Mod note
Sockpuppet of banned member Nicholas1M7. Permanently banned.
You're stupid.
Sockpuppet of banned member Nicholas1M7. Permanently banned.
You're stupid.
What science doesn't explain should not be believed. There are times when we must still make decisions based on incomplete information or evidence.so,
science isn't good enough to filter out all stupid things, and capture all the smart things. otherwise all of life would be explained by science, which you negated by saying "life is more than science". so how do you identify the "stupid things" then, if not by the scientific method?
"Something" can indeed come from nothing, so long as its total mass and energy = 0. Otherwise we violate the law of conservation of mass and energy. The universe has net mass and energy = 0 (exactly the same quantity of matter and antimatter, etc.), so it did not violate any natural laws by springing into existence.
We aren't talking about how we view the world, but what can be shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.
Religion is different because any rational view is not possible. It demands that you believe things which are factually and demonstrably untrue. If you apply the steps you used for politics and art you reject it immediately.
I'm saying life is more than science. But that isn't an excuse to believe stupid things.
"Things", including myths, cannot be "stupid" (i.e. lacking in intelligence). So this can only be taken as an ad hominem of individuals who believe certain things, and as such is flirting with both hasty generalization and insult.
The most widely discussed case for the fallacy of conflating them is fundamentalism, which incorrectly interprets the creation and flood myths of antiquity as historical narrative.sure is "water-tight".
now project it on reality, what is legend and myth and what is historical narrative?
Science is needed, but even historians adhere to the same principles of logic that geometers do. Authority is earned by marshaling evidence. Evidence is the supreme authority. Most of the concern you are expressing is misplaced, since the distinction between myth and historical narrative is made prima facie. There is very little in the way of expert opinion to worry about. It's the contrary reasoning that's at issue--the one which thinks that the lines are blurred, that you never can tell, maybe this really is the inscription of a god. That's pure fantasy, no different than asking if the story of the Easter Bunny is historical narrative. I'm not sure how to respond about people whose fantasies blur reality, but that certainly speaks to the underlying causes for adopting myth as historical narrative.how will we separate between them? with science? if not by science, then with what authority do you discern what's right and wrong?
and you still changed the original statement so completely it barley resembles the original in form, but thrusts the same result with no proof.
Ok.he said religion can never be viewed from a rational view, you're saying viewing irrational things as rational is irrational, i agree, now show me that religion is irrational, show me that god(s) are myths and not history.
I can't guarantee my availability over the next couple of weeks, but I'll be glad to take a shot at it when I get my ducks in a row.i believe i'm versed enough in the history of my god, care to open a thread and we can debate if it's myths or history?
I wouldn't bother with that. I would stick with trying to establish whether the Prophet was a historical figure, and the origins of syncretism between JudeoChristianity and early Islam.come to think of it, one of the strongest reasons why i believe in my religion is because the history behind it is very implausible to be a big lie, it's just too big and recent and its effects too concrete to be a big lie. :shrug:
open the thread, should be interesting. "was Mohammad a hoax/schizophrenic/conman".
The statement you are objecting to is my assertion that myth is not properly called historical narrative. That's a truism which I had not anticipated anyone might object to. I've offered the ancient Mesopotamian myth as a baseline which shouldn't find any resistance from the naysayers, who are typically only concerned with the sanctity of their own systems of belief.big resounding no?
you simply asked and that was the answer? who did you ask again?
this is pathetic, you ask the question to your conclusion and you answer it, i'm speechless.
Nothing circular here. Just facts and evidence.speaking of water-tight, what a fire hose!
ring around the rosie argument.
Well then I'll try to just stick to the facts when I reply to you. I can't guarantee that my sentence structure will appeal to anybody.it's amazing and annoying how you structure your sentences so surly and confidently but the meaning is so feeble and gooey.
Who? Anthropologists. Historians. What? Tens of thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia. Steles. Tells. Ruins of every description. Statuary. Monuments. Inscriptions. How? Excavation. Curation. Cataloguing. Study. Peer review. Publication.again let me iterate. who, what, how was it admitted into evidence that all gods are fabrications?
No. I'm just another poster with my own set of experiences.are you writing a book here?
No, I go about posting facts supported by evidence as it seems relevant to controverted facts raised by others.you just go about making up facts and carry them around with the authority of someone who really presented a logical well structured article of thought.
