The evolution of religious beliefs:

[Si modo]

Pascal was a fucking moron who fell for a false dichotomy. Only retards fall for Pascal's Wager.

Pascal argued with himself over it. As I said it says a lot and nothing. But it can be interesting.

Interesting how? What's interesting about some idiot having an invalid argument with himself or some retards with crosses thinking he's a genius??

It's a shame that you find it so uninteresting.

 

[JW Frogen]

Pascal’s wager is utilitarian in a sense, bet on the concept with gain not on the one with no possible gain, unfortunately the premise is flawed for if one bets on the existence of God and there is no God one has denied other philosophical possibilities that may provide a meaningful life in an existential void. If there is no God you have actually lost something betting on the existence of God.

Besides, any real spirituality can not be a choice, a bet, even a rational decision, all that must be transcended and the spiritual, religious, enlightenment, bliss, what ever inadequate word you wish to use, must simply be experienced.

God can not be understood by an ape-man who just climbed down from the trees a few million years ago, God can only be experienced.

 

[Si modo]

Pascal’s wager is utilitarian in a sense, bet on the concept with gain not on the one with no possible gain, unfortunately the premise is flawed for if one bets on the existence of God and there is no God one has denied other philosophical possibilities that may provide a meaningful life in an existential void. If there is no God you have actually lost something betting on the existence of God.

Besides, any real spirituality can not be a choice, a bet, even a rational decision, all that must be transcended and the spiritual, religious, enlightenment, bliss, what ever inadequate word you wish to use, must simply be experienced.

God can not be understood by an ape-man who just climbed down from the trees a few million years ago, God can only be experienced.

Right. When one argues the logic of spirituality I just chuckle. There is no point to arguing logic to something where it does not apply.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The problem is, as science comes along and explains things, like a rainy day or an eclipse.. The religious fight back and deny science.. Global warming comes to mind..

Might i propose that science is a religion as well? some people blindly sign on to the cutting edge of science in a way i parallel to the role of faith in religion... global warming comes to mind.

on one side of the arguement, religious extremists promote stupidity to counteract science, by denying evolution, for example. science extremists argue that our limited understanding of our world displaces the existence of god entirely, essentially elevating science to the position of omniscient, omnipotent.

i am a chemical engineer and science lover, but failing to be one of these extremists, the more ive learned about our world, the greater i see the god that made it.

You smell of lies and stupidity

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Pascal argued with himself over it. As I said it says a lot and nothing. But it can be interesting.

Interesting how? What's interesting about some idiot having an invalid argument with himself or some retards with crosses thinking he's a genius??

It's a shame that you find it so uninteresting.

You want interesting? M-Theory is interesting. Neurology is interesting.

 

[Si modo]

Interesting how? What's interesting about some idiot having an invalid argument with himself or some retards with crosses thinking he's a genius??

It's a shame that you find it so uninteresting.

You want interesting? M-Theory is interesting. Neurology is interesting.

Yup. I tend to find many things interesting as my mind is not very closed.

 

[dilloduck]

Pascal’s wager is utilitarian in a sense, bet on the concept with gain not on the one with no possible gain, unfortunately the premise is flawed for if one bets on the existence of God and there is no God one has denied other philosophical possibilities that may provide a meaningful life in an existential void. If there is no God you have actually lost something betting on the existence of God.

Besides, any real spirituality can not be a choice, a bet, even a rational decision, all that must be transcended and the spiritual, religious, enlightenment, bliss, what ever inadequate word you wish to use, must simply be experienced.

God can not be understood by an ape-man who just climbed down from the trees a few million years ago, God can only be experienced.

Right. When one argues the logic of spirituality I just chuckle. There is no point to arguing logic to something where it does not apply.

again---Logic is as much of a human invention as religion. A method to find order and meaning in chaos. Science is a way to attempt to explain chaos so that man can "understand"it and feel as if he is controlling it.

 

[Si modo]

Pascal’s wager is utilitarian in a sense, bet on the concept with gain not on the one with no possible gain, unfortunately the premise is flawed for if one bets on the existence of God and there is no God one has denied other philosophical possibilities that may provide a meaningful life in an existential void. If there is no God you have actually lost something betting on the existence of God.

Besides, any real spirituality can not be a choice, a bet, even a rational decision, all that must be transcended and the spiritual, religious, enlightenment, bliss, what ever inadequate word you wish to use, must simply be experienced.

God can not be understood by an ape-man who just climbed down from the trees a few million years ago, God can only be experienced.

Right. When one argues the logic of spirituality I just chuckle. There is no point to arguing logic to something where it does not apply.

again---Logic is as much of a human invention as religion. A method to find order and meaning in chaos. Science is a way to attempt to explain chaos so that man can "understand"it and feel as if he is controlling it.

Yes. However, applying either one of those creations (logic and religion) to argue the validity of the other seems quite silly to me, so I chuckle.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Proper logic is not a human creation, but flows from the very nature of the universe. Logic describes our ability to comprehend the manner in which things function (If-then statements, for instance describe necessary conditions where B MUST be true if A is true, because of the manner in which the universe operates.) Logic goes awry either due to an imperfect understanding of the nature of things (this is opposed to simple inability to comprehend logical statements in themselves, which is more accurately called a failure to communicate, rather than a true l;ogical flaw.). Examples include the lack of understanding of evolutionary processes seen in other threads, which lead to morons with no understanding of the matter asking for an organism to give birth to a member of a different domain because they fail to understand the manner in which the universe and systems within it it operate, and common misconceptions about what is or is not possible- such as when we define as 'counter-intuitive' (intuition being one's beliefs about the way in which things operate or conclusions based upon these beliefs) observed facts about what does occur in the universe.

