Comment by Keith Pinster on July 23, 2012 at 9:35pm

@Josh - Sorry, but again I disagree.  I think it is HIGHLY improbable that people would create a story about a "talking snake" or any other "bad guy" that is actually trying to save humanity from the cruelty of enslavement of ignorance by the supposed "hero" god of the story.  It's not just that the story is improbable because of the idiocy of the talking snake, you have to also combine that with the fact that the story claims that the "evil" character is actually helping humanity, whereas the "good" (actually, the best of all the good) character is actually damaging humanity.  Each of these makes the story implausible, but the combination of these 2 logical fallacies makes it nearly impossible to recreate.

The OP is not pointing out that delusional superstitions won't re-emerge, just that the human imagination is boundless, and will make up an unlimited number of possible fairy tales.  On the other hand, science is the process of finding out impassive, observable, empirical truths about reality. 

Even if, by some off the wall chance a story about a talking snake with so many logical holes you could drive a convoy through it did appear, it wouldn't be related to such a crazy superstition as xianity.  The evidence of this is that it hasn't happened twice in all of the worlds history. If it were at all likely, wouldn't it have happened at least 1 other time in the last 200,000 years?

Comment by Keith Pinster on July 23, 2012 at 9:47pm

I am very clear that the OP was *about* science vs. superstitious delusion.  But you seem to be saying that no one is ever allowed to have an "opinion" about the validity of "science"?  Again, that just doesn't make any sense.  That sort of argument seems to fall into the same category as the argument that we can't use the bible to disprove the bible because we don't believe in the bible.

I am a gnostic atheist and I love science.  But I have opinions about all sorts of things, even while at the same time knowing that I don't have every single bit of information about those things.  Because we are scientists (or just support the process of scientific discovery), we are not allowed to have opinions based on incomplete data?  Sorry, but, you are just flat out wrong.  Opinion is only invalid in the light of contrary evidence, so if you can't actually come up with any evidence to disprove the OP's statement, you have every right in the world to say you, personally disagree with the conclusion, but you don't really have the right to say the other person's opinion is wrong. Do you see the difference?

Comment by josh sapinoso on July 24, 2012 at 3:54am

@Keith So let me get this straight..of the billions and billions of people that have lived on the earth , only one of them has ever had the idea (or one close to it) for that story in the bible? Now that's truly divine... What made it such a unique idea that no one else out of however many billion people that have lived on the earth couldn't? Was it some sort of omnipotent being that spoke to that person and gave them such a unique idea? Was it god whispering into his/her ear this story of the bible, is that why a story like this has only been thought of once?  What made that story so special that it could only be thought up of once in the last 200,000 years... Well ill be darned, that must be a miracle from god.

I doubt thats the case. Like you said, "the human imagination is boundless, and will make up an unlimited number of possible fairy tales," im pretty sure a couple of those could resemble the story in the bible. Whether any one hears them or gives a shit about them is another story.

Comment by josh sapinoso on July 24, 2012 at 4:18am

"That sort of argument seems to fall into the same category as the argument that we can't use the bible to disprove the bible because we don't believe in the bible."

I would say its more like arguing the hypocrisy of "holy wars". They're defending something, yet breaking its conventions. I.E coming to untestable conclusions of science based on nothing yet assuring they would happen all while saying how cool it is.

Yeah I know saying peoples opinions are wrong is a douche move but, It didn't look like an opinion( I mean the thing is even formulated like a fuckin (poorly written) hypothesis) to me at first, but whatever, i disagree with it anyway.

Ill write what i would think would happen later. im going to sleep now

Comment by Keith Pinster on July 24, 2012 at 11:53am

They are only breaking "convention" if they are claiming it is a scientific certainty, which they are not.

Comment by Keith Pinster on July 24, 2012 at 12:08pm

@Josh - "...that must be a miracle from god." I would consider it more of a miracle (and evidence of god) if the story seemed to have stemmed from multiple cultures from disparate regions of earth.  As to your point about a similar story being imagined up by more than one nutcase in the hundreds of thousands of years of history, I do see your point.  But look at it this way: the basis of the OP is not necessarily that it won't be conceived by some lunatic (if you look at the intention of the quote, rather than focus specifically and only on its exact wording), but rather that it will be important enough to be part of our history.  I'm sure lots of crazy notions from uncounted cults have come and gone without a whisper in the annals of mankind, but few weather the test of time and fewer yet weather the test of science (read: reason and logic).

Regardless, we can only hope that eventually the various cults of abraham will disappear as the others have, forgotten by a society of rational, reasonable, compassionate humans who don't buy into any moronic delusional superstitions.

Comment by kOrsan on July 26, 2012 at 5:10pm

Hey Anthony.

It gives people the ability to answer questions when they don't really know the answer.

They're not fucking supposed to! That's the point.

Comment by Keith Pinster on July 26, 2012 at 9:16pm

@kOrsan - I'm more concerned with this part of his statement - "Religion didn't cause violence. People caused violence; selfishness caused violence."

Really?  Religion didn't cause violence? Religion didn't give the nutcases not only the attitude that it's okay to murder doctors, but the self-righteous indignity to justify it? Religion didn't justify the actions of those morons who flew our jetliners into the twin towers? Religion didn't pave the way for the inquisitions or the "holy wars"? I have to wonder where the term "holy war" came from if not religion.

I'm also curious why the religious are the people who feel completely justified in statements like "If they don't believe in god, let's burn them at the stake and show them that he really exists!" No, oh no, RELIGION doesn't "cause" violence!  What crack do you think Anthony is smoking to make a statement like that?  LOL

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page