The case is this: That ancient cults invented the gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science. That the myths of antiquity were obsoleted by the scientific discoveries that explained those phenomena in terms of natural law. That conflating myth and historical narrative, when done in the light of about a high school level of education or better, is irrational, and egregiously so when done in such a way that the believer is required to jettison all the knowledge which supplanted the myth, merely to shore up the claim that myth and historical narrative are one and the same. I guess I would add that this is the rhetorical equivalent of pseudoscience. We may need to coin a new term, something along the lines of pseudo-rhetoric. But it does draw the high school level of English into the mix. I'm thinking in particular about the lessons on persuasive writing, which help students distinguish woo from objective statements: journalism vs editorializing. We would certainly want to apply this discipline of rhetoric as well.:facepalm:
ayayay, what evidence lead to its closure? for only evidence to reopen it?
what. the. hell. is the case to begin with?
The artifacts of history trace the evolution of human mythmaking from its animist roots. In the link I provided above, the cult of Mesopotamia is exhibiting the transition from animism to polytheism. It's not simply a question of gods being invented. What you see illustrated is the personification of the forces of nature (the Ocean) into some anthropomorphic animal form (Tiamat) who in this case is also the mother-creator (creatrix). Unless you actually believe such things, you would have no cause that I can think of to tell us that the Ocean, personified as a quasi-dragon-like monster, actually rose up into battle with a father-god, and then when he slew her and scattered her remains across the sky, they formed the universe. And before the battle she gave birth to the people and animals, completing the creation myth of that cult. That stuff is made up; a fact which I would assume most posters here would agree prima facie.that history says gods are made up?
The history of the world. Subject matter from a high school or lower division college course in World History, usually in the opening chapter.whose history? what history are you on?
By now it should be dawning on you that this question is moot.what god history have you ever studied?
Refer to a dictionary, Syne. I mean, seriously, you're on the internet, there's no excuse for this kind of crap.
stupid
stu·pid [stoo-pid, styoo‐] Show IPA
adjective, stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est.
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2.characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5.in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
Most of the definitions of the word allow for "things" to be defined as "stupid."
Seriously, back off.
+1
Religious people ARE talking about how we view the world, hence why it is called a "worldview". How we view the world also has an empirical effect on certain outcomes, i.e. placebo effect, health benefits of religious participation, etc..
You just seem unwilling to apply the exact same criteria you use for politics or art when dealing with religion. In politics and art you make choices about what, and even what parts, you find appealing or agreeable. You seem to want to take or leave religion, a very general term, as a whole, which would make it a personal problem rather than one inherent to religion.
Believing a myth is reality is stupid behavior. But I know very smart people who do this, some of them good friends."Things", including myths, cannot be "stupid" (i.e. lacking in intelligence). So this can only be taken as an ad hominem of individuals who believe certain things, and as such is flirting with both hasty generalization and insult.
I am going to have to throw my hat in with Balerion here... the intent of what he was saying was pretty crystal clear, even if the wording could be challenged on a technical (read, nit-pick) basis... after all, there are people out there that honestly, truly believe that Elvis is not dead and has just gone home for a while... Stupid comes to mind as the perfect word to describe such things.
Believing a myth is reality is stupid behavior. But I know very smart people who do this, some of them good friends.
So I could take part of a religion, then? Can I take the parts which deal with love and forgiveness, and leave out the parts where minorities are demonised? Can I leave out the parts where gay people are sentenced to Hell for loving someone? Or sentenced to death in this life for the same thing? Tell me it's true.
There is no reason why there shouldn't be naturalistic and plausible explanations considering everything else we know is based on the very same thing. Why invoke gods when none are required?
But, that's exactly what your view is, that God created something from nothing (chortle! chortle!)
Makes as much sense as "God just popped into existence"... and saves a step.''the universe not only popped into existence out of no space, time, or, energy, but was it's own cause''
So I could take part of a religion, then? Can I take the parts which deal with love and forgiveness, and leave out the parts where minorities are demonised? Can I leave out the parts where gay people are sentenced to Hell for loving someone? Or sentenced to death in this life for the same thing? Tell me it's true.
Makes as much sense as "God just popped into existence"... and saves a step.
How do you know that space is nothing?
We can't observe everything, but it's probably just more of the same.
Believing a myth is reality is stupid behavior. But I know very smart people who do this, some of them good friends.