View Full Version : Religion
Vote plx. (Sorry no checkbox)
Basically, I'm waiting for someone to post something stupid along the lines of virgins having kids or Earth being 6000 years old, so then I can flame him.
Jenius
02-08-2009, 11:23 PM
Where's the "losing my" option?
Also I went with agnostic, if it can neither be proved nor disproved what's the point of caring about it? It's just a debate that will go in circles.
Nontheist. Basically, "I don't know and who the ffff cares?"
Jenius
02-08-2009, 11:26 PM
If we're going to be specific I'm pragmatic agnostic.
Where's the "losing my" option?
Also I went with agnostic, if it can neither be proved nor disproved what's the point of caring about it? It's just a debate that will go in circles.Well, there's this little issue with people who want you to care and insist that you will be thrown onto a frying pan after you die if you don't care. They even tend to go and kill each other because every group is convinced that everyone else is "doin it wrong".
Also, according to the scientific method, nothing can be "proved", things can only be disproved. If a theory is not disproved, we accept it until proof against it turns up.
There's a mountain of evidence from hundreds of fields to prove that <insert religion here> is wrong, and nothing, other than baseless claims of their supporters, to point the other way. Personally, I just don't understand why rational people choose to sit on the fence.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-08-2009, 11:33 PM
Where's the "losing my" option?
Also I went with agnostic, if it can neither be proved nor disproved what's the point of caring about it? It's just a debate that will go in circles.
Caring about something and debating something are different things. I care a lot about God-concepts for a multitude of different reasons, but I rarely debate (anymore anyway) with either side because you're right; there is a lack of proof for both sides.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-08-2009, 11:34 PM
Well, there's this little issue with people who want you to care and insist that you will be thrown onto a frying pan after you die if you don't care. They even tend to go and kill each other because every group is convinced that everyone else is "doin it wrong".
Also, according to the scientific method, nothing can be "proved", things can only be disproved. If a theory is not disproved, we accept it until proof against it turns up.
There's a mountain of evidence from hundreds of fields to prove that <insert religion here> is wrong, and nothing, other than baseless claims of their supporters, to point the other way. Personally, I just don't understand why rational people choose to sit on the fence.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc
There is no proof for God.
There is no proof for no God. At least, in a deistic sense. ffff theism.
Jenius
02-08-2009, 11:38 PM
Caring about something and debating something are different things. I care a lot about God-concepts for a multitude of different reasons, but I rarely debate (anymore anyway) with either side because you're right; there is a lack of proof for both sides.
I just get burned on it, it feels like intellectual masturbation and very seldom does either side in a debate listen to the other. I think there could be more merit to discussing it if people were better at opening their minds than their mouths, but it just doesn't happen.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc
There is no proof for God.
There is no proof for no God. At least, in a deistic sense. ffff theism.1. Ok
2. I think presenting alternative and more coherent explanations for things that were attributed to god is enough of a "proof" - god does not move the clouds, difference in pressure does, god did not create humans, we evolved through natural selection, Jesus wasn't born from a virgin because that's biologically impossible, Muhammed didn't fly to Jerusalem for the same reason, etc.
The origin of the universe is pretty much the only question we do not have a coherent answer for, but the alternative offered from a religious point of view ("god did it") assumes that god existed before the universe. If so, where did he exist, and who created him/her/it/zerg?
Somehow, the only question in which both sides are incapable of giving an answer gets chalked up as a point for religion.
---
Either way, I think the issue is not so much whether there is or there isn't, but instead, how people are affected by assuming there is one. If everybody left everybody else alone on the subject (including their own children) religion would be long dead by now.
Jenius
02-09-2009, 12:02 AM
Yeah but a lot of modern religion now kind of believe that god was just a guiding hand. I mean realistically evolution is fairly random and just about anything could have evolved. I don't really see what's wrong with "god let things flow naturally but pointed them in a specific direction" or even "god created the universe and simply let things run from there".
Science and religion can coexist, religion just often seeks deeper meaning in what science would attribute to coincidence.
Sure I have a problem with fanatics, but I don't really have an inherent problem with general theism.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-09-2009, 12:02 AM
I think presenting alternative and more coherent explanations for things that were attributed to god is enough of a "proof" - god does not move the clouds, difference in pressure does, god did not create humans, we evolved through natural selection, Jesus wasn't born from a virgin because that's biologically impossible, Muhammed didn't fly to Jerusalem for the same reason, etc.
Oh, I agree, I'm pretty anti-Christian/Islam/Judaism/whatever in regards to their conceptions of god, I'll give you that. But that's a fairly narrow view of a pretty vast concept.
The origin of the universe is pretty much the only question we do not have a coherent answer for, but the alternative offered from a religious point of view ("god did it") assumes that god existed before the universe. If so, where did he exist, and who created him/her/it/zerg?
You're applying the physics of this universe to something that exists outside of it. Time as we know it only exists in this universe, so there may be no "before" or "where" to refer to.
As a devotee to science, I assume you accept determinism as true, right?
Either way, I think the issue is not so much whether there is or there isn't, but instead, how people are affected by assuming there is one.
Pragmatically, yes, that's the real issue.
Oh, I agree, I'm pretty anti-Christian/Islam/Judaism/whatever in regards to their conceptions of god, I'll give you that. But that's a fairly narrow view of a pretty vast concept.I don't really know much about other religions, but I assume they all view God as some kind an intelligent entity that did something?
You're applying the physics of this universe to something that exists outside of it. Time as we know it only exists in this universe, so there may be no "before" or "where" to refer to. "Before" and "where" were simply a convenient way of phrasing the question. I suppose I could just as well say "outside", but any word I use will more-or-less carry the connotation of space and/or time.
The point is that saying "an intelligent entity created the universe" begs the question of "where (in a completely non-spatial sense) did that intelligent entity come from?" It certainly couldn't have created the universe from within the universe, so we get an infinite regression. That is hardly a better answer than "we don't really have a good explanation", which is science's point of view.
As a devotee to science, I assume you accept determinism as true, right?Will this lead to "God set the system in motion and let it run for eleven billion years, which led to this post?"
Yeah but a lot of modern religion now kind of believe that god was just a guiding hand.Then why do they still pray to him on sundays?
I mean realistically evolution is fairly random and just about anything could have evolved.Evolution is anything but random. The definition of natural selection is that it is NOT random. Mutation is random, but selection, and therefore evolution, is not. I can't help but assume that you don't understand how evolution works if you claim that it's random.
I don't really see what's wrong with "god let things flow naturally but pointed them in a specific direction" or even "god created the universe and simply let things run from there".In the first statement, there is no need for god, because natural selection pointed things in a specific direction (if we're talking biology here). If we're looking at the bigger picture, chemistry and physics make things go the only way they could possibly go.
If you believe in god only as a force that created the universe, then you're simply taking the only area not touched by science and saying "god is hiding there!" To which, nobody can really say anything. Not to mention that under this stance god may just as well be not sentient. Essentially, CO2 + 2 H2O + light --> sugar + H2O + O2 is god, from the point of view of glucose molecules.
Sure I have a problem with fanatics, but I don't really have an inherent problem with general theism.I have a problem with general theism because it breeds extremists.
Jenius
02-09-2009, 12:44 AM
Evolution is anything but random. The definition of natural selection is that it is NOT random. Mutation is random, but selection, and therefore evolution, is not. I can't help but assume that you don't understand how evolution works if you claim that it's random.
You're arguing over semantics. What I'm saying is that evolution by our definition isn't guided, and due to random mutations and the fact that any number of traits could viably increase a specie's fitness factor, it's more or less chance that the world ended up the way it did. Evolution is like rolling a dice and then rerolling if you get below a 4, yeah it cuts out 1, 2, and 3, but it's pretty much random whether you end up with 4, 5, or 6.
Also if your bringing physics into it then yeah, my own philosophy coincides with the you can only have one output for any given input. I'm into determinism. I never said I believed in god, I just said how I thought some modern forms of spirituality didn't really irk me much.
I suppose extremists do tend to follow from theism but realistically even without religion humans can find plenty of things to fight/argue over.
You're arguing over semantics. What I'm saying is that evolution by our definition isn't guided, and due to random mutations and the fact that any number of traits could viably increase a specie's fitness factor, it's more or less chance that the world ended up the way it did. Evolution is like rolling a dice and then rerolling if you get below a 4, yeah it cuts out 1, 2, and 3, but it's pretty much random whether you get get 4, 5, or 6.And once the population of dierolls is saturated with 4s, 5s and 6s, you need to reroll the die if you get a 4 or a 5, leading to a population of 6s.
= not random.
