Don't Believe Anything you Read on The Internet!

[tr1ple6]

If there is no God(s), then believers won't know that they were wrong when they die.

If there is a God(s,) then non-believers can present a case for goodness without dogmatic coercion.

Arseholes are arseholes, believers or not.

That reminds me a little of Pascal's wager.

The problem with the first part is that it would be great if religious people wouldn't have actual social and political power like they do in many countries. Their religion doesn't just occur in a vacuum, they vote for harmful policies and politicians and the religious lobby affects policy in some places.

 

[tr1ple6]

Look - a tree.

You forgot to add... Therefore god

 

[Wombat]

There are scientists who are fervent 'believers'. It puzzles me.

 

[tr1ple6]

There are scientists who are fervent 'believers'. It puzzles me.

Doesn't puzzle me at all. Just because someone is smart in one field, doesn't mean that they think rationally in another

 

[PierreV]

How come global warming or covid are taboo here and religion isn't?

 

[tr1ple6]

How come global warming or covid are taboo here and religion isn't?

I personally wouldn't be against this thread being locked. I feel that the OP would have been better if @SoonHappy stripped out the religious references.

 

[Sukie]

How come global warming or covid are taboo here and religion isn't?

The whole thread was set up for a car crash at the beginning. It's not that it's off-topic, it was never on-topic.

@Thomas savage might want to act before the car crash spirals out of control (if you pardon the mixing of metaphors).

 

[Absolute]

Who cares what anyone thinks anyway? These kinds of threads are always a competition about who says the smartest/wittiest/most provoking stuff and no one really cares what anyone else says.

We have no need for religion, not in politics, not in school and especially not here on a science-oriented audio forum.

 

[tomtoo]

If people like to beliefe

There are scientists who are fervent 'believers'. It puzzles me.

They dont do science about beliefe. You can do perfect science about the behavior of ants. Doing science about the behavior of god's is just not possible. What means every scientist that believes in god's has a highly tensions in him self where he has to cope with.

 

[House de Kris]

Positive Vibes? I've spent the last 24 years making having a positive and demonstrable impact in public service to the homeless, orphans, youth, at risk youth, and widows all while donating many hours a week to non-profits that serve families. I've also given what little money I have at times to make sure poor people in the Philippines had clothing and food to eat all while dealing with varying degrees of crippling disabilites and chronic pain. Do I wish the sickness and pain was gone, of course! But I'm glad I am still able to help others in many ways.

Why waste time lying to these poor wretches of the earth? Why not be straight up honest with them and explain that Baby Jesus has already proclaimed that their miserable existence will only get worse. You are spreading false hope. Or, are these "good deeds" something you believe will guarantee you passage into the kingdom of God? Lying is not a sin if it is cloaked in the veil of doing 'good.' Good here is defined as ensuring your personal passage to heaven. It's every man for himself. Use the poor and crippled as pawns in this cosmic chess game.

I will refrain from commenting on the doom and gloom.

To late, you already spent a paragraph back peddling.

 

[vert]

I agree a discussion about God might be out of place on ASR, for all the good reasons, yada yada, but I don't get why as if by necessity, belief in God should be derided as if somehow science had superseded God, and science didn't have its problems. Discourse about God and actions rooted in religous belief can range from the pathetic to the sublime as in any field of human endeavour. Some of the finest minds in history have held a belief in God, including scientists.

 

[Robin L]

A little sympathy for the devil, eh?

Not that I'm the devil's advocate. But I'd post this with other examples of Trancendental Logic and Necessary Myths. This cartoon makes "The Other" [which is what the devil is and always will be] sympathetic. Kinda cute, with those furry leggings. But there you are, built in to the Xian code is "do onto others" and be charitable. And I'm all in for that. Everybody needs myth, sometimes that myth requires that one reject evidence that the tale is myth and not historical documentation. Ultimately, if it looks like a myth, walks like a myth and quacks like a myth, it's a duck.

The Discordian myth focuses on the original snub. [All Hail Eris!]* Here is more information:
https://localwiki.org/yuba-sutter/Yuba_Erisian_Apple-Slinging_Temple

" A Discordian is Prohibited from Believing What he Reads. "

The original text, revised edition:

https://principiadiscordia.com/

"Don't believe everything that you read"
Beck

*A central concept of Discordianism is that there is more chaos than order in the Multiverse, that the dominant force is chaos and not an anthropomorphic creator of order. The myth of Discordinism is an anthropomorphic creator of disorder. The net result is American flavored zen. Small 'z'.

 

[Vini darko]

My thought is it's big enough universe for all the science , gods , spirits , demons , angels and aliens to have a place.

 

[RayDunzl]

We have no need for religion, not in politics, not in school and especially not here on a science-oriented audio forum.

Who is "we"?

 

[tomtoo]

Who is "we"?

Me!

 

[Thomas savage]

I can't see anyone's belief/ religion is either being attacked or inappropriately promoted .

However I'd rather we keep away from such a topic as religion, even if some here have made Toole their Jesus and ASR their church lol

Feel free to talk about the nature of belief, thresholds for certainty and the like .

 

[SineWave]

You forgot to add... Therefore god

That's a given, because...how else did it get there??

Now, do you own a watch?

 

[SineWave]

I just noticed this thread is in the section titled:

"Fun topics, videos, etc."

 

[Killingbeans]

I also wonder by what means of logic believers came to believe in only one deity but regarded believing in more than one as ridiculous. I suspect it was more politics and power than logic.

I remember watching an archeology documentary that investigated how Judaisme originally morphed form a multitheistic concept much like greek/roman/norse mythology into the monotheistic one that also gave birth to Christianity and Islam. I think the conclusion was that it was simply more practical to have a single deity rather than worshipping a myriad of forces of nature. It was just more effective, and that's probably why it got adopted so (relatively) fast. I think it's fascinating.

Sorry for going seriously off topic

I for one DO and will believe many things I read on the internet, especially at ASR, why? Because life is just more fun that way for me.
You may look up at the stars a thousands times and only see the amazing once, but that's 1 more time than those who never look up.

I think that's actually a good point. We need some wonder and amazement in our lives to keep things interesting, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But when it gets mixed with egocentrisme and/or overconfidence, it leads to those situations where people who should know better tumbles down rabbit holes.

 

[SineWave]

I remember watching an archeology documentary that investigated how Judaisme originally morphed form a multitheistic concept much like greek/roman/norse mythology into the monotheistic one that also gave birth to Christianity and Islam. I think the conclusion was that it was simply more practical to have a single deity rather than worshipping a myriad of forces of nature. It was just more effective, and that's probably why it got adopted so (relatively) fast. I think it's fascinating.

Sorry for going seriously off topic



I think that's actually a good point. We need some wonder and amazement in our lives to keep things interesting, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But when it gets mixed with egocentrisme and/or overconfidence, it leads to those situations where people who should know better tumbles down rabbit holes.

What was the original topic?

Fantasizing about the stars like George Lucas did is cool.

But believing in the unproven can (but not always) lead to things like Heaven's Gate, 9/11, ISIS, Crusades and so on...