Smart people don't believe in god...

[Baley]

I'm sorry for what I'm about to do. I didn't bother reading the thread, I'm just sticking my head in to say that you have the title the wrong way round.

 

It should be: Smart gods don't believe in people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Smart people don't believe in god...  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

God doesn't believe in smart people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Darth Flatus]

and i then i said that means all his followers are stupid.

[WITHTEETH]

Hey, don't talk to the invisible old wise man that live in the clouds that way! he is Merciful and will kill you with 3 waves of armies and take over Iraq while hes on a roll! Hes Peaceful damnit! he killed everything off once to wipe the slate clean, how nice, I'm going to pray for more peace now

 

Schizophrenic aye?

[Rosbjerg]

math isn't something you believe in. math just is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

huh? of course it's something you believe in .. everything is! how can you be 100% certain of anything?? you can't .. everything requires different degrees of faith, nothing is certain, and that includes science and mathematics!

[213374U]

No, not mathematics. Mathematics are a self-contained parcel of certainty. As he said, they just are.

[Rosbjerg]

No, not mathematics. Mathematics are a self-contained parcel of certainty. As he said, they just are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would love to see the proof of that .. Math is logical yes .. math seems very certatin true! but it's not some kind of divine/superior/what-have-you system that you bow down before in total submission ..

 

what you see, what you believe to be certain, is simply interpretations of your brains and rooted habits .. just because you have a staunch faith in math doesn't make it real or true .. same with God! but because we have become so used to the former we simply accept it without question ..

which is what this thread is insulting religious people for doing with their belief!

[random evil guy]

math isn't something you believe in. math just is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

huh? of course it's something you believe in .. everything is! how can you be 100% certain of anything?? you can't .. everything requires different degrees of faith, nothing is certain, and that includes science and mathematics!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, math just is. math is useless on its own. it is a self contained reality. it has nothing to do with beliefs or perception. it just is.

 

i.e. a mathematical proof is 100% certain. it is not debatable. if something is mathematically correct, it is 100% correct.

[WITHTEETH]

What if somebodies reality really thought that 2 + 1 = 4

 

Is it just your opinion that its wrong? ah realities clashing

[Darth Flatus]

I deleted my previous "huh?" but i gott apost it here: huh?

 

EDIT: no seriously i'm a maths graduate and i cant even get a handle on what you are saying

 

I can appreciate (but don't necessarily agree with) Ros's assertion that nothing can be certain.

 

But i am a little confused at what you are trying to say withteeth.

[WITHTEETH]

:D ok here i go.

 

I am saying EVERYBODY has their own reality. i live in a yellow submarine, baley lives in a forum and you live on malachor 5. my reality is different then yours because i live in a yellow submarine and know that 2+3=4 and you dont know that because you went to jedi school. and baley is riding a pony. :D

 

edit: some people noticed the cup on the table in a room the others might say they SWEAR it was not there because they did not see it. In history, some people will say Sinai is in Africa some will say it is in Asia

[213374U]

I would love to see the proof of that .. Math is logical yes .. math seems very certatin true! but it's not some kind of divine/superior/what-have-you system that you bow down before in total submission ..

 

what you see, what you believe to be certain, is simply interpretations of your brains and rooted habits .. just because you have a staunch faith in math doesn't make it real or true .. same with God!

No. You see, math are built upon a framework called logic. Logic is a man-made abstract construct that obeys a few simple and well defined rules, which are not principles or postulates, but just instructions. As such, they don't need to be true from a transcendental standpoint (it wouldn't make sense), they just need to be clear.

 

Since mathematics follow those rules, mathematics are always true within the logic framework they operate in. But it turns out that outside that framework, they are not only baseless, but also meaningless. And since they are fundamentally abstract, their relation with anything meaningful in the "real" world is not immediate and must be drawn by science.

 

Mathematics are just a tool, they don't have a "sense" which you can discuss. They just are. And the reason this is that way is because we have defined them that way.

 

The same reasoning goes for science, only their framework is the physical world. If you try to apply them outside of it, they don't make sense. It is reasonable to think that since we didn't define the physical reality, science, being a human tool to rationalize it, is not as accurate as mathematics.

[Rosbjerg]

I would love to see the proof of that .. Math is logical yes .. math seems very certatin true! but it's not some kind of divine/superior/what-have-you system that you bow down before in total submission ..

 

what you see, what you believe to be certain, is simply interpretations of your brains and rooted habits .. just because you have a staunch faith in math doesn't make it real or true .. same with God!

No. You see, math are built upon a framework called logic. Logic is a man-made abstract construct that obeys a few simple and well defined rules, which are not principles or postulates, they are just instructions. As such, they don't need to be true from a transcendental standpoint (it wouldn't make sense), they just need to be clear.

 

Since mathematics follow those rules, mathematics are always true within the logic framework they operate in. But it turns out that outside that framework, they are not only baseless, but also meaningless. And since they are fundamentally abstract, their relation with anything meaningful in the "real" world is not immediate and must be drawn by science.