(Unless there are other factors, as there always are in practice, that make 4s and 5s more viable than 6s under certain conditions. But that wouldn't be any more random, just more complex.)
Jenius
02-09-2009, 12:56 AM
And once the population of dierolls is saturated with 4s, 5s and 6s, you need to reroll the die if you get a 4 or a 5, leading to a population of 6s.
= not random.
(Unless there are other factors, as there always are in practice, that make 4s and 5s more viable than 6s under certain conditions. But that wouldn't be any more random, just more complex.)
The problem is the environment isn't static so what constitutes a 4, 5, or 6 will also constantly vary meaning there will always have been alternate equally viable paths that weren't explore on a route that doesn't even have an ending.
Granted as a determinist, I don't feel it actually is random because the mutation probably could have been traced back to specific but unknown causes so I'm not saying I really feel evolution is random, just that I think there's a strong argument if you ignore determinism.
I actually asked my biology teacher about this way back when I was having the exact same debate with someone and he said that him and most profs he knew of in the subject all felt that it was a fairly chancy things ended up the way they are now. There could have easily been no humans or various other species. So I suppose if you want to disagree with me you can but I can't really say much more to convince you.
good news
02-09-2009, 01:09 AM
Ok so I didn't read your conversation but science is just as mythological as religion- the only difference is that science is based on observable phenomena- repeated perceptions that congeal into assumptions based on our subjective human lens. doesn't mean that it's true outside of human experience.
The problem is the environment isn't static so what constitutes a 4, 5, or 6 will also constantly vary meaning there will always have been alternate equally viable paths that weren't explore on a route that doesn't even have an ending.I completely fail to see how A leads to B here.
Yes, environment isn't static, but I already said that 4s and 5s are usually more viable than 6s under alternative conditions, which is why you almost never see a population full of 6s in practice, and if you do, it's most likely a result of a genetic bottleneck, rather than natural selection.
Oh, this whole die analogy is getting annoying, because as soon as I try to get into specifics, these 4s and 6s aren't letting me. What exactly did you mean by one of these numbers? A trait? An allele? A whole organism?
As for the second part, if those paths are "unexplored", doesn't that kinda mean they were not "equally viable"?
I actually asked my biology teacher about this way back when I was having the exact same debate with someone and he said that him and most profs he knew of in the subject all felt that it was a fairly chancy things ended up the way they are now. There could have easily been no humans or various other species. So I suppose if you want to disagree with me you can but I can't really say much more to convince you.Obviously, if we rerolled all the dice, the world would not end up exactly the way it is, but the probability that it would have followed the same general pattern, eventually producing bipedal primates with opposable thumbs and a giant list of other major advantageous traits. The only highly variable value here is time.
Jenius
02-09-2009, 01:22 AM
Really that's all I was saying. I didn't say evolution wasn't heading in a fairly defined direction, merely that it contained some arguably random elements depending on how deterministic you are.
Edit: By unexplored I meant there's probably other traits that would have increased fitness factor that for whatever reason simply never mutated themselves into existence.
Edit #2: I mean I'm entirely playing devil's advocate here, I don't actually believe there is such a thing as random/chance, just to clarify.
My reaction while reading the post:
science is just as mythological as religion-...
...wait, what?
the only difference is that science is based on observable phenomena-That's kinda the point. "Observable" vs "pulled from thin air".
repeated perceptions that congeal into assumptions...Yep. Observations that lead to theories, once again, opposed to stuff pulled from thin air.
...based on our subjective human lens.This is going to lead to "what is truth", isn't it? doesn't mean that it's true outside of human experience.Now you're just trolling.
good news
02-09-2009, 01:55 AM
GUYS THERE IS NO THERE THERE
notallama
02-09-2009, 06:02 AM
voted joke option, then realized that they all are.
(needs moar chexbox)
Cee Pee
02-09-2009, 07:20 AM
I don't believe I'm an atheist because I don't believe. I'm rather puzzled what to choose.
Agnostic. I'm a theist, and I certainly believe in an all powerful god, it's just that doing that whole religion thing is a lot of work, and besides I know enough about theology that listening to people misunderstanding their own religion makes me want to murder something.
religion makes me want to murder something.There we have it, ladies and gentlemen, religion is evil!
Zindaras
02-09-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm agnostic. I think both atheism and theism have compelling arguments, and I can't really be bothered to trudge through the entire thing and see which side I agree more with. I figure we'll all find out after we die anyway.
Kedster
02-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Satanic Deist Flamingo Hopper I am.
I find Atheist fanatics to be millions of times more unbearable then theist fanatics. At least the theists have a reason for being that way, atheist fanatics are just pricks ffffing with everyone's lives.
Cee Pee
02-09-2009, 01:31 PM
Two words: Sarah Palin.
A few months ago and I would have said that I'm atheist, but I've come to the point where I realised I am just not sure. There may be lots of proof against the existence of God, but really, you can never say beyond a doubt that something doesn't exist. I'd been saying that for a while, until I realised I had been contradicting my view on God, so I'm not sure now.
I make a distinction between organized religion, and God, though. Even if I decide I believe in God, I wouldn't pick up a religion, because religion is the great Evil. It poisons the mind, and gets in the way of progress, and living one's life. I've often thought that if God has created us, why would He want us to spend our whole lives groveling at his feet? What would be the value in life if that is all we're meant for?
Kedster
02-09-2009, 02:45 PM
A few months ago and I would have said that I'm atheist, but I've come to the point where I realised I am just not sure. There may be lots of proof against the existence of God, but really, you can never say beyond a doubt that something doesn't exist. I'd been saying that for a while, until I realised I had been contradicting my view on God, so I'm not sure now.
I make a distinction between organized religion, and God, though. Even if I decide I believe in God, I wouldn't pick up a religion, because religion is the great Evil. It poisons the mind, and gets in the way of progress, and living one's life. I've often thought that if God has created us, why would He want us to spend our whole lives groveling at his feet? What would be the value in life if that is all we're meant for?Something like that.
In a sense I see the world through a pandeistic looking-glass. I don't believe in an entity, but I define God as the clockwork mechanic that on which the existence is built. I do not give him qualities such as intelligence, logic or reasoning, since it is just the very fact of existence.
On the other hand, I defy religions on one layer - that they teach dogmas and end-results rather than procession and intelligence whch serve better in real life. Rules can never be perfect, so instead of one person trying to abide a code for the rest of his life, it makes more sense to me that he is guiden by sense and experience and wisdom.
Psion
02-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Jewish. I was raised in a lax reform Jewish household; my mom was raised Catholic and is now agnostic, and my father's more into various "New Age" pursuits.
My personal beliefs draw strongly from Buddhist and Taoist traditions, coupled with animistic thought and all sorts of influence. Generally really pluralist.
Jewish. I was raised in a lax reform Jewish household; my mom was raised Catholic and is now agnostic, and my father's more into various "New Age" pursuits.
My personal beliefs draw strongly from Buddhist and Taoist traditions, coupled with animistic thought and all sorts of influence. Generally really pluralist.
Here is some advice.
When you go to college, make sure that you have eastern philosophy down before you start talking about it. There is the temptation to not study it that much and assume you understand it from reading wikipedia articles and a couple of books, because generally anyone else in freshman year who claims to know about eastern philosophy knows as much if not less and you'll look deep.
But for the sake of the 1 kid in the class/room who knows his shit about Buddhism and Eastern religions, please, pleaase don't go ranting about dude what if nothing is real maaannnn
Psion
02-09-2009, 03:46 PM
When you go to college, make sure that you have eastern philosophy down before you start talking about it.
I'm probably going to end up not talking about philosophy at all, save for some discussion with friends.
I find Atheist fanatics to be millions of times more unbearable then theist fanatics. At least the theists have a reason for being that way, atheist fanatics are just pricks ffffing with everyone's lives.What's an "atheist fanatic"?
Nietzsche? Dawkins?
In a sense I see the world through a pandeistic looking-glass. I don't believe in an entity, but I define God as the clockwork mechanic that on which the existence is built. I do not give him qualities such as intelligence, logic or reasoning, since it is just the very fact of existence.So god is basically this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant)? Why call it "god" then?
A few months ago and I would have said that I'm atheist, but I've come to the point where I realised I am just not sure. There may be lots of proof against the existence of God, but really, you can never say beyond a doubt that something doesn't exist. I'd been saying that for a while, until I realised I had been contradicting my view on God, so I'm not sure now.I don't think there's such a thing as a "100% atheist". I don't reject the possibility of god and I wouldn't cover my ears and shout "no!" if proof in favour of his existence turned up. I simply find it much more logical to assume that he doesn't exist by default because proof in favour of god seems about as likely as proof against gravity or evolution. In other words, not bloody likely.
