[Setekh]

Originally posted by Flipside
I'm fine with religion as long as it affects nobody but the believer. Alas, this is untrue of all major faiths

Any assertion of truth affects more people than those who believe them. For instance, every assertion of truth in this thread.

[Tiara]

Assertion affects anyone who listens. Any asserted opinion does.

[Setekh]

Indeed. I get the idea that most people forget that...

[Flipside]

And a forum is for asserting opinions

Bonding is not Empathy Some creatures show empathic reactions to stimuli, but would one chimp stop another chimp from harming a creature of another species or chimp from another tribe out of sympathy? We can choose to do so if we want, we just have to choose the cereberal cortex instead of the lizard brain.

While I agree with Kazan that you cannot believe in something that doesn't exist (or possibly that belief causes it to exist), I also disagree with saying religion is pointless when science cannot answer everything atm. The whole idea of science is to be open to ALL answers until it has disproved the useless ones. If one of the disproved ones is the religious one then fine, but I personally don't like to make generalised remarks about things I don't understand, everyone and no-one could be right, that's the fun of life

Your broad minds and narrow waists aren't supposed to swap places until you are older than I am now

[Ghostavo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Some students of animal behaviour claim that empathy is not restricted to humans as the definition implies. Examples include dolphins saving humans from drowning or from shark attacks, and a multitude of behaviours observed in primates, both in captivity and in the wild.

[Flipside]

Other students claim it doesn't

Look, we can play Web-site ping-pong if you like, but personally, I believe that while animals can bond and unite as a pack, like humans can, only humans have the possibility of carrying that empathy beyond the pack into other species and even inanimate objects and plants. We can be aware of the outcomes of our actions, and responsible for them.

The religious here will blame it on God.
The scientists here will blame it on Chemistry.

Personally, I say it's down to choice

Edit : There have been occasions when animals have displayed empathy, I'm not denying that, I'm not saying we are a 'divine construction'; but we have it in us to apply it when we choose and how we choose.

Anyway, I'm not going to let this deteriorate into an an argument that we honestly are never going to resolve until we are dead anyway

[Kazan]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But how do you know this? (poking a little fun) If something is outside of nature, and you say, therefore it doesn't exist.

If we do not observe something in the natural world - after extremely ammounts of effort to do so - then it makes sense to say it's not

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How can that be? To say something is outside of nature is to basicly admit it exists, but then to say it doesn't is a contradiction.

no saying something is "outside of the natural world" means it _doesn't exist_ in reality, but only in the minds of people -- it's just put in diplomatic terms as to not offend fanatics

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
It would have been better just to say nothing exists outside of nature (I'm sure this is what you meant BTW). But then again, we come back to the question, "How do you know?"

the definitition of nature is "All things that exist" -- something as thoroughly searched for a  deity would have surely had _SOME_ evidence found either way for if there was even a chance of the existance of one

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator

Whereas Kazan and his superior intellect knows better?!?!?!?

neither does this refute my statement, nor does it insult me -- there are a quite a number of people who know better

Originally posted by Liberator
Oh, quite the contrary, Love is very irrational.  Why voluntarily open yourself up to so much potential pain?

why risk at all? without risk there is no gain, with great risk there is often the possibility for great gain.

Originally posted by Liberator
Freedom is also not as rational as you would believe, the only way for a human or a group of humans to be perfectly free is to take the freedom of all other humans who have differing opinions.

Only in your narrowminded view of freedom

Originally posted by Liberator
Religion(by this I mean Christianity, I'll specify if I mean differently) is not about doing things to be important in the eyes of God, in fact people who do this have tendency of falling, hard, Jim Baker anyone?  Religion is about coming to the realization that the almighty, all-knowing Creator of Everything knows you intimately and loves you individually.

This "realization" is anything _but_ though - when i talk about religion i talk about ALL religion - let's be specific - there is not on scrap of evidence that your diety exists - and until any evidence is found it remains totally and completely irrational

furthermore I have a large ammount of confidence that no evidence will ever be found to support the existance of a deity due to the long fruitless search of religious nuts who fancy themselves scientists -- it's so remotely beyond being possible that you will never find evidence directly addressing it either day

Originally posted by Liberator
Quite the contrary, the more scientific evidence that comes to light, the more I am amazed at the complexity of the Universe and the more I realize that there was a conscience hand behind the Creation of it.

