The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 05, 2022, 11:43:16 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  stupid argument
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: stupid argument  (Read 16441 times)
Neonlare
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 277


Nut Case for Star Control


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2007, 01:01:46 pm »

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.   -Albert Einstein



Quoted for Truth.
Logged

"would newton's law theory actually work if a Chmmr Avatar did a backwards pelvic thrust towards a planet and would this constitute an X=Y-0 in the part it ran straight into a Supox Blade and lasted long enough to survive?" - Elerium (as Valaggar)
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2007, 02:03:43 pm »

What bugs me is that so many people still believe in God wholeheartedly, even though it's the least based of all creation theories.

Er.. least based? I assume you mean least based on fact, in which case your argument doesn't make sense to me. The very point of a religious creatin theory is that it is based on faith and belief rather than fact. So you an believe it to be true with all your heart, but you can't prove it or ever be certain from a scientific standpoint. Are there some other creation theories than religious ones and scientific ones that are semi based on fact?

Quote
What really bugs me is that they don't just believe there's some creator being (which isn't farfetched per se), but that they have a "religion", a set of superstitions based on some books people wrote. Religion is the greatest scam perpetrated on the public, really.

How are these two things different anyhow? People who belong to a religion believe in a lot of things not based in fact, but I don't see why being part of Christianity and beleiving in the holy trinity should bug you more than being a lone believer in Remultap the fashionably Excellent Djinn. The only difference is the amount of people, why is that annoying? Or are you simply opposing the existence of organzied religion by colouring people who belong to it as more annoying?
Logged

What's up doc?
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3867


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2007, 05:58:34 pm »

Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2007, 07:56:59 pm »

Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?
Logged

What's up doc?
Neonlare
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 277


Nut Case for Star Control


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2007, 09:20:50 pm »

Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

Scientology perhaps?
Logged

"would newton's law theory actually work if a Chmmr Avatar did a backwards pelvic thrust towards a planet and would this constitute an X=Y-0 in the part it ran straight into a Supox Blade and lasted long enough to survive?" - Elerium (as Valaggar)
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2007, 09:42:02 pm »

Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

Scientology perhaps?

Yes, because there is nothing quite as worldly as the parasite souls of dead aliens sucking your life energy away. An organized religion always has a lot of earthly condiments, but their main tenets tend to be spiritual.
Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2007, 04:12:21 am »

Nutty Buddy
Quote
Deus_Siddis: A god is defined as a creator of the universe. That definition is consistent.  With that settled, lets move on to your next quote...

Umm, Wrong. Think about the Greek Gods, the world created them, they only created us. Guess they didn't teach you that in sunday school though.

Quote
P.S. I feel stupid for even replying to these quotes...

And you sound so for how you replied to them. . .
Logged
Nutty Buddy
Guest


Email
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2007, 05:10:05 am »

My interpretation of Greek mythology says that the gods did not come from the world, but from Chaos (which did have unformed elements of sorts) but then the world was created.

Greek Creation Myths
1)In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

2)In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering".
She was the Goddess of All Things, and desired to make order out of the Chaos. By coupling with a huge and powerful snake, Ophion, or as some legends say, coupling with the North Wind, she gave birth to Eros, god of Love, also known as Protagonus, the "firstborn".
Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus. In this manner, she created great lands upon which she might wander, a veritable universe, populating it with exotic creatures such as Nymphs, Furies, and Charites as well as with countless beasts and monsters.

3)In the beginning, there was only Chaos and Eros. Gaea, the earth, Erebus, the underworld, and Night emerged from the mixing of these two, and Gaea gave birth to Uranus, the heavens, who then became her mate, and Oceanus, the oceans.

It seems to me that there are a lot of different myths for Greek creation.

Do you have a different story?

Also -Most Sunday Schools, of course, would not teach greek mythology. I take your comment as an attempted stab at my belief system. Do you think you're morally superior because you don't go to church? Do you think that your beliefs are anymore valid than mine? Maybe if  I took the time to GRACE you with the beauty of my beliefs you'd actually be able to answer that. Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 05:44:00 am by Nutty Buddy » Logged
waywardoctagon
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 142


More information...


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2007, 05:59:52 am »

Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

It can also be an explanation for things you don't understand.  The human mind craves explanations.  Why does the sun go across the sky?  Well, obviously it's because there's someone up there pulling it around.  I mean, you're not necessarily going to arrive at the whole gravity thing right off; that kind of thing tends to take a lot of background work.

ETA:
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 06:18:48 am by waywardoctagon » Logged
Shiver
Guest


Email
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2007, 06:13:37 am »

Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?

Deus_Siddis is always like that. In another thread he was trying to explain how the US Supreme Court is "the most overpowered branch of government".
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2007, 06:27:12 am »

It can also be an explanation for things you don't understand. 

And this is in no way based on faith? Detahs point was that religion doesn't need to be entirely based on faith. Faith explains things we don't, and cannot understand.

Quote
The human mind craves explanations.  Why does the sun go across the sky?  Well, obviously it's because there's someone up there pulling it around.  I mean, you're not necessarily going to arrive at the whole gravity thing right off; that kind of thing tends to take a lot of background work.

Again, without concrete scientific data, any such explanation you come up with is based on faith. You can believe it to be true, but yoiu cannot prove it, nor call your belief any more valid than another (although you can of course believe that your belief is more valid). For instance, even if my primordial explanation of the Suns movement had been "The earth slings around it", it'd still have been an item of faith. Equally plausible as "The god of fire rides his chariot around the world.
Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2007, 06:31:06 am »

Quote
Do you have a different story?

No, just the part you left out. The Greek Gods of Olympus were not great creators of the universe as you said a god was defined as. And yet they are considered gods and were worshipped as such.

Quote
Also -Most Sunday Schools, of course, would not teach greek mythology. I take your comment as an attempted stab at my belief system. Do you think you're morally superior because you don't go to church?

No, just perhaps intellectually superior through the absence of a religious arrogance that rewrites history and creates definitions solely from its own teachings.

Quote
Do you think that your beliefs are anymore valid than mine?

Depends on the belief I would guess. Your definition of a god seems shaky and narrow, so there I would say less valid.

Quote
Maybe if  I took the time to GRACE you with the beauty of my beliefs you'd actually be able to answer that.

I suppose I am not worthy of such beauty. But even in this state of ignorance you have left me in, I do not doubt this beauty, for such is the case with dreams that they can be purely so, while the things of undisputed reality are victim to natural flaws and forces.

If you did bestow the beauty of your mindset upon me however, I might be able paint a world of even greater majesty. But that wouldn't make it any more real.

Quote
Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?

Well I'm typing, so that would be no small trick for a hooved animal.

But what about you, are you a dog or do you just pretend to be one?
Logged
waywardoctagon
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 142


More information...


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2007, 06:38:38 am »

And this is in no way based on faith? Detahs point was that religion doesn't need to be entirely based on faith. Faith explains things we don't, and cannot understand.

True.  I was responding more to the spiritual/purpose idea, though.  So the "other reasons for believing" would just be because it's the best explanation someone can come up with, not necessarily entirely because it's a deep spiritual thing.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2007, 06:40:26 am »

Deus makes a good point, albeit in a highly amusing fashion. If you feel offended, keep in mind that he only gives as he receives. Ares, Hera and the likes are certainly considered gods, and they didn't create anything (except trouble for Hercules). The same would go for Tor, Tyr and most other Valhallan gods.  Besides, the stories you cite don't really paint anyone as the creator of the universe. there was already Chaos and water, or some such thing where the ur-gods resided. Unless you're making the argument that the gods come from a different universe, and created this and stepped in. 'd say your definition fits monotheistic religions well, but polytheistic much less so.

EDIT: Wayward posted while i was writing. Yes, certainly the idea doesn't have to give something a purpose. The Fire God could just be driving for fun. It would be spiritual in most cases though. Do we know of any old time explanations for things that didn't include a spiritual/supernatural/whatevernotphyscial element?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 06:43:11 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: stupid argument
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2007, 06:45:56 am »

Shiver
Quote
Deus_Siddis is always like that. In another thread he was trying to explain how the US Supreme Court is "the most overpowered branch of government".

Umm, I'm not sure that statement has the devastating, stand-alone effect that you think it does. Maybe you should start supporting your many critisms on this forum with something beyond disbelief or disgust? Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!