 

Mathematics are just a tool, they don't have a "sense" which you can discuss. They just are. And the reason this is that way is because we have defined them that way.

 

The same reasoning goes for science, only their framework is the physical world. If you try to apply them outside of it, they don't make sense. It is reasonable to think that since we didn't define the physical reality, science, being a human tool to rationalize it, is not as accurate as mathematics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ahh, but then we agree .. within it's own (this was the key word) system math is perfect!

 

of course you've actually said that earlier, but that just proves I'm fallible too! "

 

so Random Evil Guy (what a wierd way of adressing a person actually), if you were saying this as well, we have nothing to argue about either!

 

Math, in relation to "reality" (all layers included), and out of it's own system, becomes uncertain! But within it's own boundries, and following it's own rules, it just is ..

 

kinda like God ..

[213374U]

What if somebodies reality really thought that 2 + 1 = 4

 

Is it just your  opinion that its wrong?  ah realities clashing 

There is no difference. You know, some guy said that "10 + 11 = 101", and he invented a whole new algebra. His rules are as true as the regular, decimal algebra. If you think you can build a rational system based on "2 + 1 = 4" go right ahead. You might earn a Nobel Prize and have your name written into the annals of History.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Well, I believe in a religion because to me it makes the most sence. I don't care if studies show that religious people aren't as smart as non-religious people I will always believe in my religion. Also I have to say in general, religion is a good thing (except any violent religions).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which essentially leaves Buddhism and Wicca.

 

I'm curious though, what is it about religion that makes the most sense? The all-powerful, all-knowing giant invisible deity who would rather let people kill each other off instead of saying, hey, here I am and stop killing each other off? Or if you believe in a pantheon, how about many different gods of differing powers who are in many ways more flawed than human beings? Or about about the concept of a loving, merciful deity who will torture people for eternity just for their thoughts?

[Laozi]

Wicca is witchcraft right, the belief you can influence others by burning incense and stuff

[Cantousent]

I get a kick out of folks suggesting that Buddhism is a non-violent religion. Christianity is a non-violent religion by the same standards. Christians can be quite violent. The core of Buddhism is non-violent, but there have been some notably violent Buddhists. They have great temples, though. The idea of tolerance should include taking a profession of faith as the core tenets of the religion rather than what some of the members have done in its name.

 

When the idea of tolerance is used by "enlightened" atheists as a way to insult religious believers, then it ceases to lose any real meaning. The very term intolerance becomes ironic.

 

For instance, I'm not going to persecute my neighbors and try to confiscate their property. So, while I agree that there was an inquisition, and that it was ugly and inhumane, I'm certainly not an inquisitor. I'm a Catholic. I admit it freely. ...But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the mistakes my church has made in the past. You cannot blame an entire group for the sins of a few, often committed centuries ago. If that's the case, then you're all just as bad as the next guy. After all, we share our humanity if nothing else. Ulitmately, we're all in the same group.

 

As for numbers, that's just a matter of language. The expression of the numbers is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how we express the self evident truths. 2+2=4, no matter how we express the equation. Moreover, it is a universally accepted and self evident truth. It is the reality in which we live. That we can express the same reality in different ways does not change the reality. ...And it's quite different from religion.

[Rosbjerg]

As for numbers, that's just a matter of language.  The expression of the numbers is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter how we express the self evident truths.  2+2=4, no matter how we express the equation.  Moreover, it is a universally accepted and self evident truth.  It is the reality in which we live.  That we can express the same reality in different ways does not change the reality.  ...And it's quite different from religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But what is the real reality? how do we know .. how can I trust that what I see is what you see? Humans think and structure their minds in symbols, and like with dreams we must interpret these individually.. so then my reality is not yours .. how then can we say there is a fundamental reality? when none us of truly knows what it is .. my point is just, that nothing is certain! you can't be sure that science is right, you can't be sure religion is .. it's all a matter of faith! so religion and science shares that common ground.. This does not diminsh it however, since everything is uncertain, and there's nothing wrong with beliefs as long as we remember to question them from time to time!

 

we all trust familiar patterns, what we think is certainties .. but no matter how rooted our belief in something is, we need skepticism, since that is a powerful tool of critical thinking, creativity and freeing the mind of confirmative patterns ..

[Cantousent]

I sympathize with you, Rosbjerg. I just see your argument as circular. There has to be some level on which folks of good "faith" can agree, regardless of their views on God. We have to find at least one area upon which we agree if we're ever to isolate the areas where we disagree and the areas where agreement is impossible.

[Child of Flame]

Someone devoutly religious in the true sense, should examine, question, and explore what they are told.  Otherwise they're just parroting what they've been told, rather than studying the context, meaning, and history behind the word. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The irony here is that most of you use scientific theories as arguments .. but I seriously doubt that you have studied, calculated and pondered deeply over these theories yourself! so how come a devout Christian/Muslim has to put his belief in the context of science, when you accept the latter's words, and just as gullible, as the religious accept the scriptures?