One who does not understand the mechanisms of nature is often amazed by the resultant of those mechanisms - no intelligent entity is required to have the results of inertia and gravitic interaction that we all the universe.

All these "incredible complex" mechanisms you see are governmend by infinitely simple equasions

Originally posted by Liberator
I've realized that you have a religion too, your irrational hatred of religion in all it forms is your religion, and your god is Niezchete(however the hell you spell it)

don't insult you me plebian moron - A) I have no faith, absolutely no faith, i am totaly utterly and completely without faith -- therefore it is impossible for anything i believe to constitute a religion

FRUTHERMORE I came to my philosophy independant of nietzsche, I just happen to agree with him often - I do not worship the ground he walked on, he had many a fault and some of them seeped into his writings on his philosophy

you are a presumptious offensive simpleton - BEGONE MORON

Originally posted by Liberator
Do you realize how many of these scientists you idolize are Christian?

I don't idolize anyone -- furthermore i've explained this before - the psychological concept of compartmentalization - you put some of your 'mind' in a compartment in which you don't apply critical thinking

some people are just capable of keeping their irrationality inside that compartment as well

Originally posted by Liberator
Umm, no.

Religion == Why and an All-Knowing Creator explaining how the universe works to a stunted imperfect creation in a way they can understand.
Science == How and the stunted creation realizing how imperfect and ignorant they really are.

It take true maturity to see that.  It takes both.  One is meaningless without the other.

Wrong religion is the emotional crutch created by believing things that you have no evidence for - it is no more, no less  -- you cannot even open your eyes for the mist spread across them by your fundamentalism - you are a fool of your own volition.  I should pity you but instead I scorn you due to your behavior.


Science is figuring out how the universe works and what is real.  


To ascribe value to an individual human [yourself] by beliving in a "higher being" is an  exercise in arrogance

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Flipside
. The whole idea of science is to be open to ALL answers until it has disproved the useless ones.

no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan


no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them

that's where you are wrong Kazan. Science is open to all possible things. That which has not been proven nor disproven isn't labelled impossible per definition.

If something cannot be disproven it's a possibility. Only if it's disproven does science disregard it.

[Ghostavo]

I wonder how would catholics react if it was found that their god was an equation!

[Kazan]

Tiara: if something is not even in the realm of possibilities there will be no evidence either way -- it it's not possible you will not find anything to address it


Science is open to all things that have support

furthermore if something has absolutely no support it is [per definition] irrational to believe in it

the rules of logic dictate that a lack of evidence does not prove non-existance - however the lack of evidence still makes it irrational to believing in (by those same rules of logic)

[Rictor]

Kazan, you  are...


highly illogical.

[jdjtcagle]

Originally posted by Kazan


no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them

Do you wan't God's shoe?

Yes you are a ----> Vulcan

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Kazan
If we do not observe something in the natural world - after extremely ammounts of effort to do so - then it makes sense to say it's not

So you'd agree that science is concerned with 'nature', plants, animal, people, or physical things?

Originally posted by Kazan
no saying something is "outside of the natural world" means it _doesn't exist_ in reality, but only in the minds of people -- it's just put in diplomatic terms as to not offend fanatics

But is not the mind part of nature? Meaning that it exists within the natural realm. I like to point out that your thoughts on the super-natural are in your mind as well, just like my thoughts on the subject. To think that there is no super-natural is to claim to know something about it. Specificly, that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Kazan
the definitition of nature is "All things that exist" -- something as thoroughly searched for a deity would have surely had _SOME_ evidence found either way for if there was even a chance of the existance of one

Of course there's evidence! It's been said at least once in this thread, and IIRC in others. Nature (the physical) IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'. (not wanting to sound condesending) You on the other hand, think just about the opposite. We are both looking at the same world. The question is, are you (the reader 'you' not you ) viewing it correctly?