Kedster
02-09-2009, 04:04 PM
'cause atropomorphically speaking, it is omniscient and omnipotent. Also it floats my boat, so there.
LegendShark
02-09-2009, 04:06 PM
I believe that there is no God, but if God does exist, then I'll give him a formal apology in the afterlife (which as of this moment doesn't exist as well).
I'm Jewish. I like the Jew culture. Throughout my life I've been going to Hebrew school and religious school, and summer camp, and I work at the Jewish Community Center, and I like to do the Jew thing. Its a big part of who I am.
The best part is, I even enjoy going to the Synagogue and praying to nonexistent God because all the praying is done in a language that I don't understand.
What's an "atheist fanatic"?
Nietzsche? Dawkins?
I don't enough about either man to make that judgement. And I cannot think of any other notable personalities that would parallel Jerry Falwell. However, I experience them in day to day life and on the glorious world of internet. Essentially, any dickhead who says "All Christians and Muslims should be killed because they're stupid for having a religion and only cause problems for the world."
LegendShark
02-09-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't enough about either man to make that judgement. And I cannot think of any other notable personalities that would parallel Jerry Falwell. However, I experience them in day to day life and on the glorious world of internet. Essentially, any dickhead who says "All Christians and Muslims should be killed because they're stupid for having a religion and only cause problems for the world."
I don't think anyone says that.
I don't think anyone says that.
You are a lucky man then.
Cee Pee
02-09-2009, 04:41 PM
Some Christians say that about Muslims too. Does it make their opinion more valid because they base it on their religion?
Avedomni
02-09-2009, 06:12 PM
We don't consider agnosticism to be a religious position. It's an epistemic modifier that can be applied to a religious position.
Also, we're essentially atheistic.
Caldera42
02-09-2009, 06:13 PM
Christian, but not like "Christian".
I can't prove God exists, nor does it really matter. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution in school (Schools should teach reality). The bible is not a historical document, it is a moral guide (at least Jesus is.) Not to say that the bible defines morals, nor that you can't be a moral person without the bible.
I don't know what happens when you die, except nobody goes to Hell.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-09-2009, 06:40 PM
We don't consider agnosticism to be a religious position. It's an epistemic modifier that can be applied to a religious position.
Also, we're essentially atheistic.
Saying "I'm agnostic" is easier than saying "There is not enough data to make a claim".
This thread kind of sucks.
Christian, but not like "Christian".
I can't prove God exists, nor does it really matter. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution in school (Schools should teach reality). The bible is not a historical document, it is a moral guide (at least Jesus is.) Not to say that the bible defines morals, nor that you can't be a moral person without the bible.The Bible is actually a pretty terrible moral guide if you read it.
Unless you pick and choose stuff. In which case, you're technically using your brain and not The Bible to decide what's good and what isn't.
I'd be damn scared to go near a person who followed even 75% of all moral principles illustrated in the Bible.
Psion
02-09-2009, 07:07 PM
I'd be damn scared to go near a person who followed even 75% of all moral principles illustrated in the Bible.
Same. Scared of their righteousness, you goddamn heathen.
Some Christians say that about Muslims too. Does it make their opinion more valid because they base it on their religion?
It doesn't make it valid, but it is at least more sensible than having no reason at all.
The way I see it, people without a religion are ffffed. No matter what science may prove that contradicts the Bible or any other holy document, there is still a slim possibility that there really is an invisible man in the sky that you should be worshiping or several invisible men/women. And suppose that, because you didn't worship him/them, you spend eternity in pain and damnation. If the atheist is correct, then nothing happens to no one when we die. If you were religious or not bears no influence on how you spend the afterlife, because there is none. But if there is a god, by having a religion you at least have a slightly better chance at doing the right thing, while atheists can NEVER be accepted into any peaceful afterlife within those circumstances.
And before someone says this, I'm not saying a decent person can't get into heaven. I'm saying that, should God exist and should he be spiteful and demand to be worshiped, atheists have no chance.
The way I see it, people without a religion are ffffed. No matter what science may prove that contradicts the Bible or any other holy document, there is still a slim possibility that there really is an invisible man in the sky that you should be worshiping or several invisible men/women. And suppose that, because you didn't worship him/them, you spend eternity in pain and damnation. If the atheist is correct, then nothing happens to no one when we die. If you were religious or not bears no influence on how you spend the afterlife, because there is none. But if there is a god, by having a religion you at least have a slightly better chance at doing the right thing, while atheists can NEVER be accepted into any peaceful afterlife within those circumstances.Blah blah, Pascal's Wager.
The problem is that the above argument is only about feigning belief in god, and if the invisible man/woman is omniscient, he'd know you're faking it and you're ffffed anyway. Coupled with the fact that you can't force yourself to actually believe something if you don't, you might as well be honest with yourself.
Caldera42
02-09-2009, 07:32 PM
The Bible is actually a pretty terrible moral guide if you read it.
Unless you pick and choose stuff. In which case, you're technically using your brain and not The Bible to decide what's good and what isn't.That's basically what a "guide" is. You shouldn't have to look to something to see whether it's right or not.
I'd be damn scared to go near a person who followed even 75% of all moral principles illustrated in the Bible.Really? Most (well, a lot) of them seem sound even to a non-religious person.
Meh, I'm not all that religious anyway.
CVille_Ninja: The problem with that argument is that it's just as likely there is a God that will send you to hell if you don't eat enough salad, or a God that will send you to hell unless you take a monastic life.
Jenius
02-09-2009, 07:39 PM
Really? Most (well, a lot) of them seem sound even to a non-religious person.
Meh, I'm not all that religious anyway.
Like all the ones about stoning people?
Blah blah, Pascal's Wager.
The problem is that the above argument is only about feigning belief in god, and if the invisible man/woman is omniscient, he'd know you're faking it and you're ffffed anyway. Coupled with the fact that you can't force yourself to actually believe something if you don't, you might as well be honest with yourself.Hence, why I don't believe in anything. I have approximately zero faith, and to pay lip service would be a dishonor to any respectable religion.
CVille_Ninja: The problem with that argument is that it's just as likely there is a God that will send you to hell if you don't eat enough salad, or a God that will send you to hell unless you take a monastic life.That's kinda the point. Those that follow a religious doctrine are more likely to be admitted into a pleasant afterlife than those with no religion.
To recap: I am not suggestion that every individual must have a religion on the infinitely small chance that there is a God and he's incredibly petty. It was merely and observation of mine.
It doesn't make it valid, but it is at least more sensible than having no reason at all.Oh, and atheists have plenty of reasons to speak against religion. And usually we're a lot more civil about it than followers of invisible man A vs followers of invisible man B.
My main problems with religion:
It gets violent too often.
It enjoys a special status in society, and when that something infringes upon that status, it has a good chance to get violent. For example, this is ffffing dumb (http://www.nowpublic.com/quebec-voting-rules-niqabs-burkas-veils-allowed).
It encourages segregation and our society is being ridiculously hypocritical about that - white/black is not ok, but protestant/catholic is ok?
It propagates by brainwashing children who haven't yet developed enough of a brain to realize they're being fed bullshit.
In some particularly backward parts of some particularly backward countries *cough*US*cough* the above truckload of bullshit is actually being taught in science classes.
I could go on, but I think this little list is an infinitely better argument against religion as a whole than one religion could ever present against another.
good news
02-09-2009, 07:49 PM
Though if I were to pick one I'd pick Christianity, because after reading Pascal I realize that it automatically assumes that I'm going to be the ffffup that I am.
Original sin is kind of liberating guyz
No just the ones about ffffing your daughter.Oooh, I like the one where you decide to burn your son alive because the voices in your head tell you to (and then stop in the last moment because the voices changed their mind).
good news
02-09-2009, 07:54 PM
Oooh, I like the one where you decide to burn your son alive because the voices in your head tell you to (and then stop in the last moment because the voices changed their mind).
This is my favorite because it makes Christianity kind of badass- like FUCK ALL PREVIOUS PROHIBITIONS AND EXISTING LAWS JUST TAKE A 'LEAP OF FAITH'
good news
02-09-2009, 07:59 PM
Riding on a horse for three days knowing that you have to kill your son at the end! Abraham was a badass mother ffffer. And knowing that your son knows he's going to die. And your entire family and village knows too. But he's doing it anyway. Because he didn't know that God was going to be like "lol jk" at the end!
notallama
02-09-2009, 09:32 PM
The way I see it, people without a religion are ffffed. No matter what science may prove that contradicts the Bible or any other holy document, there is still a slim possibility that there really is an invisible man in the sky that you should be worshiping or several invisible men/women. And suppose that, because you didn't worship him/them, you spend eternity in pain and damnation. If the atheist is correct, then nothing happens to no one when we die. If you were religious or not bears no influence on how you spend the afterlife, because there is none. But if there is a god, by having a religion you at least have a slightly better chance at doing the right thing, while atheists can NEVER be accepted into any peaceful afterlife within those circumstances.
since we're basing these possible afterlife situations on nothing, what's to say there's no god that thinks "hay, look at these dorks and their worshipping. it'll be fun to torment them for all eternity."?
pascal's wager is pretty fucking retarded, for several reasons.
pascal's wager is pretty fucking retarded, for several reasons.Pretty much.
