Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 18.07.2011, 18:24
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Well the music analogy wasn't mine, and I don't like my bit it doesn't make sense. Neither does this though. Let's say some group of non musicians talked about music, but the talk about music got classified as music, because, well, just because, critically talking about music just isn't done, so it must be music.
Exactly. So by analogy it's not totally irrational to place books on atheism in the religion section of a library as after all they discuss religion or things connected to religion even if they don't promote it. So such a book would be a book on religion. So its author would be a religious author. So his teachings would be religious teachings ....

Okay, I know you don't like where that's heading and I can see a number of places where you can pick a hole in the argument. But still, at the end of the day, why do you object so much to it being called a religion? There are religions that don't have saints. There are religions that don't have songs or dances. There are even religions that don't have proper teachings or theology but just a general sort of common direction that people agree about. So why shouldn't there be a religion that doesn't have teachings and doesn't have any supernatural stuff but is still a religion because it upholds that certain things are true.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 18.07.2011, 18:40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
So why shouldn't there be a religion that doesn't have teachings and doesn't have any supernatural stuff but is still a religion because it upholds that certain things are true.
Why shouldn't there, indeed?!?!?


Have you talked to any buddhists or hindus recently?
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 18.07.2011, 19:01
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Okay, I know you don't like where that's heading and I can see a number of places where you can pick a hole in the argument. But still, at the end of the day, why do you object so much to it being called a religion? There are religions that don't have saints. There are religions that don't have songs or dances. There are even religions that don't have proper teachings or theology but just a general sort of common direction that people agree about. So why shouldn't there be a religion that doesn't have teachings and doesn't have any supernatural stuff but is still a religion because it upholds that certain things are true.

Because really, atheism is as much of a religion as theism is. Maybe atheists deserve it, I certainly see little difference between the worlds religions and mostly think of them as interchangeable.

There are some atheists who do want atheism to stand for a set of principles, but I don't think it will ever work like that. Because while atheists are fairly united in knocking god botherers, they may not accept other things and there's plenty of infighting. But the funny thing is that noone ever asks about that, you're just an atheist. I would say a fair number of atheists are humanists, which does say things on how one should leave a life, and you probably wouldn't get too many objections calling it a kind of religion. Many would also call themselves skeptics over atheists, as that is a more descriptive of their views, not only don't they believe in gods, they don't believe in all sorts of grandiose claims presented without evidence.

If it's one thing that unites atheists, it's believing that people who claim divine insight are full of bullshit, apart from that, you might have a hard time defining any kind of teaching, leaders, morality or anything else and be able to call it "atheism".
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 18.07.2011, 22:03
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
I am also a Stamp Collector.

Of course, I don't actually have any stamps myself, nor indeed have I ever held or seen one, or otherwise experienced one personally in any way whatsoever, but I know many people who do. Or rather, I know people who know people who said they knew a person that once met someone else who said that that someone else was p-r-e-t-t-y sure that what they had seen was a stamp.

Three times a day at home, we get out our family's copy of The Gibbons and read from it, knowing that our salvation, as well as our stamps, hinge on it.

Every week, we go down to the Post Office where the Post Master reaffirms our faith in stamps. Strangely, there are never any stamps there either, but the Post Master assures me that that's not important. What is important is to just believe and that will guarantee me a place in heaven, because philately will get me anywhere.
Well, my grandfather started a stamp collection, which my mother maintained and continued until about 2006, with the advice of a good friend of her. I have it now, with a cupboard full of the stuff. I like it, but do not have the time required.

I can imagine that I one day airfreight the whole stuff to Gibsons London to either auction the whole stuff or to sell it piecewise.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #125  
Old 18.07.2011, 22:05
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Excuse my ignorance...buuuuuuut why on earth would an atheist have to prove the lack of god?
Because he BELIEVES that there is no God. And so, alright, let him PROVE his notion. Otherwise, his notion is just another faith
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #126  
Old 18.07.2011, 22:20
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Because he BELIEVES that there is no God. And so, alright, let him PROVE his notion. Otherwise, his notion is just another faith
Not true at all Wolli. The most basic and universal philosophy subscribes that there is no belief in an absent entity and that the epistemological onus of proof is on the believer/the person making a claim. There can be no claim of a negative - one might ask you to prove that there is no country called Chipan. No - the onus of proof is on the claimer.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #127  
Old 18.07.2011, 22:55
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Not true at all Wolli. The most basic and universal philosophy subscribes that there is no belief in an absent entity and that the epistemological onus of proof is on the believer/the person making a claim. There can be no claim of a negative - one might ask you to prove that there is no country called Chipan. No - the onus of proof is on the claimer.
Ah, we'll make a proper theological noncognitivist out of Wolli yet
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 18.07.2011, 22:58
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
- one might ask you to prove that there is no country called Chipan. No - the onus of proof is on the claimer.
The difference here is whether you postively believe there is no country called Chipan and build your philosophy on that assumption - in which case it is fair to demand proof or at least support for that basic assumption, or whether you don't really care, in which case the onus of proof is on the person who says you are wrong to not really care. The two situations are totally different
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 18.07.2011, 23:07
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 865
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,777 Times in 728 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

1) Religions cannot agree on what God is like, requires of his believers, etc.
2) They cannot all be right
3) The only logical outcome is that they are all wrong. Humans generally feel better if there is an omnipotent being looking after them, so they invent one, or adopt a ready made one that is locally available.

To discuss...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #130  
Old 18.07.2011, 23:16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
The difference here is whether you postively believe there is no country called Chipan and build your philosophy on that assumption - in which case it is fair to demand proof or at least support for that basic assumption, or whether you don't really care, in which case the onus of proof is on the person who says you are wrong to not really care. The two situations are totally different
If you were correct, I would agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 18.07.2011, 23:17
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
View Post
1) Religions cannot agree on what God is like, requires of his believers, etc.
2) They cannot all be right
3) The only logical outcome is that they are all wrong. Humans generally feel better if there is an omnipotent being looking after them, so they invent one, or adopt a ready made one that is locally available.

To discuss...
The bold means you don't understand logical inference. They cannot all be right does not infer that they are all wrong. It's possible one is right, or that they're all almost right and there is a god that's somewhere near what they all think God is. Also it's possible that there is no god, but this cannot be inferred from your assertions.

Quote:
View Post
The difference here is whether you postively believe there is no country called Chipan and build your philosophy on that assumption - in which case it is fair to demand proof or at least support for that basic assumption, or whether you don't really care, in which case the onus of proof is on the person who says you are wrong to not really care. The two situations are totally different
I don't either "situation" changes the burden of proof here. What is built from an assumption, or who cares, is irrelevant to the assumption.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 19.07.2011, 09:11
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: -
Posts: 1,640
Groaned at 26 Times in 22 Posts
Thanked 2,932 Times in 1,202 Posts
Russkov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
I don't either "situation" changes the burden of proof here. What is built from an assumption, or who cares, is irrelevant to the assumption.
Congrats, you're an atheist militant.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 19.07.2011, 09:49
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Because he BELIEVES that there is no God. And so, alright, let him PROVE his notion. Otherwise, his notion is just another faith
What a silly thing to say. Imagine if we all thought like this, you would have to believe absolutely everything you're told, unless you could prove otherwise.

Doe this mean you think there an infinite ammount of faiths? Of all the people who don't believe in all the things that people just make up. What do you call them all? aunicornists, afarieist, amanonthemoonist, the list is infinite.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 19.07.2011, 10:06
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
What a silly thing to say. Imagine if we all thought like this, you would have to believe absolutely everything you're told, unless you could prove otherwise.
But we do believe a hell of a lot of stuff just on word of authority. Most of the science we know we haven't really seen proof for but we believe celever boffins in laboratories and trust they haven't made a mistake in their reasoning. We also believe on authority that Napoleon existed or that the moon is actually very big and far away and not just a piece of cheese in the sky. And there are individuals who do not believe such things on authority. Hence we have flat earthists and Holocaust deniers and homeopaths. But they don't have proof either. They just choose to reject the stuff that most of us choose to accept, and replace it by their own imaginings, which in the face of real accessible evidence are neither more nor less plausible than the majority consensus. So everything is really just a system of belief.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 19.07.2011, 10:13
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
But we do believe a hell of a lot of stuff just on word of authority. Most of the science we know we haven't really seen proof for but we believe celever boffins in laboratories and trust they haven't made a mistake in their reasoning. We also believe on authority that Napoleon existed or that the moon is actually very big and far away and not just a piece of cheese in the sky. And there are individuals who do not believe such things on authority. Hence we have flat earthists and Holocaust deniers and homeopaths. But they don't have proof either. They just choose to reject the stuff that most of us choose to accept, and replace it by their own imaginings, which in the face of real accessible evidence are neither more nor less plausible than the majority consensus. So everything is really just a system of belief.
Nice you group all those together on equal footing to make your point, where the reality is very different.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 19.07.2011, 13:03
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Nice you group all those together on equal footing to make your point, where the reality is very different.
The reality, or the reality you choose to believe in?

Ah, of course I forget. The stuff you believe is THE TRUTH.
Remind me again what the difference between that and religious dedication is.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 19.07.2011, 13:09
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
The reality, or the reality you choose to believe in?

Let me get this straight. In order for you to make any point about god existing, you're first saying that all ideas are equaly valid, that the idea of god is equaly as valid as physics or 2+2=5, because, really, we have no real 100% proof of anything.

Someone wrote here once that atheism leads to nihilism. Looks like it's the only logical conclusion to beliveing in god.

Tell me, when you choose to believe in a different reality, do the laws of physics no longer apply?
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 19.07.2011, 13:13
Ouchboy's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Baden
Posts: 3,345
Groaned at 67 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 5,739 Times in 2,182 Posts
Ouchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
But we do believe a hell of a lot of stuff just on word of authority. Most of the science we know we haven't really seen proof
I stopped there. Epic fail, most of the science has had proof, that's why it is "peer reviewed".

The earth not being flat. Proved. Went around the earth. You can also go around the earth, if you happen to fall down at the edge then you can prove that it is flat.

Everything boils down to munchausen's trillema, but the Gap required to reach there between scientific facts it's enormous compared to religious BS.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 19.07.2011, 13:19
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
Ah, of course I forget. The stuff you believe is THE TRUTH.
Remind me again what the difference between that and religious dedication is.
Because one we can test and can be shown to be true. The other can't be tested, because it's just the magic man in your head.

Honestly, if you can't grasp that, you really don't live in a reality, you live in an imagination.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank cyrus for this useful post:
  #140  
Old 19.07.2011, 13:24
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Any Pastafarians here?

Quote:
View Post
The reality, or the reality you choose to believe in?

Ah, of course I forget. The stuff you believe is THE TRUTH.
Remind me again what the difference between that and religious dedication is.
No no no. There are objective measurements and empirical studies. You don't have to see things to know (or be pretty sure) that they're true. After all - your eyes are just one method to collect data and are not more or less reliable than other ways. There's a reason why, when you cross the road, in order not to get run over you look, listen etc but don't consult and palm reader or pray. The first two are rigorous methods of evidence collection and the second two aren't and we all, even believers, know this (I've never seen a priest walk across the road with his eyes closed).
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0