[Kazan]

HotSnoj: nature meaning everything that exists

Something existing inside the mind does not make it exist in reality - if you cannot see the difference between these two then i have a great ammount of pity for you


"Nature IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'" - this is an OPINION, not evidence

The answer to whether I am viewing it correctly is: The best we can
The answer to whether you are viewing it correct is: not in the slightest

[Bobboau]

didn't Rene Descartes prove that the world is in fact real?

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Kazan
HotSnoj: nature meaning everything that exists

But something super-natural is outside of, beyond, not constrained by nature (in a simple sense, its gets a little more complex as you think more about it). So if we accept that there is a super-natural, then nature cannot be everything that exists.

Originally posted by Kazan
Something existing inside the mind does not make it exist in reality - if you cannot see the difference between these two then i have a great ammount of pity for you

I know that. Just because I think up pink elephants with white polka-dots, does not make then exist. However if we are contrained to explain everything in purely physical terms, then all thought is chemical and/or electicity flowing through my vains. Which would mean my thoughts existed in the physical realm. See my line of reasoning now?

Originally posted by Kazan
"Nature IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'" - this is an OPINION, not evidence

I know it's an opinion. But so is yours! Like I said before, we're both looking at the same things. However our primary assumtions are different. You believe that since there is no super-natural (God) then whatever you think on how we got here is true. And you look at the evidence in such a way to backup your assumtion. And I freely admit I do exactly the same thing.

[strays slightly from topic]
Ever hear of Pascal's Wager? The point of the wager was not to prove Christianity right. But to show it would be foolish not to believe, even if it was wrong. This in and of itself is not a good reason to believe.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: if something is not even in the realm of possibilities there will be no evidence either way -- it it's not possible you will not find anything to address it

[/b]
EVERYTHING except the disproven things are in the realm of possibilities. Now, I don't believe in any God or other supreme being but I cannot discount it because there has been no proof whatsoever either way.

And by saying there will never be proof you are as big a fool as the people who said the Earth was flat.

Science is open to all things that have support

furthermore if something has absolutely no support it is [per definition] irrational to believe in it

the rules of logic dictate that a lack of evidence does not prove non-existance - however the lack of evidence still makes it irrational to believing in (by those same rules of logic)

I'm not saying you have to believe in it. I'm saying that is impossible outright deny it when there is no evidence either way.

And again; by saying there will never be proof you are as big a fool as the people who said the Earth was flat.

EVERYTHING that has not been disproven is possible, however unlikely.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But something super-natural is outside of, beyond, not constrained by nature (in a simple sense, its gets a little more complex as you think more about it). So if we accept that there is a super-natural, then nature cannot be everything that exists.

Being able to describe a concept does not mean we accept it's validity - I completely reject the validity of the supernatural - there is no evidence to support their existance

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I know that. Just because I think up pink elephants with white polka-dots, does not make then exist. However if we are contrained to explain everything in purely physical terms, then all thought is chemical and/or electicity flowing through my vains. Which would mean my thoughts existed in the physical realm. See my line of reasoning now?

Your thoughts are real, however what you're thinking about doesn't have to be real

you know this, stop this banter

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I know it's an opinion. But so is yours! Like I said before, we're both looking at the same things. However our primary assumtions are different. You believe that since there is no super-natural (God) then whatever you think on how we got here is true. And you look at the evidence in such a way to backup your assumtion. And I freely admit I do exactly the same thing.

However mine opinion has the support of EVIDENCE, you're DOES NOT

You say "since i cannot explain this a god must have done it!"
We say "we have found these simple equasions for the interaction of these simple forces that leads logically to what we see today"

not "whatever I think" - whatever has the best evidence to support it.

I have not made assumptions

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
[strays slightly from topic]
Ever hear of Pascal's Wager? The point of the wager was not to prove Christianity right. But to show it would be foolish not to believe, even if it was wrong. This in and of itself is not a good reason to believe.

Pascal's Gamble is no excuse - it's foolish to believe in something when the ramifications of basing your entire worldview upon irrationality is so negative