I can see how people might have taken it seriously back in the 17th (?) century - people took a lot of stuff seriously back then that's obviously stupid now, but I don't understand why it's still being taken seriously.
SizzlingStapleCider
02-09-2009, 10:20 PM
This thread is so obligatory and painful, it's not even funny.
Religion is the most(?) opinion-based topic evar and so I think the world would get a lot much better if everyone kept their religion / this opinion to themselves. But no, fucking Israel and Gaza never fucking do that. So way to go TS, you're just as bad as them.
And maybe I am being the tiniest bit hypocritical in this post; fuck you! (second person to use the uncensored version!!!)
Avedomni
02-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Religion is the most(?) opinion-based topic evar and so I think the world would get a lot much better if everyone kept their religion / this opinion to themselves.Except that there are several religions for which keeping it to themselves and following their religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. But let's just say that their opinions are wrong, and then everyone can happily forget about religion.
good news
02-10-2009, 12:28 AM
I'm drunk, so I'm posting this right now.
If you look at it historically, religions and moralities based on religion are obviously constructed by people in power or people with no power for their own gain- there have been so many religions and so many systems of beliefs that there's no way any of them can be true, and no syntheses of them can be true either. They're all based on fear and power. I just don't fucking get how one could actually believe in this shit!
edit: Like, what the fuck!
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 01:40 PM
Excuse me, please to make Catholicism different option from Christianity. We worship Mary, ÷÷÷÷÷es. :V
Excuse me, please to make Catholicism different option from Christianity. We worship Mary, ÷÷÷÷÷es. :V
That's stupid. You're stupid.
"Hey guys, let's make Shi'ite Islam a different option from Islam because they worship Hussein"
"Hey guys, let's make Theraveda / Mahayana Buddhism different from Buddhism"
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 04:49 PM
Point
Kant
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 04:59 PM
That could be the whole belief system, even, no need for other rules.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-15-2009, 05:00 PM
Actually, I read up on wicanism one time and i was struck by the fact that they would perform their religious ceremonies naked. I really want to start a cult like that and just orgy afterwards. That would be so hot.
hey let me improve this idea
Go to an orgy.
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Heretic! You can't just pay lip service and get into heaven, Shady.
Something that people really don't understand about the reason religions work is that they generally become a powerful force in places where they're the only major power. Human behavior is pretty much set in--we always go to sources of power and try to become powerful ourselves, and on top of that we do as much as possible to protect our own psyches.
So a lot of the things that people blame on religion or capitalism or whatever bullshit is something set in--this person or that person isn't intolerant because of Christianity or Islam, it's because that person is in a shitty situation right now and needs a scapegoat.
We didn't dehumanize Muslims during the Middle Ages because Christianity is evil, we did it because, for whatever retarded reason, we fought them a lot, and it's easier on the mind to say that I kill a heathen than I killed a human being.
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 05:08 PM
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
Yes, and something like that is how I respond to each and every argument against religion. Yes, religion is irrational, but it responds to a basic need that human beings have. When I pray, I don't give a shit about whether or not the god I pray to exists. That people who argue that GOD EXISTS SO RELIGION IS DUMLOL bring those arguments up shows that they don't understand that basic part of being human--that the belief in something far larger than you is the reason that we succeed so well.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-15-2009, 07:41 PM
that the belief in something far larger than you is the reason that we succeed so well.
deep stuff man
mrs_bun
02-15-2009, 07:41 PM
I don't think we're having the same conversation here. Also, I am a devout catholic.
Jenius
02-16-2009, 03:25 AM
they don't understand that basic part of being human--that the belief in something far larger than you is the reason that we succeed so well.
I dunno, I'd take the exact opposite stance. I personally believe in no afterlife of sorts or any god. What this means is that for me it's important I utilize this life to the fullest, because there's no second chances and once it's over it's done. If in this life I manage to do something spectacular enough to remembered for some years after I die, then that's kind of like living on longer. So lack of belief drives me to do something other than complacently live my life.
I dunno, I'd take the exact opposite stance. I personally believe in no afterlife of sorts or any god. What this means is that for me it's important I utilize this life to the fullest, because there's no second chances and once it's over it's done. If in this life I manage to do something spectacular enough to remembered for some years after I die, then that's kind of like living on longer. So lack of belief drives me to do something other than complacently live my life.
That's different than what I was talking about. What I was saying is that the same urge that says that there is a god that's more important than you or the group of people around you is the drive that leads us to create nations.
Jenius
02-16-2009, 12:46 PM
That's different than what I was talking about. What I was saying is that the same urge that says that there is a god that's more important than you or the group of people around you is the drive that leads us to create nations.
I don't really get what you're saying. That the want to believe in a higher power is what makes us do what we do? In that case my original argument holds strong, I don't believe in a higher power and I feel it causes me to push forward. If you're trying to say something else I'm note seeing it.
I don't really get what you're saying. That the want to believe in a higher power is what makes us do what we do? In that case my original argument holds strong, I don't believe in a higher power and I feel it causes me to push forward. If you're trying to say something else I'm note seeing it.
You still believe in a higher power. It doesn't have to be god. What I was meaning is that our ability to create imaginary, but helpful, constructs is what got us past the level of being animals.
Is money real? No, it's paper which we add significance to. Money is no realer than nationality, language, religion or states. And yet all of those constructs have been intensely helpful to us. While you may not believe in God, you believe in several other imaginary, possibly irrational (why should I give you a computer for some paper?) constructs.
Kedster
02-16-2009, 03:36 PM
You still believe in a higher power. It doesn't have to be god. What I was meaning is that our ability to create imaginary, but helpful, constructs is what got us past the level of being animals.
Is money real? No, it's paper which we add significance to. Money is no realer than nationality, language, religion or states. And yet all of those constructs have been intensely helpful to us. While you may not believe in God, you believe in several other imaginary, possibly irrational (why should I give you a computer for some paper?) constructs.It's not something higher than you that forces you to do something, but rather your self projection into that higher existence. Or in simpler terms, fear of death.
It's not something higher than you that forces you to do something, but rather your self projection into that higher existence. Or in simpler terms, fear of death.
Look, let's say you live in a Medieval town. You have no communication, but it is said that this town is in France. Why should you believe that? Why should you believe that you are a Frenchman? Why should you accept that the King of France has any power over you, while he lives thousands of miles away? Why should you believe that the king of france even exists, if you haven't met him?
The faith you would have that the King of France exists and is in a superior position than you is the same kind of faith that leads one to believe in God even though you've never percieved God. One belief is more rational than the other, yes, but the sensation is the same.
Kedster
02-16-2009, 03:50 PM
Look, let's say you live in a Medieval town. You have no communication, but it is said that this town is in France. Why should you believe that? Why should you believe that you are a Frenchman? Why should you accept that the King of France has any power over you, while he lives thousands of miles away? Why should you believe that the king of france even exists, if you haven't met him?
The faith you would have that the King of France exists and is in a superior position than you is the same kind of faith that leads one to believe in God even though you've never percieved God. One belief is more rational than the other, yes, but the sensation is the same.
???
How is that even related to my critic.. I was criticizing you for saying "the belief in something far larger than you is the reason that we succeed so well". I cba finding the exact quote so I just picked one of the following posts. Either case, it's not just that because we believe in a higher ideal that we fare better than animals; it's rather, in a survival of the fittest universe, one specie would fare better than others and that just happens to be the apes with the thumbs. I see no psychological reasons here.
It's the fear of nonexistence that moticates all beings. It's this cutthroat world that eliminates the weak. It's this process that made humans human. Rest is complete bullshit. Everything else succeeds our superior position, they don't preceed it.
Jenius
02-16-2009, 04:07 PM
You still believe in a higher power. It doesn't have to be god. What I was meaning is that our ability to create imaginary, but helpful, constructs is what got us past the level of being animals.
Is money real? No, it's paper which we add significance to. Money is no realer than nationality, language, religion or states. And yet all of those constructs have been intensely helpful to us. While you may not believe in God, you believe in several other imaginary, possibly irrational (why should I give you a computer for some paper?) constructs.
