God - The Bear and Badger

djchump

cockbeard wrote:

... whether that's a faith in a presence or absence of a higher power, it's an equally irrational point of view. ...

Not really - it's more rational to believe in an absence of a thing if there's absolutely no empirical evidence for it than it is to believe in the existence of a thing that has no empirical evidence.
But like you say, it's *most* rational to remain agnostic when faced with lack of evidence.

Raiziel

I can't help but feel that agnosticism is for the weak minded, but I don't want to offend any of you.

Little Franklin

I think agnosticism is for people who have more important things to worry about.

Mod74

djchump wrote:

cockbeard wrote:

... whether that's a faith in a presence or absence of a higher power, it's an equally irrational point of view. ...

Not really - it's more rational to believe in an absence of a thing if there's absolutely no empirical evidence for it than it is to believe in the existence of a thing that has no empirical evidence. But like you say, it's *most* rational to remain agnostic when faced with lack of evidence.

What do you mean by "thing"?

Little Franklin

Russell's Teapot for instance.

cockbeard

Sorry dj, maybe I should've been clearer, and though it's a tiny point of contention, the pedantry shown by people of faith is immense, so I'd rather clear it now. In my comment above I was using the word faith, not inclination or supposition, it was meant as an absolute, unshakable, unprovable belief in something. Ration is equally an absolute, hence you having to use the word more instead of rationaler (like better). So I'd have to say that by virtue of their immovable and opposing positions they are equally irrational

Mod74

LittleFranklin wrote:

Russell's Teapot for instance.

Or StringÂ theory, M-theory, LoopÂ quantumÂ gravity and CausalÂ dynamicalÂ triangulation?

djchump

@cocko: I disagree that rationality is a binary absolute (like Faith) - it isn't. Some decisions can be more rational than others.

cockbeard

Ok, that's fine. Personally from the previous thread and the way logic and ration was used, I thought it sensible to treat it as an absolute. I think that some decisions can seem more rational than others, but that whether something is rational or not is binary. Maybe only down to a very specific facet but binary within that. We can agree to disagree on that, but I would like to draw that line between agnostic and atheist

Little Franklin

Mod74 wrote:

Russell's Teapot for instance.

Or StringÂ theory, M-theory, LoopÂ quantumÂ gravity and CausalÂ dynamicalÂ triangulation?

Yes, Dark Energy etc. But those theories aren't considered absolute truth. They're just the current most popular working models that fit the evidence.

djchump

cockbeard wrote:

Ok, that's fine. Personally from the previous thread and the way logic and ration was used, I thought it sensible to treat it as an absolute. I think that some decisions can seem more rational than others, but that whether something is rational or not is binary. Maybe only down to a very specific facet but binary within that. We can agree to disagree on that, but I would like to draw that line between agnostic and atheist

For sure - I totally agree that it makes sense to distinguish between atheist and agnostic (and FWIW always considered myself agnostic). IMHO it does get rather confusing when the religious discussion ends up with the "strong" atheists lumped into the same category as the fence-sitting agnostics.

Mod74

LittleFranklin wrote:

Russell's Teapot for instance.

Or StringÂ theory, M-theory, LoopÂ quantumÂ gravity and CausalÂ dynamicalÂ triangulation?

Yes, Dark Energy etc. But those theories aren't considered absolute truth. They're just the current most popular working models that fit the evidence.

I don't think "faith" is considered an absolute truth by a lot of the people that "have" it either. More a set of guiding principles/examples and possible answers.

People pick and choose the bits that make most sense to them at any given time. They might reject some aspects only to accept them later. Or vice versa.

I see a lot more similarities between science and religion than the former would admit to. Remember the furore when some neutrinos suggested one of it's founding leaders rules wasn't true?

Little Franklin

No not really, was there a furore? Did the Italian scientists get death threats?

cockbeard

Faith needn't be in a specific dogma. People will choose pieces of dogma that appeal. However that doesn't impact on whether they have faith or not, it just means it's not the same faith as the next man

Skerret

He's watching you, Ozno.

Little Franklin

I guess it comes down to trust, whether you trust the people who wrote the Bible or ones who wrote a scientific textbook for instance, either way you're just having faith they know what they're talking about.

But it would seem more reasonable to trust communities of people who spend all their time trying to discover/prove/disprove their truths, than some people centuries ago who's writings seem filled with folklore, cultural biases and contradictions.

Mouldywarp

LittleFranklin wrote:

How do you imagine a natural God would work?

Probably some kind of energy. Or as abstractÂ mathematics. But even a beardy man in the sky, so long as it obeyed natural laws (not sure how that would work, though).

With regards to religion in videogames, I can't comment on western games but Buddhism and Shinto often find there way into Japanese games. Final Fantasy VII is a bit of a mishmash of Eastern philosophy, there's a little bit where the old guy with no legs explains how when somebody dies their life energy is reborn as someone else. I thought the life stream was kind of like the Tao as in Taoism.

Space

If you believe in something which is clearly bollocks, you are a littleÂ bit stupid.Â

Bye bye thread, I shall not miss you.

g.man

:facepalm:

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

... Yet I don't think it does as much harm as the antis say it does.

Try being gay in Middle America.

Little Franklin

Why, how do they treat gays in China?

Skerret

Space wrote:

If you believe in something which is clearly bollocks, you are a littleÂ bit stupid.Â Bye bye thread, I shall not miss you.

Pot of some colour. Â You realize what this thread is about yus?

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

We're back to the "cause v tool" dichotomy. Try being gay in China. Think you'd fare better?

Because science?

Little Franklin

Gonzo wrote:

Why, how do they treat gays in China?

I'm guessing: same or worse than middle america. Almost certainly the latter. If you pursue your enquiry, I'll back that up. But I imagine if you think about it a teen, you won't.

I expectÂ homophobiaÂ is pretty universal, but I don't think it would be as strong without some doctrine backing it up. But China probably has some quite old fashion cultural outlooks, so I can believe it would be worse, I just don't think I've ever seen any evidence for it.

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

... The point is, repressive, homophobic culture is just that. Whether it is expressed through religion or some other form of social organisation doesn't affect that. To blame only religion is to miss the point.

"Expressed"?Â
Caused and propagated by, more like.

"Does no harm"? ... pfft.

cockbeard

Caused and propagated, come on you can't have it both ways. You can't have homophobia caused by religion then call the agents of that religion transvestite choirboy fuckers

djchump

@cocko: You telling me those Catholic kid-bummers ain't homophobic hypocrites now?

Rev

Gonzo wrote:

i only backed up drivelthegod to provoke face and he didn't bite

drivelthegod? Really? Nice

monkey

I endorse Gonzo.

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

... social conservatism is the cause of homophobia.

And what causes and propagates this "social conservatism"?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories