and its inheritance. Religion is, above all, about preserving authority and serves a conservative function. It ensures that the humble artisan will never usurp the landowner ... unless he discovers science and can invent something that will improve people's lives and earn him a lot of money.

Considering the number of wars fought in the name of some God or other, I'm not sure your 'polite society' point hits the mark.

Post: #266

I believe that religion had a time and place and was necessary in the early stages of man.

But to say that we still need it in our modern times of science and reason is taking it a step too far. We can make "Red Pill" assumptions about gender roles and what place men and women have in our society from objective observation, reasoning, and noticing cause and effect; Not from an outdated source of entertaining fiction written by a majority of anonymous authors.

Samseau Wrote:I'm not arguing in favor of any specific religion. Right now I'm just battling atheists. Arguing in favor of a greater being isn't too difficult.

It wouldn't be difficult since (from what I gather) the basis of your argument is "I don't know, therefore God/Otherwordly creator" and you yourself do not accept evidence because it is not credible in your eyes as any evidence can be disproven. The universe is subjective it seems.

I believe the universe has no intended purpose and is the cause of impossible coincidence. I'm not exactly a nihilist, but I gather the only reason for existence is the one we make for ourselves.

Isn't it weird how everyone's personal God believes exactly what they believe? Strange. Maybe any notion of a universal creator and an afterlife filled with do-gooders is simply our rationalization hamsters in overdrive trying to justify a meaningless existence.

My grandmother firmly believes in God because the eyeball is too complex for God not to have created it.

Post: #267

(09-07-2013 12:18 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  I believe that religion had a time and place and was necessary in the early stages of man.

But to say that we still need it in our modern times of science and reason is taking it a step too far. We can make "Red Pill" assumptions about gender roles and what place men and women have in our society from objective observation, reasoning, and noticing cause and effect; Not from an outdated source of entertaining fiction written by a majority of anonymous authors.

Samseau Wrote:I'm not arguing in favor of any specific religion. Right now I'm just battling atheists. Arguing in favor of a greater being isn't too difficult.

It wouldn't be difficult since (from what I gather) the basis of your argument is "I don't know, therefore God/Otherwordly creator" and you yourself do not accept evidence because it is not credible in your eyes as any evidence can be disproven. The universe is subjective it seems.

I believe the universe has no intended purpose and is the cause of impossible coincidence. I'm not exactly a nihilist, but I gather the only reason for existence is the one we make for ourselves.

Isn't it weird how everyone's personal God believes exactly what they believe? Strange. Maybe any notion of a universal creator and an afterlife filled with do-gooders is simply our rationalization hamsters in overdrive trying to justify a meaningless existence.

My grandmother firmly believes in God because the eyeball is too complex for God not to have created it.

Actually we never needed religion.

The only good religion is for is when you have to explain to a child what happened to their mom after she died of cancer or something.

You can't just tell a kid that mom is worm food.

Telling them that she's gone away to heaven where she will be ok be happy is the better thing to do.

Do adults need this? No.

Post: #268

(09-07-2013 09:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:27 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  Kindly point to one religious idea that has similarly expanded our power over the world of objects.

(09-07-2013 08:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Behind every great scientist lies an even greater philosopher.

And underneath the rump of every philosopher is a chair made by a carpenter or an engineer. He holds a pen designed and produced by engineers. He writes on paper ..... I could go on.

I don't doubt the power of ideas. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, whatever our profession, but philosophy is an indulgent luxury we can afford only once practical men have taken care of more immediate concerns.

Without religion, there wouldn't have been a peaceful and stable society enough to create the conditions necessary for artisans like engineers to survive in the first place.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the rise of agriculture and organized religion go hand in hand.

Religion is to polite society as rich soil is to plants.

Samseau are you Christian? Why not be Muslim?

Post: #269

(09-07-2013 10:38 AM)Wutang Wrote:  The scientific method as we know it in modern times is a philosophical idea/method. Francis Bacon was the one who is usually credited with it. The way we do and practice science is a matter that is outside of actual science.

I do not discount the importance of science and I think has been a great boon to mankind in general as of yet but I find that in our era there is a tendency for people to think that it has powers to answer questions that are beyond it's scope. And let's not forget the reason it has mostly been a net benefit to mankind is thankfully the people behind the practice of science have tended to be people without cruel and malignant characters. Science could just as easily be pressed into the service of evil. Can you imagine what would have happened if Germany had discovered the atomic bomb first in World War 2? Also the question of what is good and what is evil is something that is beyond science. You can't measure evil in a lab.

Scientism is a dangerous thing, for sure. I wrote my Masters' thesis about the ills of scientism, the near-schizoid nature of some scientists, the somewhat artificial nature of the subject/object split, and so on. I'm right with you on that.