Money is assigned value because it's more convenient than bartering. I only consider money valuable so long as it's capable of redeeming other goods and services, it's merely the middle man in a trade.
Nationality is real in that we as humans decided banding together tended to be more efficient than not doing so. We give up some power to gain some security etc. More or less the same thing as state. I don't really consider myself American, I merely live here and trade my services (such as being taxed) for what the country has to offer me in return.
Language is probably the most absurd of these examples, there's nothing "belief" related about it. Young humans instinctually absorb language because it's pretty much necessary for us to be able to communicate. You might say we merely believe in the meaning behind words, but that's a semantical and pointless argument at it's core. That's like saying that math is belief because we basically arbitrarily made characters and words to try and quantify how the mechanics work.
Stop being such a terrible pseudo-intellectual. I don't need to "believe" in any of these things because they're right in front of me, so unless you're trying to get into some high school stoner's shitty view on existentialism "duuuudddeee, what is real" you should basically stop being retarded.
.Girl
02-16-2009, 04:23 PM
IM MUSLIM:)
mrs_bun
02-16-2009, 05:26 PM
Lol cover your face. :P
Yes, and something like that is how I respond to each and every argument against religion. Yes, religion is irrational, but it responds to a basic need that human beings have.Religion does facilitate a number of human needs: belonging to a group, calming our fear of death (not necessarily a good thing from an evolutionary point of view, but nonetheless one people are drawn to), giving us a peace of mind about some other difficult questions (albeit by providing wrong answers). I agree with you there.
However, the benefits it provides are attached to a high cost in form of everything from resource-consuming rituals (time, energy, money) to killing other people and these benefits have shrunk over time. We don't really need a creation story pulled out of thin air anymore because we have actual answers now. However, religion persists because it's being taught to children from a position of authority at an age when they're particularly susceptible to it. If you're trying to rationalize religion in terms of "basic human needs", it's not going to work. As you said yourself, religion is irrational.
When I pray, I don't give a shit about whether or not the god I pray to exists. That people who argue that GOD EXISTS SO RELIGION IS DUMLOL bring those arguments up shows that they don't understand that basic part of being human--that the belief in something far larger than you is the reason that we succeed so well. Now here you confuse me. Why would you pray to something who you "don't give a shit about"? Are you saying that prayer is a basic part of being human? People who don't pray aren't human? I'm fairly sure I'm human.
I dunno, I'd take the exact opposite stance. I personally believe in no afterlife of sorts or any god. What this means is that for me it's important I utilize this life to the fullest, because there's no second chances and once it's over it's done. If in this life I manage to do something spectacular enough to remembered for some years after I die, then that's kind of like living on longer. So lack of belief drives me to do something other than complacently live my life.Why would you care about being remembered after death if you don't believe in afterlife? It wouldn't make any difference to you, seeing how you... well... would be dead. :V
mrs_bun
02-16-2009, 05:53 PM
Anything to make that last few seconds less terrifying, Zerg.
Anything to make that last few seconds less terrifying, Zerg.Atheism does wonders in terms of making the last few seconds less terrifying. Why would you fear death? You didn't exist for the previous 12 billion years, how will the situation be different after you die?
EDIT: Besides, you would be going to a giant frying pan FOR ALL ETERNITY ZOMG. :V
mrs_bun
02-16-2009, 05:59 PM
I'm just throwin ideas out, I ain't ascared. :P
Jabby
02-16-2009, 06:00 PM
I don't like the term atheist. I feel like it was made up by religious people to try to classify me. My beliefs are just an absence of their beliefs, not the opposite, and definitely not analogous or parallel.
What do you call someone who's not a racist?
notallama
02-16-2009, 06:02 PM
What do you call someone who's not a racist?
aracist.
:V
What do you call someone who's not a racist?Everybody is racist. Some people are just less honest about it.
Cee Pee
02-16-2009, 06:02 PM
I don't like the term atheist. I feel like it was made up by religious people to try to classify me. My beliefs are just an absence of their beliefs, not the opposite, and definitely not analogous or parallel.
What do you call someone who's not a racist?
A xenophile?
Though I agree with you.
notallama
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
mine was more elegant.
Jabby
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
Everybody is racist. Some people are just less honest about it.
If you want to be THAT cynical about it.
What do you call someone who's not... a race car driver?
mrs_bun
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
You're just calling me racist cuz ur jealous I'm white! :V
Jabby
02-16-2009, 06:04 PM
You're just calling me racist cuz ur jealous I'm white! :V
HAY HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN WAS A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD?
:mad:
Shadow
02-16-2009, 06:04 PM
I don't think that everybody is racist, just that we all make stereotypes of people because it's an easy way to label things. If you think Puerto Ricans are going to knife you they probably will. Don't mean all of them Puerto Ricans knife people though. Just a good way to keep yourself safe.
:V
I don't think that everybody is racist, just that we all make stereotypes of people because it's an easy way to label things.Stereotypes... based on race...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that called racism?
Shadow
02-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Stereotypes... based on race...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that called racism?
It was for the Puerto Ricans.
What do you call someone who's not... a race car driver?Not a race car driver. If I really needed to classify people based on that attribute.
If a lot of people needed to frequently split people into categories based on whether they drive race cars, I imagine we would have come up with a more convenient one-word label for it. We might have even used the phrase "does not drive a race car" , i.e. a pre-existing concept in the definition of that word.
Oh wait, that's probably how the word "atheist" came about. I'm too lazy to dig it up in the OED. Point is, it's easy and practical to define an absence of something by simply contrasting it with that "something", assuming "something" is already defined.
Jabby
02-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Not a race car driver. If I really needed to classify people based on that attribute.
If a lot of people needed to frequently split people into categories based on whether they drive race cars, I imagine we would have come up with a more convenient one-word label for it. We might have even used the phrase "does not drive a race car" , i.e. a pre-existing concept in the definition of that word.
Oh wait, that's probably how the word "atheist" came about. I'm too lazy to dig it up in the OED. Point is, it's easy and practical to define an absence of something by simply contrasting it with that "something", assuming "something" is already defined.
What I'm trying to say that atheism is the not the opposite of theism, it's the absence of it. There is a difference.
notallama
02-16-2009, 06:24 PM
What I'm trying to say that atheism is the not the opposite of theism, it's the absence of it. There is a difference.
and atheism means both, because many people that are not theists think that theism is retarded, so "atheist" got connected with that idea as well.
What I'm trying to say that atheism is the not the opposite of theism, it's the absence of it. There is a difference.Vacuum is not the opposite of air, it's just the absence of it. The two ideas are still closely associated.
Jabby
02-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Vacuum is not the opposite of air, it's just the absence of it. The two ideas are still closely associated.
All I'm trying to point out is that they aren't logical parallels. Speaking in terms of logic (and scientific method) atheism is more valid than theism.
Jenius
02-16-2009, 06:40 PM
Why would you care about being remembered after death if you don't believe in afterlife? It wouldn't make any difference to you, seeing how you... well... would be dead. :V
It's not so much I'd appreciate it after my death as it is appreciating it during my life. I mean wouldn't it be awesome to know that even after you die, you're far more relevant than most alive people?
LegendShark
02-16-2009, 06:59 PM
It's not so much I'd appreciate it after my death as it is appreciating it during my life. I mean wouldn't it be awesome to know that even after you die, you're far more relevant than most alive people?
Yes, but by that point, you can't give a ÷÷÷÷ because you're dead.
mrs_bun
02-16-2009, 07:01 PM
Dead ÷÷÷÷ can't say no.
Wait, which word did you use?
notallama
02-16-2009, 07:01 PM
but you can give a ÷÷÷÷ before you're dead.
and you can be like, "i'm gonna be famous and such" to other living people, and they might give a crap. *shrug*
Jabby
02-16-2009, 07:03 PM
People never get the flowers while they can still smell them.
-Kanye West
yo.
good news
02-16-2009, 07:15 PM
the separation of our soul from modes of production allow us to ignore material reality in favor of our souls
LegendShark
02-16-2009, 07:19 PM
Dead ÷÷÷÷ can't say no.
Wait, which word did you use?
I said Fcuk.
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 07:42 PM
Ha! Christianity's catching up!
Jabby
02-17-2009, 08:41 PM
Ha! Christianity's catching up!
The real world plays out slightly better for you guys.
Unrelated, world has sucked for everyone else up until a few decades ago.
Money is assigned value because it's more convenient than bartering. I only consider money valuable so long as it's capable of redeeming other goods and services, it's merely the middle man in a trade.
