Users browsing this thread:

God-Emperor · 05-08-2014, 02:20 PM

First, yes. Worst, not necessarily.

The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN)
Provost, Magisterium
Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army
Journalist, East Pacific News Service
Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

**Farengeto** · 05-08-2014, 10:13 PM

(05-08-2014, 08:57 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Religion belongs to the infancy of our species. It was our first, worst, attempt at understanding the universe.

Frankly this is how I feel about religion, and until I see evidence to the contrary it's unlikely to change.

Even if we can't disprove god (and by the scientific method that's more disproof than proof), if we can scientifically disprove much of the theory behind it (the bible) then according to the scientific method the theory is wrong. I just can't believe that between disproven sections and its own inconsistencies and contradictions that it could be true.

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2014, 03:12 AM

(05-08-2014, 10:13 PM)Farengeto Wrote:
(05-08-2014, 08:57 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Religion belongs to the infancy of our species. It was our first, worst, attempt at understanding the universe.

Frankly this is how I feel about religion, and until I see evidence to the contrary it's unlikely to change.

Even if we can't disprove god (and by the scientific method that's more disproof than proof), if we can scientifically disprove much of the theory behind it (the bible) then according to the scientific method the theory is wrong. I just can't believe that between disproven sections and its own inconsistencies and contradictions that it could be true.

God is an unfalsible concept; it is quite litterally impossible to prove that God does not exist, due to the provided definition and supposed powers. If, in a scientific enquiry, one party says "We've tested X, Y and Z and they've all been disproven" and the other party responds with "Yes, but God made it so that you'd find that" then you have a serious issue; the two sides aren't playing by the same set of rules. One side is using the scientific method, the other is essentially playing with crayons.

Unfalsifible concepts can be rejected out of hand; if there is no possible set of circumstances whereby something can be disproved, then it's not science. This ties into Russell's Teapot; the religious cannot assert belief as fact, and then demand that we falsify it whilst producing conditions that make such impossible. The burden of proof lies on the party making the claim - Evolution is accepted because Darwin and those who followed him provided sufficient proof for the hypothesis to become an accepted theory, not because he asserted it and no one could prove him wrong.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

wetwork · 05-09-2014, 08:52 AM

That reminds me of the reputed conversation between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein said something like-
"Are you honestly telling me that you believe if no one is looking at the moon it ceases to exist?"
To which the reply was "Prove to me it doesn't."

Also I would trace religion back to Shamanic practice which has more to do with Psychology and Tribal Mental Health. The taking of people beyond the social boundaries and bringing them back safely via ritual dance, drugs, etc. rather than the positing of a supreme being as per traditional Monotheism.
I would also say that regardless of one person's standards for accepting something as 'fact', someone else is going to have an opposing method. Neither are right yet both feel justified. We accept that which solidifies our own perceptual bias, and reject or contend with that which does not. To expand this to broad social groups does not diminish the inherently subjective foundation, but rather simplifies it. Both sides are playing by the same rules, it's just that they have different ideas on how to win.

GG Sigillite
Stuff in Other Places

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2014, 10:24 AM

I reject the idea that there is any kind of equivalence between the scientific method and religious belief. One is right, the other is nonsense, and individual standards have nothing to do with it. If you think that a book saying something constitutes evidence then you're an idiot, whether or not you admit it.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

wetwork · 05-09-2014, 10:33 AM

Why is your perceptual model more correct than theirs? Because you can prove it via a system you agree with? They also have a system of proofs they agree with, and that they consider factual in exactly the same way as you do, with exactly the same conviction. They find proof of god in everything they do, not just from a book.
Just because a competing perceptual model cannot prove itself according to another model's rigors, does not make them wrong, it makes them fundamentally incompatible. It's the demand for perceptual homogeneity that gets us into trouble.

GG Sigillite
Stuff in Other Places

**Farengeto** · 05-09-2014, 05:32 PM

I wanted to try and make a reasoned argument to this, but you're trying to argue that logic itself is wrong.

And isn't "perceptual homogeneity" one of the basic elements of religion? You know, God is right, everything else is wrong and will burn in hell, that sort of thing.

God-Emperor · 05-09-2014, 06:25 PM

No, it isn't, and sayin' so shows your complete lack of knowledge of a subject which you're tryin' to criticize. Ya wouldn't want someone that doesn't even have a basic understandin' of gravity to critique science, and the same applies for religion, whether ya believe in one, neither or both.

The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN)
Provost, Magisterium
Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army
Journalist, East Pacific News Service
Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

wetwork · 05-09-2014, 08:54 PM

A reasoned argument is why I'm here, but calling one 'right' and the other 'nonsense' is not a supported and reasoned argument.

What I'm arguing is that logic, and all systems of thought, are relative and suspect, and should be treated as such.

GG Sigillite
Stuff in Other Places

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-10-2014, 01:13 AM

You are saying that scientifically proved facts are no better than unproven beliefs that were formed in times when our understanding of science was not yet as developed as it is now. That's just ridiculous. One has proof, the other doesn't. Enough said.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System