7 ms·

But that doesn't get us any further than "We don't know yet." It doesn't prove or disprove anything. By the same line of reasoning one could say there is no tim

by eis 4y ago

But that doesn't get us any further than "We don't know yet." It doesn't prove or disprove anything. By the same line of reasoning one could say there is no time at all and all our memory of the past is an illusion generated by a simulation. The linked video talks about this: there are an infinite amount of theories that one can come up with to explain the current state and it might not be possible with our current understanding to prove them wrong. The problem I have with religious texts is they are very vague and evidently open to a lot of interpretation. And by talking about things like God and building a logical system out of wrong axioms that is then applied to daily life choices they actually can create real issues - we've had enough of them in history.

al_mandi 4y ago
[flagged]
- eis 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. > The existance of these monsters does not prove religions don't create issues. Or what's your claim? My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place.
    - eis 4y ago
      > What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. You are putting words in my mouth. I said texts that are vague and open to a lot of interpretation can cause a lot of issues. Especially when those interpretations are used to make life choices and doubly so when making choices about others. > My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place. Please provide evidence for this. Clearly one can have ethics and morals without religion. Note: showing that some atheists did something wrong is not evidence of that. Oh and btw there is more than theism and atheism. I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. Do I know that there is no such thing as a god? Nope. All I know is that I really can't subscribe to that believe personally but who am I to claim either way. I can still strive to be a good member of society.
      - al_mandi 4y ago
        Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. > so when making choices about others By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. > Please provide evidence for this We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.
        eis 4y ago
        > Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. I don't want to claim all are vague. Many are. If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary. > By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. Correct. Some choices are sound and some not. A society needs to make a decision about each rule they impose in isolation and not based upon for example what a single person said was right or wrong. A good set of core rules for a society will naturally emerge after some time completely without religion. You can see this because completely seperated societies come up with same or similar rules but can have completely different religious believes or can be completely secular. > We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular. Thanks science! You do not need religion in order to have a well functioning society. The western countries are not perfect - there's a lot wrong with them. Like the racism in the US for example. But there is also a lot wrong with for example middle eastern countries. What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there? I neither live in the west nor the middle east btw and don't think I have a bias because I don't count myself as part of either. > Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides. The concept of good and bad is the concept of morals. Morals can be deduced from logic and does not require religion. "We should do X because Y". The better we can explain Y, the higher the chance of someone subscribing to the logic and doing X. If Y is "because it is written in some book that some dude was told this by god" then many people might rightfully claim that they don't see the reasoning. I really really don't want to live under a religious authority that can impose arbitrary rules on me like that I have to pray five times a day and must not eat pork because I see zero logic behind that. Just to be clear: I don't want to single out Islam here but I am taking it as the example because I am argueing with you and you believe in Islam. The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. That's the same mistake the presenter in that video made. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists. You cannot claim from any of these that either secularism or theism is good or bad.
  - nprateem 4y ago
    Most exam questions at university are open to interpretation too, but that's language for you.

by eis 4y ago

al_mandi 4y ago

[flagged]

eis 4y ago
[flagged]
- al_mandi 4y ago
  What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. > The existance of these monsters does not prove religions don't create issues. Or what's your claim? My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place.
  - eis 4y ago
    > What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. You are putting words in my mouth. I said texts that are vague and open to a lot of interpretation can cause a lot of issues. Especially when those interpretations are used to make life choices and doubly so when making choices about others. > My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place. Please provide evidence for this. Clearly one can have ethics and morals without religion. Note: showing that some atheists did something wrong is not evidence of that. Oh and btw there is more than theism and atheism. I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. Do I know that there is no such thing as a god? Nope. All I know is that I really can't subscribe to that believe personally but who am I to claim either way. I can still strive to be a good member of society.
    - al_mandi 4y ago
      Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. > so when making choices about others By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. > Please provide evidence for this We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.
      - eis 4y ago
        > Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. I don't want to claim all are vague. Many are. If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary. > By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. Correct. Some choices are sound and some not. A society needs to make a decision about each rule they impose in isolation and not based upon for example what a single person said was right or wrong. A good set of core rules for a society will naturally emerge after some time completely without religion. You can see this because completely seperated societies come up with same or similar rules but can have completely different religious believes or can be completely secular. > We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular. Thanks science! You do not need religion in order to have a well functioning society. The western countries are not perfect - there's a lot wrong with them. Like the racism in the US for example. But there is also a lot wrong with for example middle eastern countries. What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there? I neither live in the west nor the middle east btw and don't think I have a bias because I don't count myself as part of either. > Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides. The concept of good and bad is the concept of morals. Morals can be deduced from logic and does not require religion. "We should do X because Y". The better we can explain Y, the higher the chance of someone subscribing to the logic and doing X. If Y is "because it is written in some book that some dude was told this by god" then many people might rightfully claim that they don't see the reasoning. I really really don't want to live under a religious authority that can impose arbitrary rules on me like that I have to pray five times a day and must not eat pork because I see zero logic behind that. Just to be clear: I don't want to single out Islam here but I am taking it as the example because I am argueing with you and you believe in Islam. The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. That's the same mistake the presenter in that video made. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists. You cannot claim from any of these that either secularism or theism is good or bad.
- nprateem 4y ago
  Most exam questions at university are open to interpretation too, but that's language for you.