Nationality is real in that we as humans decided banding together tended to be more efficient than not doing so. We give up some power to gain some security etc. More or less the same thing as state. I don't really consider myself American, I merely live here and trade my services (such as being taxed) for what the country has to offer me in return.
Language is probably the most absurd of these examples, there's nothing "belief" related about it. Young humans instinctually absorb language because it's pretty much necessary for us to be able to communicate. You might say we merely believe in the meaning behind words, but that's a semantical and pointless argument at it's core. That's like saying that math is belief because we basically arbitrarily made characters and words to try and quantify how the mechanics work.
Stop being such a terrible pseudo-intellectual. I don't need to "believe" in any of these things because they're right in front of me, so unless you're trying to get into some high school stoner's shitty view on existentialism "duuuudddeee, what is real" you should basically stop being retarded.
Human beings can believe in things larger than themselves, they can believe in things that they have never seen, facilitating nation-building and forming larger groups. We succeeded and were able to take over the planet, and if we did not have that capacity we wouldn't be able to become such a powerful force on the planet.
We are smarter than other animals, yes, but if we weren't able to believe in things that we've never seen (states, kings), we would've stayed in small groups, and that ability is the same ability that allows us to believe in a god.
That's a pretty simple argument. I apologize you couldn't understand it, I really do.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:09 PM
Human beings can believe in things larger than themselves, they can believe in things that they have never seen, facilitating nation-building and forming larger groups. We succeeded and were able to take over the planet, and if we did not have that capacity we wouldn't be able to become such a powerful force on the planet.
We are smarter than other animals, yes, but if we weren't able to believe in things that we've never seen (states, kings), we would've stayed in small groups, and that ability is the same ability that allows us to believe in a god.
That's a pretty simple argument. I apologize you couldn't understand it, I really do.
The argument that all of that came out of a belief in something greater is flawed. Nation building came out of the realization that the whole is greater than the some of the parts. Adding a supernatural level to it is superfluous. Theists never give people enough credit.
The argument that all of that came out of a belief in something greater is flawed. Nation building came out of the realization that the whole is greater than the some of the parts. Adding a supernatural level to it is superfluous. Theists never give people enough credit.
I'm saying that the same instinct that allows us to believe that a king we've never me exists (a requirement for keeping a nation existing) is the same instinct that lets us believe in a God.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 09:16 PM
I very much disagree.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Fair enough.
Gods and kings satisfy an instinct, but they aren't instincts.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:19 PM
I'm saying that the same instinct that allows us to believe that a king we've never me exists (a requirement for keeping a nation existing) is the same instinct that lets us believe in a God.
You do realize that, in ancient societies, very few people knew/cared about who the king was?
I see the point that you're making, except for the fact that neither is particularly beneficial to the individual, only to the one making the claim.
"Who took my land?"
"The King."
"oh, ok."
"Who makes the sun rise?"
"God."
"Oh, ok."
In both cases, it would be better to question the source of the results.
Also, I'm high and sleepy.
Fair enough.
Gods and kings satisfy an instinct, but they aren't instincts.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I'm saying that believing in a King you've never met requires faith, believing in a god you've never perceived requires faith.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:22 PM
I don't know what you're talking about.
I'm saying that believing in a King you've never met requires faith, believing in a god you've never perceived requires faith.
But that doesn't make either of the beliefs right.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 09:24 PM
I don't know what you're talking about.
I'm saying that believing in a King you've never met requires faith, believing in a god you've never perceived requires faith.
Now you aren't talking about spiritual faith or any kind of instinct, you're talking about acceptance of empirical evidence. Rarely do we question without getting a nudge first.
You do realize that, in ancient societies, very few people knew/cared about who the king was?
I see the point that you're making, except for the fact that neither is particularly beneficial to the individual, only to the one making the claim.
"Who took my land?"
"The King."
"oh, ok."
"Who makes the sun rise?"
"God."
"Oh, ok."
In both cases, it would be better to question the source of the results.
Also, I'm high and sleepy.
It's not beneficial to the individual, but it's beneficial to the society as a whole, as it allows us to form large groups until communications picked up to the degree where we're constantly seeing our head of state.
But that doesn't make either of the beliefs right.
Of course not, it's still important though.
Also, if some words are missing in my posts, it's because I drank a hip flask of Captain and then lost all my money via gambling.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:28 PM
It's not beneficial to the individual, but it's beneficial to the society as a whole, as it allows us to form large groups until communications picked up to the degree where we're constantly seeing our head of state.
Not always good.
I don't know how to express it, but there's a big difference between belief in a leader and belief in a God. Now, when the former resembles the latter, totalitarian states are born.
Not always good.
I don't know how to express it, but there's a big difference between belief in a leader and belief in a God. Now, when the former resembles the latter, totalitarian states are born.
I'm not saying that we should follow faith to the ends of the Earth, I'm just saying that faith allowed us to go on until rationality took over.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 09:35 PM
Benefit motivates nothing on a societal level.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm not saying that we should follow faith to the ends of the Earth, I'm just saying that faith allowed us to go on until rationality took over.
Oh. Well, yeah.
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 09:38 PM
I'm not saying that we should follow faith to the ends of the Earth, I'm just saying that faith allowed us to go on until rationality took over.You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive.
You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive.
But they aren't, and I don't believe they are.
ha HA!
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 09:39 PM
Disagree disagree disagree!
Instinct begat rationality. Faith is dependent of rationality; it can't exist without it! Faith is NOT instinct.
Avedomni
02-17-2009, 09:40 PM
I don't know how to express it, but there's a big difference between belief in a leader and belief in a God.The difference is not between the beliefs, for belief in a being is of a certain kind regardless of the nature of the being in question. The difference which exists is in the nature of the being to which belief is being applied, and the attributes which it exhibits.Now, when the former resembles the latter, totalitarian states are born.This is, again, of a different form than a resemblance between beliefs. In this case, the problem arises from the fact that belief in a being attributed with Divine Authority necessarily entails willing submission to that authority. This is, however, a result of the attributes of the entity, and not of a difference in the form of belief in that entity.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:40 PM
But they aren't, and I don't believe they are.
ha HA!
Rationality leads us back to faith, so really faith has garnered us no progress?
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 09:41 PM
I'm saying that believing in a King you've never met requires faith, believing in a god you've never perceived requires faith.
So therefore they are EQUALLY VERIFIABLE CLAIMS
Yeah okay it's impossible to transcend human perspective how does this necessitate a belief in God.
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 09:43 PM
Yeah okay it's impossible to transcend human perspective how does this necessitate a belief in God.Because who else will watch you masturbate?
Or, Serious answer: It doesn't. Belief is an act of the will and isn't strictly dependent on the intellect. You basically have to make a guess based on subjective and other non-logical reasons, but it is equally logical to choose either atheism or theism or transitional agnosticism (though permanent agnosticism strikes me as a largely untenable position, or at least unwise).
good news
02-17-2009, 09:44 PM
faith was a way to rationalize a world that really didn't make any sense- it was a rational worldview in the sense that it did work, when we think of greek mythology and sacrifices.
but once the goal behind sacrifice stopped matching up with what happened after the sacrifice, the world stopped being rational again and something else had to pick up the pieces- our current notion of rationality
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:44 PM
Because who else will watch you masturbate?
Ceiling Cat.
And that one guy who vchats me all the time.
Tidal Kraken
02-17-2009, 09:45 PM
Because who else will watch you masturbate?
my goddamn cats :mad:
e: damn it
good news
02-17-2009, 09:45 PM
Kant- but someone can tell us about a king and write a whole biography of him and it can turn out that he doesn't actually exist
notallama
02-17-2009, 09:47 PM
Because who else will watch you masturbate?
michio kaku?
Psion
02-17-2009, 09:49 PM
michio kaku?
Sperm field theory?
Rationality leads us back to faith, so really faith has garnered us no progress?
Faith fills in the holes that rationality can't fill in. It was really useful in a massive sense before we had enough information to use rationality well.
It's still important in a day-to-day sense, like having faith in your mother living through a sickness, or the faith that your life is going to get better. But it's not as important for us anymore.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 09:53 PM
Faith fills in the holes that rationality can't fill in.
yet
It's still important in a day-to-day sense, like having faith in your mother living through a sickness, or the faith that your life is going to get better. But it's not as important for us anymore.
Oh, I agree. Whether or not this is significant is up in the air, though.
Kant- but someone can tell us about a king and write a whole biography of him and it can turn out that he doesn't actually exist
And we can form worldwide religions around nonexistent gods.
I'm not saying that theism is the correct thing, just that faith is important to us, as humans.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 09:54 PM
Faith fills in the holes that rationality can't fill in. It was really useful in a massive sense before we had enough information to use rationality well.
It's still important in a day-to-day sense, like having faith in your mother living through a sickness, or the faith that your life is going to get better. But it's not as important for us anymore.
All of your descriptions of faith's benefits are in the past tense!
Do you see what I'm getting at?
We're outgrowing faith.
yet
Yeah...
That's what I meant.
Oh, I agree. Whether or not this is significant is up in the air, though.
In some degrees it holds us back (the midwest :mad:)
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 09:56 PM
All of your descriptions of faith's benefits are in the past tense!
Do you see what I'm getting at?
We're outgrowing faith.
And yet, we are reliant on it. Faith is really just another expression for uncertainty, just typically in a, uh, positive direction. There is always going to be a degree of uncertainty in all hat you do, so therefore your actions will always be based in faith.
notallama
02-17-2009, 09:57 PM
And we can form worldwide religions around nonexistent gods.
I'm not saying that theism is the correct thing, just that faith is important to us, as humans.
are you aware that apes (and likely other animals) have this "faith" too?
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:01 PM
And yet, we are reliant on it. Faith is really just another expression for uncertainty, just typically in a, uh, positive direction. There is always going to be a degree of uncertainty in all hat you do, so therefore your actions will always be based in faith.
Not really. More often than not, they'll be based on calculated research of the situation.
And I think that it's important to make the distinction between hope and faith. Hope is the desire for something, faith is the belief that something will come to be true/is true. This is in reference to Kant's sick mother example. There Faith can be harmful and detrimental. Hope is the natural response, I would think.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:06 PM
Not really. More often than not, they'll be based on calculated research of the situation.
Right, but to what degree are you certain that I am a real person, and not merely an elaborate ruse orchestrated by a number of worldwide artists?
And if everything is uncertain, what criteria allows us to measure degrees of faith/certainty if they exist at all?
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Right, but to what degree are you certain that I am a real person, and not merely an elaborate ruse orchestrated by a number of worldwide artists?
And if everything is uncertain, what criteria allows us to measure degrees of faith/certainty if they exist at all?
I see what you mean here. But it's not so much a question of faith, as a question of "all of the evidence points here, so it's the logical conclusion for now.". That statement acknowledges that I can be wrong, and am willing to change in the face of new evidence. Somehow, to me, faith does not.
Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc. etc.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:11 PM
Faith is the opposite of hope. Hope is a need, faith is an action. Some would say faith is the placebo effect for the symptom of hope.
notallama
02-17-2009, 10:11 PM
i wonder what decartes would think if you severed his corpus callosum.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:11 PM
I see what you mean here. But it's not so much a question of faith, as a question of "all of the evidence points here, so it's the logical conclusion for now.". That statement acknowledges that I can be wrong, and am willing to change in the face of new evidence. Somehow, to me, faith does not.
I mean, it's effectively semantics, and like I said, it remains to be determined if faith is significant. Pragmatically, it isn't, apparently, but who knows!
And dear god I do not want to get into a debate on language tonight.
Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc. etc.
Quantum mechanics is such bullshit.
Faith is the opposite of hope. Hope is a need, faith is an action. Some would say faith is the placebo effect for the symptom of hope.
I like it better when you tend to avoid serious threads.
Avedomni
02-17-2009, 10:13 PM
Quantum mechanics is such bullshit.:confused:
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:14 PM
I mean, it's effectively semantics, and like I said, it remains to be determined if faith is significant. Pragmatically, it isn't, apparently, but who knows!
Well, yeah.
And dear god I do not want to get into a debate on language tonight.
'k.
Quantum mechanics is such bullshit.
I don't know enough about it. But the principle applies to logic to, I would think.
EDIT: In all I do think that it comes down to your definition of faith, and how far you take it. I think you'd agree that that's subjective, and kind of makes our arguments incompatible?
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 10:14 PM
Guys, faith is an epistemological necessity. Reason only allows you to navigate between beliefs, to put them into a structure that lacks conflicts. You have to believe in your senses, believe in the existence of others, believe in logic itself (since using logic as proof of logic would be begging the question, which is illogical). That it is easier to hang descriptions of how things work on a smaller set of beliefs today than it was yesterday doesn't mean we're outgrowing belief, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the beliefs you don't hold.
Believe what you believe because you think it's true, and for no other reason.
Avedomni
02-17-2009, 10:14 PM
You have to believe in your senses, believe in the existence of others, believe in logic itself (since using logic as proof of logic would be begging the question, which is illogical). That it is easier to hang descriptions of how things work on a smaller set of beliefs today than it was yesterday doesn't mean we're outgrowing belief, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the beliefs you don't hold.You seem to be conflating belief and trust.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:17 PM
I like it better when you tend to avoid serious threads.
Jab, or serious criticism?
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:17 PM
You seem to be conflating belief and trust.
Always we do.
Kant:
You lump together the belief in God, "belief" in the existence of a king whom you've never seen, and everything else like that, and declare it to be a single human instinct. I agree that every kind of belief is based on the same (very general) mechanism: being able to imagine/believe/conceptualize things we cannot see. That is an important human quality, I agree there.
However, your assumption that since it's a single quality, every one of its products must be beneficial, is wrong.
1. Benefits merely need to outweigh the drawbacks for the whole mechanism to be advantageous and to stick around. A peacock's tail paints a giant target for predators, but makes him more attractive to females. The net result is positive.
2. Products of the same mechanism can yield completely different results. We discover nuclear fission and it provides us with a cheap and clean energy source as well a new method to kill large numbers of people.
So, if we assume the first part of your theory to be correct, that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusions you made. "Faith" can provide all kinds of benefits, but unfortunately has a side effect of making people think there's a pissed off old man in the sky. As destructive as commands of this pissed off old man might be, other products of "faith" appear to be sufficiently useful to make it stick around.
Except I'd generalize further and replace "faith" with "abstract thought".
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:19 PM
Guys, faith is an epistemological necessity. Reason only allows you to navigate between beliefs, to put them into a structure that lacks conflicts. You have to believe in your senses, believe in the existence of others, believe in logic itself (since using logic as proof of logic would be begging the question, which is illogical). That it is easier to hang descriptions of how things work on a smaller set of beliefs today than it was yesterday doesn't mean we're outgrowing belief, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the beliefs you don't hold.
Believe what you believe because you think it's true, and for no other reason.
Logic is a system within which we operate. You don't need prove it or have faith in it. It's operations are visible. As subjects inside the system, we cannot understand the system fully, and thus cannot justify it.
Faith (God) is not a system. It is a force, with no observable effects.
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 10:20 PM
You seem to be conflating belief and trust.I'm claiming an identity, at least for the purposes of epistemology. Both are acts of the will upon the intellect which cause you to hold something as true. If you want to draw a distinction, the difference between "trust" and "belief" might be that the former is unexamined. Alternately, the former could be described as having a more personal connotation. Either way, the distinction is not particularly relevant here.
BlaineTog
02-17-2009, 10:27 PM
Logic is a system within which we operate. You don't need prove it or have faith in it.I'm not saying you need to prove it, but you most certainly need to have faith in it. As I pointed out, it cannot justify itself since that would be illogical and therefore self-contradictory. And nihilism (and Zen Buddhism!) certainly seems to think you can disbelieve it, which means there was a belief in the first place.
System or not, you still need to believe it is in operation to state that it is in operation, since it is not provable.
It's operations are visible. As subjects inside the system, we cannot understand the system fully, and thus cannot justify it.These are reasons to believe in it, perhaps, but not reasons that we do not "believe" in it.
Faith (God) is not a system. It is a force, with no observable effects.That is a matter of contention. God and the system of the world may well have an identity (Hindus would certainly say as much), and one could argue that the universe is its observable effect.
I'm not trying to prove God here. I'm only trying to keep the debate logically and epistemologically correct. Holding beliefs is a necessary part of having and using your intellect, since it is on beliefs that the intellect acts.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:27 PM
:confused:
1) It's a funny thing to say.
2) I fall in the camp of people who believe 'uncertainty' arises from a limitation in measurement and perception.
Jab, or serious criticism?
little o' column a little o' column b
EDIT: hell yeah spinoza
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:28 PM
When trying to convince someone of a thing you believe, you have to sell it on the platform of their beliefs. If someone doesn't believe in god, you won't convince them with miracles or wordplay.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:29 PM
I'm not saying you need to prove it, but you most certainly need to have faith in it. As I pointed out, it cannot justify itself since that would be illogical and therefore self-contradictory. And nihilism (and Zen Buddhism!) certainly seems to think you can disbelieve it, which means there was a belief in the first place.
