>> ^chtierna:
Mauz15,
I think the burden of proof here is on the religions. They are asserting something supernatural and I dont think its dogmatic to demand that they prove it somehow. As a previous poster pointed out, we laugh at the idea of grownups thinking santa claus is real, but when it comes to God we must somehow throw all rules aside and be agnostic.


Sure, but that does not mean you can automatically assume there is no flaw in your rationale for thinking god does not exist. One can be an atheist, but some think they are 100% correct, as if the logic behind it was flawless. There is a reason why Dawkins says he is 99.9% atheist or something along those lines. He does not want to cross onto the dogmatic line, but some people do. I was referring to the type of atheist that don't even bother to check if their argument makes sense. They are just atheist for so and so reason, don't even know the history of atheism, etc. The same way a believer claims certainty and they don't even bother to read the bible.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

One thing that jumps out at me here in your comment is the line The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way...
Wouldn't you believe that somebody who believed in Zeus was crazy? How about somebody who believed in fire breathing dragons? Unicorns? If you met anybody who believed in these things you'd think that there's something very very wrong with them. What makes Christianity so different? The amount of people that believe it? Does that make it more valid? You know up to a certain point, everybody in the world thought the earth was fucking flat? Does that make it true, too?
Now that we have things to explain what we once filed under "god's doing" why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?


Perhaps the way Christianity threats the existence of god is ridiculous. But that means Christianity is ridiculous in the way it addresses the question. The question of the existence of a being of maximal greatness is separate. Why then do philosophers bother to bring arguments for and against its existence? where is the philosophical argument saying:

Belief in Zeus is silly
Therefore belief in the christian god is silly too

'why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?' because they are taught as children, and many don't bother to question, and they certainly wont start questioning much if the opposite side simply says: you are being ridiculous. Saying that does not help either cause.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
I agree I think religion is persecuted a lot on this site. I dont care if your atheist or not does not bother me at all and Im not going to persecute you for being one. I also dont care if there are sifts that question religion either in fact I like them, I have many of the same questions. The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way, and not to mention the comments pertaining to hurt or kill people who are religous.
On a side note kind of scares me sometimes because I do remember a little from my days of attending church and I swear there was this whole prophecy about people who believe in god being persecuted and killed by others before the end of the world is suppose to take place.


As a great man once said “Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.” It applies to every side of the matter, but many don't seem to see it for some reason. It is ironic how some (emphasis on the some; I dont want now people now jumping at me for 'generalizing') atheists act as if their point of view is 100% on the mark, and anything else is stupid, and criticize the dogmas of religion while at the same time are unaware of their own rational dogmas. Maybe your side is right and god is not real, but maybe not, and even even if it were the case, it does not guarantee your view is flawless. Same goes for the other side, maybe you are right and god exists, but maybe he does not, and maybe your rationale for it is not perfect and should be worked on. Whatever the case, don't act so dogmatic about it because it is ridiculous.

I don't think there is persecution on this site though. It is a site with an atheist base majority, but persecution? I don't think so.

*promote

Just because a person has not studied something does not make one stupid. Nowhere in my post was it implied that i doubted your intelligence, therefore you took my post completely wrong and assumed i was being pretentious. Well, you are wrong.

However, if you want to talk about the problem of suffering, it is necessary to have some knowledge about it. You also assume I am here to debate the question. I am not. If that is a problem, whatever. If you want to use the sources i gave you to help you polish your views better, great. If you want to ignore them, that's fine too.

That is all

Edit to below: I have already stated, that it was never my intention to debate the matter with you. My whole reason for posying was to point out a flaw, and provide links to help. Second, I don't want to clog the thread further with offtopic subjects. Finally, your statement about the links being bullshit w/o even reading them gives me the opinion that you are not even interested in exploring this thing. Which is more reason for me to not engage in a discussion about this.

^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil. As for a 'detailed and reasonable explanation' where is yours? that post did not refute anything.
Read this, and then tell me if what you just wrote is a 'reasonable' point of view
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm

Curiosity is fine, but it is not wise to take every perspective seriously without checking how sound it is.

Look at what we are dealing with here:

"David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, who according to a Popular Science article, is "outraged at the final product," because the filmmakers interviewed him about quantum mechanics unrelated to consciousness or spirituality, and then edited the material in such a way that he feels misrepresented his views"

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-10/cult-science


You want to learn about quantum physics, then consult with PHYSICISTS, not a woman who thinks she is 3500 years old and makes a film to promote her cult.

You cant stop asking questions? then study real science and philosophy, from actual philosophers, and from reliable science sources. This video and the movie, and the movement behind it, are not reliable.

This is the same thing as that movie called the Secret. you gain absolutely nothing from it. Just because these films make you wonder and feel good, does not mean you have gained any truth or have expanded your perspectives. How can you expand it form something that is false and misleading?

Admitting one's ignorance about reality is great and should be applauded, but there is a reason why philosophers use the Socratic method, and scientists use the scientific method whenever a new idea comes along. The ideas presented here do not pass either of those tests.

Don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to show you that this is not the content to stimulate your curiosity of things.

haha i remember voting for this thing. Didn't know better back then.

*promote dammit

Furthermore, you are not exactly talking about the sense of touch. Touch is a component of the somatosensory system.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/ddaley/B232%20Somatosensory%20sys.htm

>> ^soulmonarch:
One chief characteristic of scientists is that they are never happy with a simple definition when they can make up a more complicated one. Apparently only because adding new words makes one sound smarter.
Essentially, they have subdivided the 'sense of touch' into four smaller groups:
- Nociception (pain)
- Thermoception (temperature)
- Proprioception (kinestics)
- Equilibrioception (balance)
I, for one, call that complete bullshit.
All of those are tactile (touch-based) sensations, and each relies upon the others to function correctly. Sub-dividing them into separate categories doesn't give us a deeper understanding about how each of them function, it just gives people more BS to argue about instead of doing REAL work.
But, most importantly, making up new definitions for the sake of simply making up new definitions makes people sound like pompous dicks.
Uh... /rantoff
Sorry.


I assume you understand the sense of touch enough to make such conclusions?

So if we not divide it into those categories, then how do we deal with a person who gets a virus, it fucks his nerves but not completely, leaving him able to: feel temperature, have balance, and feel pain but has no ability to understand the location of his body? do we (assuming scientist do not categorize touch) say he has a touch problem and leave it at such enormously ambiguous terms? or do we (as we should do) analyze his condition and go: hmm only his propioception is affected, less focus on that. or would you rather have the doctors waste time dealing with all the four variables because 'dividing a vague idea of touch' would be pretentious. How is categorization of ideas and things we have not finished to explore a bad idea?

Are you actually saying that just because those 4 things are dependent on each other, we should not bother categorizing them? Hmm what if each of those happen to have different types of receptors and/or types of cells specialized for each of them? Assuming that we can understand the complexity of the human senses by simply treating them as a whole entity free of components is in my opinion quite arrogant, bullshit and pompous.

I'm making these questions out of pure curiosity, because I can't see how what you are saying holds any water.

^ You made remember another thing: The teens (or even college students) that use OMG and LOL in real life conversations. They don't laugh, just go L... O.... L... that is soooo funny! oh and TTYL

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."

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

*documentaries

*promote