 

now you may argue that new theories arise, and you read up on those, while religion is stagnant .. but it's still the same pattern, you accept it without doing research yourself .. trusting the words of others, simply because they seem to know what they are talking about .. how is this any different, fundamentally, from devoted religious people??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If this was directed at me, you made a bad call. I'm religious. I'm a Christian, and I'm constantly studying scripture in an effort to understand myself, and the world better. I've examined enough to think to my own beliefs that what is recorded in the Old and New Testaments is true...however I can also play devil's advocate, and admit, that there is a chance (insignificant in my mind) that it's all a sham. By 'all' I mean what the religion is based on, not organized religion. Organized religion, to a large extent, is indeed a sham. Rife with church politics. Not just Catholics either, one Protestant church I went to, the new Senior Pastor molested one of the [underage] girls in the youth group who's family he was counseling, the whole thing was never brought to trial, instead, a settlement was paid, and despite everyone's claims that it was reported to the authorities, he's not listed in any of the sex offender lists I've managed to dredge up, all in the name of 'saving face' and 'not tarnishing the face of Christianity'.

 

Then there's the constant agendas, taking verses out of context to support the cause of the day. Entire thing pisses me off.

 

Christianity started off well enough, Jesus was the man who's affected history most throughout the ages regardless of whether or not you believe in his divinity. Sometimes I feel kinda sorry for him, what with all the dolts that claim him as their God these days.

[Child of Flame]

I sympathize with you, Rosbjerg.  I just see your argument as circular.  There has to be some level on which folks of good "faith" can agree, regardless of their views on God.  We have to find at least one area upon which we agree if we're ever to isolate the areas where we disagree and the areas where agreement is impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think the most common thread in religions is a theme of non-violence, and tolerance of others. As I've already said though, when organized religion comes into the mix, agendas shortly follow.

[Cantousent]

Non violence is certainly an admirable goal, but I think we should come to some sort of agreement on basic realities before we can tackle morals and beliefs. Then we can get into the tougher issues such as moral issues and then, finally, argue about God. heh heh.

[Child of Flame]

Non violence is certainly an admirable goal, but I think we should come to some sort of agreement on basic realities before we can tackle morals and beliefs.  Then we can get into the tougher issues such as moral issues and then, finally, argue about God.  heh heh. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Basic realities? Well, what Rosbjerg was talking about, has always struck me as a load of pseudo-intellectual B.S., and one that's been highly over-used since the Matrix movies came out.

 

I figure the only reality there's any proof of, is the one I'm standing in right now. That you, I, and everyone on this board shares.

 

It should also be pointed out, that using the argument Rosbjerg was toting, any schizophrenic's hallucinations are real.

[Darth Flatus]

I'm wondering if Rosbjerg is a fan of Descartes "

[Rosbjerg]

Servant of Eru: Basic realities? Well, what Rosbjerg was talking about, has always struck me as a load of pseudo-intellectual B.S., and one that's been highly over-used since the Matrix movies came out.

 

and oh how I hate the Matrix for that! because if I was saying this, without the matrix making the argument pop, you wouldn't relate to it as pseudo-intellectual bull****.. just like "Everything is relative" it's being used too much! it's still valid, but people don't listen to the words because they are fed up with idiots spouting it all the time .. which is why (if I want to make the argument) I use the Zen quote that goes "Water on it's own has no sound, but when I flows on stones it gurgles"

 

I've actually thought about my world view .. long and hard, and I have believed in it long before The Matrix came out!

 

If this was directed at me, you made a bad call. I'm religious. I'm a Christian, and I'm constantly studying scripture in an effort to understand myself

 

sorry if I made a stab at you .. but I was trying to use their line of logic to show them that they were doing the same thing as they were attacking others for ..

I of course respect the fact that you actually take the time to really think about what believe in .. which, for me, is the best thing a man can do .. be a critical thinker! and form his own mind, even if it's based on others foundations (which we all do)..

[213374U]

I sympathize with you, Rosbjerg.  I just see your argument as circular.  There has to be some level on which folks of good "faith" can agree, regardless of their views on God.  We have to find at least one area upon which we agree if we're ever to isolate the areas where we disagree and the areas where agreement is impossible.

Hmm. Mathematics have nothing to do with that. They are not negotiable.

 

 

Basic realities?  Well, what Rosbjerg was talking about, has always struck me as a load of pseudo-intellectual B.S., and one that's been highly over-used since the Matrix movies came out. 

 

I figure the only reality there's any proof of, is the one I'm standing in right now.  That you, I, and everyone on this board shares. 

 

It should also be pointed out, that using the argument Rosbjerg was toting, any schizophrenic's hallucinations are real.

Oh how would I love to be so certain. But think for example of the light spectrum. If you could see in the UV and IR spectrums too, the world would be nothing like you think it is now. And that is because we know of other light frequencies that are invisible to us. But what about those other things that science hasn't fully covered yet? Our knowledge of the space-time continuum is a bit limited yet, for example.

It is not unreasonable to think that there may be things that we don't even know about. So, taking things that you see as absolute just because you can see and touch them is just another belief. Plato illustrated this point quite nicely in his allegory of the cave.