Theism, Religion and Lack thereof

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

*smokes suspicious looking plant* Naah man, thats just what They *want* you to think! You gotta dig deep, into your internal cosmic, maaan. And when you reach your internal cosmic, you will see that your soul could be pink, maaaan. And if it is pink you are a righteous being in the galactic egg of the universal breakfast, maaaaaan. Whoa. Thats like, deep, maaaaan. *smokes more*

Your beliefs are just as unlikely as the ones you are mocking; you are in no position to make fun of anyone else's religion.

 

[Eloi]

Your beliefs are just as unlikely as the ones you are mocking; you are in no position to make fun of anyone else's religion.

Being a hippie is a religion now?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Being a hippie is a religion now?

Well, actually I was referring to the beliefs to which you replied with your little hippie routine, but now that you mention it, the mocking comment you made could be someone's beliefs. Someone could believe in something called "the internal cosmic" where you soul is and that the colour of your soul reflects whether you are a righteous being within the galactic egg of the universal breakfast.

All that is still just as plausible as your belief in an afterlife.

Have a bit of respect for other people's beliefs. You can disagree with them, you can argue against them, you can state that they're ridiculous but don't mock them so maliciously. If you're gonna make a joke out of someone else's beliefs for being implausible, at least be light-hearted and self-deprecating about it. Don't just be mean.

 

[Eloi]

Well, actually I was referring to the beliefs to which you replied with your little hippie routine, but now that you mention it, the mocking comment you made could be someone's beliefs. Someone could believe in something called "the internal cosmic" where you soul is and that the colour of your soul reflects whether you are a righteous being within the galactic egg of the universal breakfast.

I think you'd need a hippie-level of drugs to believe that, but m'kay.

All that is still just as plausible as your belief in an afterlife.

A-ha, no.

Have a bit of respect for other people's beliefs. You can disagree with them, you can argue with them, you can even turn your arguments into a joke, but mocking someone for having beliefs that are just as implausible as yours is silly.

I disagree with the whole "just as implausible" bit. No source claims, outside of this person's own head, that God is the 77% dark energy and Satan is 23% dark matter. I used research to get to my conclusions, the only thing I believe was Jesus was correct and honest. The belief of the dark energy/matter would require a much bigger leap, as it has no sources to rely on.

Anyway, I was mocking something appended with "fucking bogus", I doubt the OP would be offended by my mocking of them. Now if the OP was like "and I sincerely believe that" I would not be as harsh or comment at all, but seeing as that is not the case, its not the case.

 

[opaltiger]

I used research to get to my conclusions, the only thing I believe was Jesus was correct and honest

You still haven't explained why this is more plausible than "Jesus was lying or mistaken", by the way.

 

[Eloi]

You still haven't explained why this is more plausible than "Jesus was lying or mistaken", by the way.

Its not more plausible, they are all equally plausible, this is where faith comes in.

This is unlike that guy's beliefs, which are just pseudo-science. Making up pseudo-science based on stuff you barely understand is not religious study or faith, its just junk.

 

[Aobaru]

Its not more plausible, they are all equally plausible, this is where faith comes in.

This is unlike that guy's beliefs, which are just pseudo-science. Making up pseudo-science based on stuff you barely understand is not religious study or faith, its just junk.

Pseudoscience = a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Religion

Pseudoscience

 

[Tarvos]

Its not more plausible, they are all equally plausible, this is where faith comes in.

Why do you think it is equally plausible that Jesus was correct or that he was lying?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Its not more plausible, they are all equally plausible, this is where faith comes in.

This is unlike that guy's beliefs, which are just pseudo-science. Making up pseudo-science based on stuff you barely understand is not religious study or faith, its just junk.

In other words, your beliefs are better than others because you read some books.

 

[Eloi]

In other words, your beliefs are better than others because you read some books.

No, there is a difference between believing someone's subjective view of reality, and someone making claims about reality without getting it from another source or claiming that its their subjective view.

 

[Tarvos]

No, there is a difference between believing someone's subjective view of reality, and someone making claims about reality without getting it from another source or claiming that its their subjective view.

That depends on the source, which could equally as well be subjective and hence crappola frappola. Also, subjective is not a euphemism for right.

 

[opaltiger]

Its not more plausible, they are all equally plausible, this is where faith comes in.

... wait, what's all equally plausible? I was asking you to explain why your point of view is more plausible than mine. If you're saying they're both equally plausible, well, I went over this several pages ago. Your point of view requires a complete overhauls of the laws of the universe as we know them. Mine doesn't. And yet they're equally plausible?

I don't understand people who cite 'faith' in these situations. What do you mean by that? How does faith come in? You have faith that your point of view is right, even though (according to you) my point of view is equally plausible? Why?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

No, there is a difference between believing someone's subjective view of reality, and someone making claims about reality without getting it from another source or claiming that its their subjective view.

Wait, so you believing someone else's beliefs is more valid than him having his own beliefs?

Also, how is his view of reality not subjective?

And furthermore, what makes his views on reality any more valid than Jesus's views on reality?

 

[Eloi]

First of: Can you all quit preaching to the choir? You realize everyone agrees with you, and I am not going to so whats the point in debating with me aside from being antagonistic?

Wait, so you believing someone else's beliefs is more valid than him having his own beliefs?

Also, how is his view of reality not subjective?

And furthermore, what makes his views on reality any more valid than Jesus's views on reality?

Because he doesn't claim to know this by his perspective, but a conclusion based on facts. As a conclusion based on facts, it fails to support itself. If it were "I observed X", it might be worthy of investigation, but seeing as that it isn't the case, it isn't.

 

[ultraviolet]

Can you all quit preaching to the choir? You realize everyone agrees with you, and I am not going to so whats the point in debating with me aside from being antagonistic?

This is a Serious Business Thread. If you do not like people disagreeing with you, don't post. Don't you think they're debating with you out of interest? I don't think anyone's trying to make you agree with them, they're challenging your beliefs (in a decidedly respectful way, which makes a nice change).

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen? Nobody's breaking any rules here.

 

[Butterfree]

To be honest, I've always had more respect for people who freely admit that their religious beliefs aren't the most likely explanation and are just a matter of personal faith than those who insist on pretending that their religion is the reasonable stance. (I don't personally understand it, but at least they're facing the facts in every reasonable sense; they're just choosing to in some sense 'believe' something that doesn't rhyme with them.) I entirely see where Eloi is coming from here. No matter how unlikely it is that Jesus was right, it is still obviously more likely than something somebody just makes up. Jesus saying so is evidence in that hypothesis's favor; it's very weak evidence, thanks to all the all the other, more plausible explanations for Jesus saying so than it being true, but the fact that if he were right he would be considerably likelier to say that than if he weren't means, by Bayes' theorem, that it is ever so slightly likelier that his theories are true if he does say it than if he didn't.

Your imagination coming up with something like God being dark matter, on the other hand, is not evidence in that hypothesis's favor at all, because your imagination coming up with it is completely independent of its truth or untruth. (Or, at the very least, any relation your imagination may have to its truth or untruth is shared by Jesus's imagination, so it evens out.)

 

[Eloi]

This is a Serious Business Thread. If you do not like people disagreeing with you, don't post. Don't you think they're debating with you out of interest? I don't think anyone's trying to make you agree with them, they're challenging your beliefs (in a decidedly respectful way, which makes a nice change).

Well, I can't really not stand up for myself, thus I stay.

 

[Tarvos]

It might be helpful for you if you didn't avoid some of the questions. For example, opal asked a very sensible question about equal plausibility - you could bother answering that instead of getting worked up over it being asked. This is a debating thread - you can expect critical questions from every corner and be asked to defend them.

In fact, I know I myself cannot answer every question perfectly. So do some of the others here as well. All of us are fallible.

If everyone agreed with everyone, the world would be a confusing place indeed.

 

[ultraviolet]

Well, I can't really not stand up for myself, thus I stay.

... why not, exactly? nobody's demanding that you debate here, but if you come into a thread about religion then you should expect your beliefs to be questioned. There are plenty of theists on this forum that simply avoid Serious Business because they don't enjoy debate. If you think you're going to 'lose' the argument (or something), your absence wouldn't change much, because a) nobody would care and b) you avoid some questions anyway (as Watershed said). If you leave, nobody's going to go 'yay, we defeated the crazy theist' (and if anyone does, they're entirely missing the point of this thread).

if you want to stay because you like the debate, then stay, if not, leave. People aren't picking on you deliberately; you happen to be the only theist debating in the thread currently.

 

[Music Dragon]

I entirely see where Eloi is coming from here. No matter how unlikely it is that Jesus was right, it is still obviously more likely than something somebody just makes up. Jesus saying so is evidence in that hypothesis's favor; it's very weak evidence, thanks to all the all the other, more plausible explanations for Jesus saying so than it being true, but the fact that if he were right he would be considerably likelier to say that than if he weren't means, by Bayes' theorem, that it is ever so slightly likelier that his theories are true if he does say it than if he didn't.

Your imagination coming up with something like God being dark matter, on the other hand, is not evidence in that hypothesis's favor at all, because your imagination coming up with it is completely independent of its truth or untruth. (Or, at the very least, any relation your imagination may have to its truth or untruth is shared by Jesus's imagination, so it evens out.)

... I really, really don't understand this. Why is Jesus any more believable than the "God is dark matter" guy?