 

[dilloduck]

Right. When one argues the logic of spirituality I just chuckle. There is no point to arguing logic to something where it does not apply.

again---Logic is as much of a human invention as religion. A method to find order and meaning in chaos. Science is a way to attempt to explain chaos so that man can "understand"it and feel as if he is controlling it.

Yes. However, applying either one of those creations (logic and religion) to argue the validity of the other seems quite silly to me, so I chuckle.

I find that to marvel and chuckle at the things we experience in life are the most productive.

 

[dilloduck]

Proper logic is not a human creation, but flows from the very nature of the universe. Logic describes our ability to comprehend the manner in which things function (If-then statements, for instance describe necessary conditions where B MUST be true if A is true, because of the manner in which the universe operates.) Logic goes awry either due to an imperfect understanding of the nature of things (this is opposed to simple inability to comprehend logical statements in themselves, which is more accurately called a failure to communicate, rather than a true l;ogical flaw.). Examples include the lack of understanding of evolutionary processes seen in other threads, which lead to morons with no understanding of the matter asking for an organism to give birth to a member of a different domain because they fail to understand the manner in which the universe and systems within it it operate, and common misconceptions about what is or is not possible- such as when we define as 'counter-intuitive' (intuition being one's beliefs about the way in which things operate or conclusions based upon these beliefs) observed facts about what does occur in the universe.

In the end it doesn't really matter, does it ? I imagine the original sentinent creatures on earth were pretty in tune with the manner in which the universe operates. Does man have plans to alter it to his benefit ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Interesting how? What's interesting about some idiot having an invalid argument with himself or some retards with crosses thinking he's a genius??

It's a shame that you find it so uninteresting.

You want interesting? M-Theory is interesting. Neurology is interesting.

I actually find this board interesting, even with your posts on it. I do try to keep an open mind, and A good argument is still a good argument. Even if it is one person taking both sides against themselves.

 

[antagon]

The problem is, as science comes along and explains things, like a rainy day or an eclipse.. The religious fight back and deny science.. Global warming comes to mind..

Might i propose that science is a religion as well? some people blindly sign on to the cutting edge of science in a way i parallel to the role of faith in religion... global warming comes to mind.

on one side of the arguement, religious extremists promote stupidity to counteract science, by denying evolution, for example. science extremists argue that our limited understanding of our world displaces the existence of god entirely, essentially elevating science to the position of omniscient, omnipotent.

i am a chemical engineer and science lover, but failing to be one of these extremists, the more ive learned about our world, the greater i see the god that made it.

You smell of lies and stupidity

you smell me?

id say youre just such an example of a non-scientist butcher. just the same as a misguided religious zealot, you take the role of speaking on behalf of science without, knowing the half of science.

 

[Si modo]

Might i propose that science is a religion as well? some people blindly sign on to the cutting edge of science in a way i parallel to the role of faith in religion... global warming comes to mind.

on one side of the arguement, religious extremists promote stupidity to counteract science, by denying evolution, for example. science extremists argue that our limited understanding of our world displaces the existence of god entirely, essentially elevating science to the position of omniscient, omnipotent.

i am a chemical engineer and science lover, but failing to be one of these extremists, the more ive learned about our world, the greater i see the god that made it.

You smell of lies and stupidity

you smell me?

id say youre just such an example of a non-scientist butcher. just the same as a misguided religious zealot, you take the role of speaking on behalf of science without, knowing the half of science.

[Emphasis mine] Annoying, ain't it?

 

[JW Frogen]

You smell of lies and stupidity

No, that is just Laggerfeild.

 

[antagon]

You smell of lies and stupidity

No, that is just Laggerfeild.

im coming after you if i get that funk for christmas!

 

[Si modo]

You smell of lies and stupidity

No, that is just Laggerfeild.

I'm not a fan of men's cologne, but that is the only one that I really, really like on a man. You have good taste, Frogen.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Proper logic is not a human creation, but flows from the very nature of the universe. Logic describes our ability to comprehend the manner in which things function (If-then statements, for instance describe necessary conditions where B MUST be true if A is true, because of the manner in which the universe operates.) Logic goes awry either due to an imperfect understanding of the nature of things (this is opposed to simple inability to comprehend logical statements in themselves, which is more accurately called a failure to communicate, rather than a true l;ogical flaw.). Examples include the lack of understanding of evolutionary processes seen in other threads, which lead to morons with no understanding of the matter asking for an organism to give birth to a member of a different domain because they fail to understand the manner in which the universe and systems within it it operate, and common misconceptions about what is or is not possible- such as when we define as 'counter-intuitive' (intuition being one's beliefs about the way in which things operate or conclusions based upon these beliefs) observed facts about what does occur in the universe.

In the end it doesn't really matter, does it ? I imagine the original sentinent creatures on earth were pretty in tune with the manner in which the universe operates. Does man have plans to alter it to his benefit ?

I'm skeptical, as many bhumans still believe in supernatural skydaddies, fairies, and fate, and there's zero evidence of what, if anything, other species may believe about how the universe operates other than falling sucks, water is good, and the more you eat, the more you poop.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It's a shame that you find it so uninteresting.

You want interesting? M-Theory is interesting. Neurology is interesting.

I actually find this board interesting, even with your posts on it. I do try to keep an open mind, and A good argument is still a good argument. Even if it is one person taking both sides against themselves.

did you just call a False Dichotomy a good argument?

 

[SFC Ollie]

You want interesting? M-Theory is interesting. Neurology is interesting.

I actually find this board interesting, even with your posts on it. I do try to keep an open mind, and A good argument is still a good argument. Even if it is one person taking both sides against themselves.

did you just call a False Dichotomy a good argument?

Did I?