The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie??? The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie??? - Page 21

starting strength gym
Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 255

Thread: The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    992

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    I have no objection to Wikipedia (no need to fuck myself, thank goodness). I just don't see why you would link to articles that don't support your position. The crime one in particular states the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
    Ah, had my positive and negative correlations mixed up. I still think it pans out on country levels though (as in less religious countries have less crime), however that is probably more to do with education reducing both crime and religiosity than religiosity producing crime.

    I wouldn't think religiosity in and of itself would lead to crime, but it's a symptom of ignorance, which is probably correlated with lacking education, which again is definitely correlated with crime.

    So many confounding factors here, and I'm not saying at all that religion is one of the worst ones, but I do consider high religiosity a symptom of a population that lacks scientific literacy, even though many scientists retain their religion.

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    165

    Default

    So must we be agnostic about the existence of flying saucers, unicorns, reincarnation, astrology, etc. because there's no proof that they exist (work, etc), and no proof that they don't exist? Or would it be more rational to disbelieve in them until we've received sufficient proof?

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpg View Post
    So must we be agnostic about the existence of flying saucers, unicorns, reincarnation, astrology, etc. because there's no proof that they exist (work, etc), and no proof that they don't exist? Or would it be more rational to disbelieve in them until we've received sufficient proof?
    We should be honest. What is to be lost by simply explaining to someone why you don't believe what they do? I have no issue with arguing against a specific claim that has in fact been disproved, but what is so terrifying about saying "I suppose that's possible in theory, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that a reasonable person should believe that"?

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lankytunes View Post
    Most believers do not have as narrow and fundamentalist a hold on their beliefs as you seem to do of your interpretation of those beliefs. It is pretty much people like you and the attendees of the creation museum that hold to a literal seven 24 hour days of creation being the proper way to view the story in Genesis. This has been the case since the earliest written discussions of the subject.
    I never said all believers, or non-believers, are one way or another. I said as a whole, on a societal level, religion has adverse effect on the pursuit of knowledge. What exactly is fundamentalist in that statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by lankytunes View Post
    I am not missing the point. I just don't buy into your false comparison. One can believe in pretty much any scientific theory and still hold to their being a deity or deities who are using those mechanisms to accomplish whatever the heck they're after. It may be wrong and it may even be stupid, but that does not make it a hindrance to scientific inquiry because it is addressing an issue outside of it's reach.
    Why do you keep bringing up counterexamples to something I am not saying? Obviously, there are believers who are skeptics and pursue knowledge, just like there are non-believers that are apathetic and blissfully ignorant. I never said otherwise. This is why I am talking about the societal/worldwide level effects, and not individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by lankytunes View Post
    A much bigger hindrance are all the people who cling to old science that has been debunked. That group includes the religious and the nonreligious and poses a bigger risk of holding back knowledge than someone who thinks prayer might effect the weather.

    Ironically, that's kinda what this thread is really about.
    I am not sure whether this is a bigger hindrance than religion in general, but I definitely agree it's a big one. A lot of Rip's articles are targeted at this "old science" as you call it.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Yesler's Palace, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    14,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lankytunes View Post
    There is a difference between saying that you do not have evidence that the universe has meaning and stating that it does not. The second is just as assumptive as saying that there is meaning and we just have not found the evidence yet. Both opinions are speaking about something they have no ability to know. They are both a statement of what someone BELIEVES to be true.
    And yet it is not an act of faith to hold a belief based on empirical evidence and logic.

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpg View Post
    So must we be agnostic about the existence of flying saucers, unicorns, reincarnation, astrology, etc. because there's no proof that they exist (work, etc), and no proof that they don't exist? Or would it be more rational to disbelieve in them until we've received sufficient proof?
    No. This is changing the argument. The original assertion was that "The world is clearly driven by random events has no inherent meaning, and the universe is absurdly huge and disinterested." This is a statement of believe, not skepticism. I for one did not become a skeptic just to substitute one belief system for another. He may have ment to make a skeptical argument, but was he said was religious. Sorry for pointing this out. I cannot read his mind, just his forum post, and I suppose I am just not generous enough to assume a skeptical argument, just because he is attacking the proper group.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpg View Post
    So must we be agnostic about the existence of ... unicorns ... because there's no proof that they exist (work, etc), and no proof that they don't exist? Or would it be more rational to disbelieve in them until we've received sufficient proof?
    *Ahem* The national animal of Scotland is the unicorn.


  8. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RugbySmartarse View Post
    WWJD: What Would Jesus Deadlift
    That is a very good question Rugby Union man.

    But it was not that type of weight mate.

    The load was so heavy it crushed the bloody life out of Him.

    Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
    Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
    Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    Quote Originally Posted by tertius View Post
    The world is clearly driven by random events has no inherent meaning, and the universe is absurdly huge and disinterested.
    Like the NYSE and my Mrs cooking.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tertius View Post
    And yet it is not an act of faith to hold a belief based on empirical evidence and logic.
    Nonsense. Both positions have evidence and assumptions involved in their conclusions (whether they're reliable or not is another question) and neither has certainty. You simply have a very narrow definition of what faith is and you put so much of it into your own assumptions that you mistake it for something other than faith.

    Nobody has the perspective to state whether or not the universe has meaning without making them a statement of faith.

    Which meaning would you be disputing anyway?

    I get the whole thing of people looking at how horrible the world is an saying that God' love cannot be the meaning, but even if we ruled that out it's meaning may be that He is a prick and is screwing with us. Certainly looks that way at time. Those are only two possibilities.

    You believe, in spite of the fact that your belief in the universe being random contradicts this particular belief, that the current evidence (arguably) pointing to the universe being random means that all further evidence will lead to that same conclusion. That belief requires an act of faith because it is not and cannot be known empirically.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    165

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Pluripotent View Post
    No. This is changing the argument. The original assertion was that "The world is clearly driven by random events has no inherent meaning, and the universe is absurdly huge and disinterested." This is a statement of believe, not skepticism. I for one did not become a skeptic just to substitute one belief system for another. He may have ment to make a skeptical argument, but was he said was religious. Sorry for pointing this out. I cannot read his mind, just his forum post, and I suppose I am just not generous enough to assume a skeptical argument, just because he is attacking the proper group.
    I see what you're saying. The universe seems random to us, but there may be an overarching organization or design that we're not aware of. You are saying you have no idea if the universe was created by a god. Even if there is no evidence, it still could have happened, so the nonbeliever can't say god does not exist any more than the believer can say he does exist. Related example. I have no idea if the Earth was ever visited from beings from another planet. Since it's possible it happened, I can't say that the lack of evidence of visitation proves that Earth was never visited. So I'm just as justified in believing in flying saucers and little green men as a Christian is in believing in the divinity of Christ, miracles, angels, etc.

Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •