Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 109110111112113 174>
Author
Message
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:04
^ Be careful not to confuse correlation and causality. It should also be pointed out that many of those studies are actually inconclusive, meaning that the rate of suicide is so low in all these countries, the differences are marginal.

One should also look closely at what the study actually does. Example:

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."


Many religions include the promise of a very pleasant afterlife. But since it would be somewhat impractical for members of the religion to commit mass suicide in order to skip the unpleasant life on earth and get to the afterlife immediately, these religion also include rules against suicide (commit suicide -> no heaven for you).

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:08
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:



Do I see you going for your banhammer, Dean?
My jokes are lame and my argument was crap, but even if they weren't I am forbidden to use my special powers for my own personal gain. Wink
What?
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:14
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Be careful not to confuse correlation and causality. It should also be pointed out that many of those studies are actually inconclusive, meaning that the rate of suicide is so low in all these countries, the differences are marginal.

One should also look closely at what the study actually does. Example:

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."


Many religions include the promise of a very pleasant afterlife. But since it would be somewhat impractical for members of the religion to commit mass suicide in order to skip the unpleasant life on earth and get to the afterlife immediately, these religion also include rules against suicide (commit suicide -> no heaven for you).



Not necessarely. If you are looking through the protestant perspective, yes, that is the truth. Muslim perspective? same thing. Catholic perspective? Not quite. The catholic church have some of the most complex means of salvation among the monotheist religions, so suicide weights as much as murderer, but the fact that you cannot make the confession and that you deny yourself the anointing of the sick weights negatively in the end, but it doens't keep you from salvation, as far as I know.

Edit: proven you followed the Church's comandments during your life prior to that.


Edited by CCVP - September 04 2010 at 13:15
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:16
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:



Do I see you going for your banhammer, Dean?
My jokes are lame and my argument was crap, but even if they weren't I am forbidden to use my special powers for my own personal gain. Wink



With great power comes great responsibilities, right?LOL
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:18
@Dean: I thought about what word to use - I stand by "crap", and the other option would have been "useless stuff".Wink

On a serious note: I think that common sense is underrated in these discussion - I see so many post-modernists or even worse: solipsists making all kinds of weird claims, stating that we can't really know anything to an absolute degree if certainty and therefore any claim is as valid as any other. I consider myself to be a realist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

I think that science has shown to work - and even if a particular scientific theory has turned out to be wrong, it was eventually replaced by an improved scientific theory while religion had nothing to offer. I'm willing to extrapolate into the future that until demonstrated otherwise, the scientific approach is the most reasonable choice.



Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 04 2010 at 13:18
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:20
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Be careful not to confuse correlation and causality. It should also be pointed out that many of those studies are actually inconclusive, meaning that the rate of suicide is so low in all these countries, the differences are marginal.

One should also look closely at what the study actually does. Example:

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."


Many religions include the promise of a very pleasant afterlife. But since it would be somewhat impractical for members of the religion to commit mass suicide in order to skip the unpleasant life on earth and get to the afterlife immediately, these religion also include rules against suicide (commit suicide -> no heaven for you).



Not necessarely. If you are looking through the protestant perspective, yes, that is the truth. Muslim perspective? same thing. Catholic perspective? Not quite. The catholic church have some of the most complex means of salvation among the monotheist religions, so suicide weights as much as murderer, but the fact that you cannot make the confession and that you deny yourself the anointing of the sick weights negatively in the end, but it doens't keep you from salvation, as far as I know.

Edit: proven you followed the Church's comandments during your life prior to that.


What? AFAIK suicide is one of the most unforgivable sins in Catholicism. Maybe Iván could comment on this and can shed some light on the subject.
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:25
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Be careful not to confuse correlation and causality. It should also be pointed out that many of those studies are actually inconclusive, meaning that the rate of suicide is so low in all these countries, the differences are marginal.

One should also look closely at what the study actually does. Example:

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."


Many religions include the promise of a very pleasant afterlife. But since it would be somewhat impractical for members of the religion to commit mass suicide in order to skip the unpleasant life on earth and get to the afterlife immediately, these religion also include rules against suicide (commit suicide -> no heaven for you).



Not necessarely. If you are looking through the protestant perspective, yes, that is the truth. Muslim perspective? same thing. Catholic perspective? Not quite. The catholic church have some of the most complex means of salvation among the monotheist religions, so suicide weights as much as murderer, but the fact that you cannot make the confession and that you deny yourself the anointing of the sick weights negatively in the end, but it doens't keep you from salvation, as far as I know.

Edit: proven you followed the Church's comandments during your life prior to that.


What? AFAIK suicide is one of the most unforgivable sins in Catholicism. Maybe Iván could comment on this and can shed some light on the subject.


It depends on which philosophical teachings you follow within the religion, which are VERY numerous, but yes, it is a very grave sin. Salvation, however, is not impossible if you are willing to regret your past sins and ask for forgiveness. That is one of the main reasons why the purgatory was created, on the middle ages, you know?


Edited by CCVP - September 04 2010 at 13:25
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:37
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Be careful not to confuse correlation and causality. It should also be pointed out that many of those studies are actually inconclusive, meaning that the rate of suicide is so low in all these countries, the differences are marginal.

One should also look closely at what the study actually does. Example:

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."


Many religions include the promise of a very pleasant afterlife. But since it would be somewhat impractical for members of the religion to commit mass suicide in order to skip the unpleasant life on earth and get to the afterlife immediately, these religion also include rules against suicide (commit suicide -> no heaven for you).



Not necessarely. If you are looking through the protestant perspective, yes, that is the truth. Muslim perspective? same thing. Catholic perspective? Not quite. The catholic church have some of the most complex means of salvation among the monotheist religions, so suicide weights as much as murderer, but the fact that you cannot make the confession and that you deny yourself the anointing of the sick weights negatively in the end, but it doens't keep you from salvation, as far as I know.

Edit: proven you followed the Church's comandments during your life prior to that.


What? AFAIK suicide is one of the most unforgivable sins in Catholicism. Maybe Iván could comment on this and can shed some light on the subject.
 
Used to be. The Church now recognises suicide as part of an illness, which diminishes the reponsibility of the person.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:04
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@Dean: I thought about what word to use - I stand by "crap", and the other option would have been "useless stuff".Wink
So any attempt by me to prove you didn't change what Iván said to deliberately misrepresent him and prove yourself right is crap/useless, or just that particular crap/useless explanation? Stern Smile
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


On a serious note: I think that common sense is underrated in these discussion - I see so many post-modernists or even worse: solipsists making all kinds of weird claims, stating that we can't really know anything to an absolute degree if certainty and therefore any claim is as valid as any other. I consider myself to be a realist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

I think that science has shown to work - and even if a particular scientific theory has turned out to be wrong, it was eventually replaced by an improved scientific theory while religion had nothing to offer. I'm willing to extrapolate into the future that until demonstrated otherwise, the scientific approach is the most reasonable choice.

I think philosophy is bunkum and a waste of an intellect - I would rather these people spent their time and intelligence doing something practical and useful rather than gazing into their own navels, so whatever wondrous theories and ideas the come up with to explain what we already know or accept is really not going to affect me or anyone else in any way, shape or form. No scientist reading about scientific realism is going to change what they do or how they do it as a result. Philosophy is a pseudoscience without conclusion, consequences or application and its only practical use is to stifle discussion with gobbledygook and psychobabble. 
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:15
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@Dean: I thought about what word to use - I stand by "crap", and the other option would have been "useless stuff".Wink
So any attempt by me to prove you didn't change what Iván said to deliberately misrepresent him and prove yourself right is crap/useless, or just that particular crap/useless explanation? Stern Smile



I appreciate the effort, I just didn't think that it had the intended effect. Wink

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


On a serious note: I think that common sense is underrated in these discussion - I see so many post-modernists or even worse: solipsists making all kinds of weird claims, stating that we can't really know anything to an absolute degree if certainty and therefore any claim is as valid as any other. I consider myself to be a realist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

I think that science has shown to work - and even if a particular scientific theory has turned out to be wrong, it was eventually replaced by an improved scientific theory while religion had nothing to offer. I'm willing to extrapolate into the future that until demonstrated otherwise, the scientific approach is the most reasonable choice.

I think philosophy is bunkum and a waste of an intellect - I would rather these people spent their time and intelligence doing something practical and useful rather than gazing into their own navels, so whatever wondrous theories and ideas the come up with to explain what we already know or accept is really not going to affect me or anyone else in any way, shape or form. No scientist reading about scientific realism is going to change what they do or how they do it as a result. Philosophy is a pseudoscience without conclusion, consequences or application and its only practical use is to stifle discussion with gobbledygook and psychobabble. 


Whatever, I'm still a realist.Big smile
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:23
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Used to be. The Church now recognises suicide as part of an illness, which diminishes the reponsibility of the person.


Interesting ... we should see the suicide rates go up then.Wink
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:24
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:



It depends on which philosophical teachings you follow within the religion, which are VERY numerous, but yes, it is a very grave sin. Salvation, however, is not impossible if you are willing to regret your past sins and ask for forgiveness. That is one of the main reasons why the purgatory was created, on the middle ages, you know?


Sure - apparently God did not foresee the need for it when he "wrote" the Bible.LOL
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:27
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@Dean: I thought about what word to use - I stand by "crap", and the other option would have been "useless stuff".Wink
So any attempt by me to prove you didn't change what Iván said to deliberately misrepresent him and prove yourself right is crap/useless, or just that particular crap/useless explanation? Stern Smile



I appreciate the effort, I just didn't think that it had the intended effect. Wink
Well? Did you change what he said, yes or no?
 

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Whatever, I'm still a realist.Big smile
So am I, but not by that definition. I can be a realist about some unobservable entities when the limits of what can be observed are restricted by physics, for example the detection of sub-atomic particles directly is physically impossible, we can only see the effects of them, but when it ventures into unobservable entities that are purely abstract like knowledge and belief then my common sense says the limits of observation do not apply and science cannot apply.


Edited by Dean - September 04 2010 at 14:28
What?
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:29
Dean, Philosophy is not a science, it is a knowlege in itself. It is a mean to understand and explain reality, jsut like science, but with different means and results. Science uses experimentation and trial and error to decypher what make  things work. It is basically a mechanic trying to understand how an engine works.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is used to explain usually immaterial things or things which science cannot understand or analyze. Back when our means of understanding reality were limited and science were nothing but a fetus in the minds of men, philosophy was used to conceive machines and explain how things worked. How aplyable it is today i simply do not know, but I wouldn't discard it as useless. After all, we still use common sense, on our daily lives despite being the most flawed and imperfect kind of knowlede known to men.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:41
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@Dean: I thought about what word to use - I stand by "crap", and the other option would have been "useless stuff".Wink
So any attempt by me to prove you didn't change what Iván said to deliberately misrepresent him and prove yourself right is crap/useless, or just that particular crap/useless explanation? Stern Smile



I appreciate the effort, I just didn't think that it had the intended effect. Wink
Well? Did you change what he said, yes or no?


Of course not. But I hope that my argument made some sense to whoever else was interested in it (however few people that might beWink).

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:




Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Whatever, I'm still a realist.Big smile
So am I, but not by that definition. I can be a realist about some unobservable entities when the limits of what can be observed are restricted by physics, for example the detection of sub-atomic particles directly is physically impossible, we can only see the effects of them, but when it ventures into unobservable entities that are purely abstract like knowledge and belief then my common sense says the limits of observation do not apply and science cannot apply.


To me "observation" also includes indirect methods and even abstract mathematical theories. The key is that they follow from - and are consistent with - direct observations. A good example would be the big bang ... I didn't observe it directly, but I could measure background radiation and conclude from the various calculations that something like the big bang must have happened in order to explain the radiation.
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:46
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:



It depends on which philosophical teachings you follow within the religion, which are VERY numerous, but yes, it is a very grave sin. Salvation, however, is not impossible if you are willing to regret your past sins and ask for forgiveness. That is one of the main reasons why the purgatory was created, on the middle ages, you know?


Sure - apparently God did not foresee the need for it when he "wrote" the Bible.LOL


Well, again, if you are trying to impress somebody with those lame arguments, you have the wrong guy. The bible IS a mythologycal, no question about it. Written by men with holy inspiration, etc, etc. Besides, as you seem to have completely ignored this fact, the Bible is not a single book. It is a compilation of books made in the Concil of Nicea (circe 4thcentury AD) that has books that should sirve as guidelines for the religious teachings. Nobody said it should be the only guideline nor that it should be followed word by word.

Using it as basis, people created the principles and basis for the religious teachings of The Church.

You must troll harder if you really want to piss me off.Wink


Edited by CCVP - September 04 2010 at 14:48
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 14:52
^ And you should not quiver over words and make a claim like "Mike doesn't know that the Bible is not a single book" without at least skimming the past pages of this thread.

BTW: There are many denominations of Christianity who say that in fact the Bible should be the only guideline. Catholicism in particular kept adding doctrines - or even, arguably, editing the books (Approve) of the Bible to make those added doctrines more plausible (such as the trinity).
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 15:01
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ And you should not quiver over words and make a claim like "Mike doesn't know that the Bible is not a single book" without at least skimming the past pages of this thread.

BTW: There are many denominations of Christianity who say that in fact the Bible should be the only guideline. Catholicism in particular kept adding doctrines - or even, arguably, editing the books (Approve) of the Bible to make those added doctrines more plausible (such as the trinity).


Oh yeah, becuse The Trinity is some really new and hip doctrine, right? Oh, oh, oh, and languages never evolve, so the editing is only to numb the peoples of world, right?

Where is my tinfoil hat? The man is trying to read my thoughts again. . . . .


pssst: troll harder.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 15:05
^ do I have to quote to you the definition of "arguably"?

And yes, the trinity seems to be a ca. 4th century invention - and several scholars share this point of view. Iván disagrees (if I remember correctly), and you're also welcome to disagree.
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 15:15
OK, I have spent time enough on the internet top see much better and amusing trolls than you. Ivan may fall for your stuff becuse he is kind of old and has a family, so he isn't quite familiar with this, but come on.

You'd better try christianpedia (or something like that) or conservapedia if you expect to have some reaction with what you have. Or even the vatican blog.They are old people and the biggelst trollbaits I know. Good luck with that.Thumbs Up

I'll be back when you get better, bye! Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 109110111112113 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.414 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.