And science is limited in its scope. You certainly can't measure 'evil' in a lab, if you define evil as something external to the human brain, caused by the Devil. But you can measure (admittedly without fine precision) degrees of psychopathy. And with FMRI you can 'look' inside the brain of a psychopath to try to get some inkling of where the disorder originates and how it proceeds. Whether or not that's a more effective and humane method than, say, the Spanish Inquisition, I leave for you to decide. (joke)

The end-products of science are regularly used for evil by a whole bagful of (usually pseudo-religious) nutters. Same with any tool ever invented.

Post: #270

(09-07-2013 11:25 AM)soup Wrote:  Even if god was real, why would you worship it?

Fear of punishment. It's kept people in line for thousands of years. Some of us would like to find a better way, though.

Post: #271

(09-07-2013 10:10 AM)Damedius Wrote:  My grandmother firmly believes in God because the eyeball is too complex for God not to have created it.

This reminds me of several discussions I had with my grandma when I was probably about 14. I didn't believe in God then, but she did, and she wasn't particularly bright (barely went to school as a kid due to illness) so couldn't really form proper arguments. Basically, I ridiculed her belief, in the best way a 14 year old could.

She died in 2007 when I was 21, and I feel absolutely rotten for having done it. It wouldn't have altered her opinions either way, but I still feel really bad.

Post: #272

(09-07-2013 01:06 PM)Teedub Wrote:  This reminds me of several discussions I had with my grandma when I was probably about 14. I didn't believe in God then, but she did, and she wasn't particularly bright (barely went to school as a kid due to illness) so couldn't really form proper arguments. Basically, I ridiculed her belief, in the best way a 14 year old could.

She died in 2007 when I was 21, and I feel absolutely rotten for having done it. It wouldn't have altered her opinions either way, but I still feel really bad.

Don't feel bad. At the time she was probably thinking "Arrogant little fucker - he'll get it one day." And she most likely forgot all about it the next time you smiled at her.

Post: #273

(09-07-2013 11:25 AM)soup Wrote:  Even if god was real, why would you worship it?

The same reasons you would show gratitutde and respect to your parents. Judging from your atittude towards God, your parents must be overjoyed to have an offspring who doesn't give a fuck about them.

(09-07-2013 12:24 PM)soup Wrote:  Actually we never needed religion.

The only good religion is for is when you have to explain to a child what happened to their mom after she died of cancer or something.

You can't just tell a kid that mom is worm food.

Telling them that she's gone away to heaven where she will be ok be happy is the better thing to do.

Do adults need this? No.

Actually religion is the only thing that bonded man together out of the state of nature. Before that it was a free for all, with the strong just pillaging and raping wherever they could go.

Post: #274

(09-07-2013 12:11 PM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Without religion, there wouldn't have been a peaceful and stable society enough to create the conditions necessary for artisans like engineers to survive in the first place.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the rise of agriculture and organized religion go hand in hand.

Religion is to polite society as rich soil is to plants.

Yet that is no reason to prefer one religion over another if both produce equally stable societies,

They don't produce equally stable societies, and I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Quote:It wouldn't be difficult since (from what I gather) the basis of your argument is "I don't know, therefore God/Otherwordly creator" and you yourself do not accept evidence because it is not credible in your eyes as any evidence can be disproven. The universe is subjective it seems.

The point is that, when it comes to empirical observations about God, all we have are guesses.

I can't stand the average atheist who thinks he's being rational, when in reality he's just guessing.

Fortunately, what started off as a guess what God was real turned out to be true. If one seeks God he will find Him.

Post: #275

(09-07-2013 01:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:25 AM)soup Wrote:  Even if god was real, why would you worship it?

The same reasons you would show gratitutde and respect to your parents. Judging from your atittude towards God, your parents must be overjoyed to have an offspring who doesn't give a fuck about them.

Say what? You said your gut feeling tells you that there is a higher being who created the universe. Even IF that were true, how do you equate parents with god? Your parents gave you birth and if they were good parents they took care of you, fed you, clothed you, and helped you develop. Equating parents with god is a very poor comparison.

Showing respect and gratitude to parents has nothing to do with not caring about god even if he is real. God didn't take care of me, my parents did. And it's not like god forces all parents to take care of their children. I don't see how people should worship god (who may not even be real) the same way they are respectful towards their parents. That's very absurd logic.

Samseau, in one post you say your "gut" tells you that there is a higher being, then you said religion is prerequisite for a polite society (which maybe true to an extent) but as other pointed out humans have fought countless wars over their version of god, then you say not respecting god is the same as not showing gratitude towards your parents.