You just applied logic to logic to say that you can't apply logic to logic!
Anyway. You don't need to "believe" in it. Logic is just a name that we gave a set of rules. It's a science. There's no need for belief, it's just a collection of observations.
God is not. God is an explanation for a collection of observations.
I highlighted that because it's brilliant. :V
Avedomni
02-17-2009, 10:29 PM
I'm claiming an identity, at least for the purposes of epistemology. Both are acts of the will upon the intellect which cause you to hold something as true. If you want to draw a distinction, the difference between "trust" and "belief" might be that the former is unexamined.You misunderstand. To believe in something is to hold that it exists (perhaps, that it is "true" that it exists, but the distinction here is truly meaningless). To trust something is to hold that it is not deceiving you. You refer to "believing in your senses", but most hold no such belief (at least not anywhere near a cognitive level). They trust that their senses are not deceiving them, but this has nothing to do with their belief in those senses (which, really, probably isn't questionable on a personal level). The same holds for "believing in logic".
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:30 PM
little o' column a little o' column b
EDIT: hell yeah spinoza
Lmao.
I'd like to hear more of the serious criticism part if you're game.
If someone doesn't believe in god, you won't convince them with miracles or wordplay.That's pretty much the point.
God doesn't have anything else.
You have no facts, no logical arguments, nothing that makes sense. You can't put 2 and 2 together, can't connect the dots, and can't sink my battleship.
So why exactly do you believe in him?
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:33 PM
I'd like to hear more of the serious criticism part if you're game.
Your posts are sometimes only tangentially related to the current discussion, and frequently sound like they should be found in fortune cookies. Your actual contributions to the topic are often either poorly explained, or poorly thought out.
Also, epistemological dickwaving itt
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Well we all know that, Shady. :P
That's pretty much the point.
God doesn't have anything else.
You have no facts, no logical arguments, nothing that makes sense. You can't put 2 and 2 together, can't connect the dots, and can't sink my battleship.
So why exactly do you believe in him?
Why don't you?
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:37 PM
That's pretty much the point.
God doesn't have anything else.
You have no facts, no logical arguments, nothing that makes sense. You can't put 2 and 2 together, can't connect the dots, and can't sink my battleship.
So why exactly do you believe in him?
Well we all know that, Shady. :P
Why don't you?
I feel like you missed something. Lack of belief is the default, not an alternative view.
Well we all know that, Shady. :P
Why don't you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
Why don't you believe that?
Because, you know, it's pretty much the same idea. Other than not being 2000 years old.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:39 PM
Lack of belief is not the default. Even if it is subconscious, you believe SOMEthing, or you die, or go into a coma or something. Lack of belief is suicide.
God is simply one of many options.
Lack of articulation yaus.
you believe SOMEthing, or you die, or go into a coma or something. Lack of belief is suicide....what?
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:41 PM
Lack of belief is not the default. Even if it is subconscious, you believe SOMEthing, or you die, or go into a coma or something. Lack of belief is suicide.
Um. No.
EDIT: High-five Zerg!
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:42 PM
Um, yeah? I didn't say you believe something supernatural.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Lack of belief is not the default. Even if it is subconscious, you believe SOMEthing, or you die, or go into a coma or something. Lack of belief is suicide.
God is simply one of many options.
Lack of articulation yaus.
Your posts are sometimes only tangentially related to the current discussion, and frequently sound like they should be found in fortune cookies. Your actual contributions to the topic are often either poorly explained, or poorly thought out.
http://www.owendennis.net/images/misc/toby-head-shake-v3.gif
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Um, yeah? I didn't say you believe something supernatural.
No. I don't believe. I choose to make no claim.
Avedomni
02-17-2009, 10:45 PM
Lack of belief is not the default.For any specific entity, disbelief is the default. One does not believe something until one is convinced.
Example: We own a pink dragon. It sleeps in our daughter's bed, and occasionally flies us to Mars.Even if it is subconscious, you believe SOMEthing, or you die, or go into a coma or something.Of course you believe something. Specifically, you believe that for which you have had sufficient evidence. The differences come from where the sufficiency line lies.
Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician
02-17-2009, 10:48 PM
For any specific entity, disbelief is the default. One does not believe something until one is convinced.
Minor semantic quibble: ignorance (a lack of awareness or knowledge) is the default. Belief or disbelief is then later concluded based on rationality.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:49 PM
Minor semantic quibble: ignorance (a lack of awareness or knowledge) is the default. Belief or disbelief is then later concluded based on rationality.
Ignorance and disbelief is a really semantic point. I would venture to say that Ave is right about the sufficiency line, even if we call the initial position ignorance.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:52 PM
Okay, I'll stop. I still think everyone believes something, tho.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:54 PM
Okay, I'll stop. I still think everyone believes something, tho.
It goes back to your point about what type of logic to present in order to be convincing.
Think outside your box.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:54 PM
For any specific entity, disbelief is the default. One does not believe something until one is convinced.
Example: We own a pink dragon. It sleeps in our daughter's bed, and occasionally flies us to Mars.Of course you believe something. Specifically, you believe that for which you have had sufficient evidence. The differences come from where the sufficiency line lies.
Sorry, I misspoke as usual. I meant to say that everyone has a belief as to what the meaning of life (or just their life) is, even if that belief is only the sum of their personal knowledge with know assumptions or embellishments. For some people, that belief personifies itself as god.\
EDIT: @ Jab, this is what I meant.
Jabby
02-17-2009, 10:55 PM
Sorry, I misspoke as usual. I meant to say that everyone has a belief as to what the meaning of life (or just their life) is, even if that belief is only the sum of their personal knowledge with know assumptions or embellishments. For some people, that belief personifies itself as god.
You're really using "belief" and "definition" interchangeably here, aren't you?
Skydin
02-17-2009, 10:56 PM
Gogo agnosticism.
mrs_bun
02-17-2009, 10:59 PM
You're really using "belief" and "definition" interchangeably here, aren't you?
I'm having trouble communicating my thought.
Skydin
02-17-2009, 11:01 PM
Telepathy. It's the only way.
EDIT: High-five Zerg!http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/invishighfive.jpg
Yeah, Alleji, you pretty much got to my point--that God and all the other stuff I talked about is a result of abstract thought.
Magic Stagstation
02-18-2009, 10:52 AM
Nontheist. Basically, "I don't know and who the ffff cares?"
This.
Yeah, Alleji, you pretty much got to my point--that God and all the other stuff I talked about is a result of abstract thought.And then I proceeded to explain why the rest of your conclusion is wrong. No response to that? Awwww. :P
And then I proceeded to explain why the rest of your conclusion is wrong. No response to that? Awwww. :P
Dude, I was agreeing with you.
We don't need faith in major situations like 'does my head of state exist' anymore--we have enough information to use rationality in most situations, but faith fills in the holes in everyday life.
Faith, however, was intensely important when we evolved, which is why we have that capacity, and if we didn't have the ability to do abstract thought, we'd be scarcely better than wolves or apes.
edit-At the Teapot stuff--you're missing the point. My belief in God has provided several advantages while giving me few disadvantages, that's why I choose to believe in God. Whether or not God exists or not does not matter to me in the slightest, it's just a beneficial belief to have.
bun_bot
02-18-2009, 02:44 PM
I very much disagree.
BlaineTog
02-18-2009, 11:05 PM
You just applied logic to logic to say that you can't apply logic to logic!No, I applied logic to logic to say that you can't prove logic with logic. Since I wasn't trying to prove logic, it's not a contradiction.
Anyway. You don't need to "believe" in it. Logic is just a name that we gave a set of rules. It's a science.You need to believe in the law of noncontradiction, which is unprovable, which makes it a belief, by definition. And as I pointed out earlier, there are plenty of religions that disbelieve in it, specifically, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Nihilism doesn't go in for it.
There's no need for belief, it's just a collection of observations.Observations or not, you still need beliefs to take what they give you as true.
God is not. God is an explanation for a collection of observations.Just as the existence of an external universe is an explanation for your sense perceptions.
You misunderstand. To believe in something is to hold that it exists (perhaps, that it is "true" that it exists, but the distinction here is truly meaningless). To trust something is to hold that it is not deceiving you. You refer to "believing in your senses", but most hold no such belief (at least not anywhere near a cognitive level). They trust that their senses are not deceiving them, but this has nothing to do with their belief in those senses (which, really, probably isn't questionable on a personal level). The same holds for "believing in logic".I disagree that your distinction is in any way meaningful. No matter what terminology you use, there is an epistemological gap between your sense perceptions and the external world, namely that you have to jump a gap that logic cannot help you with in order to claim that they have anything to do with any sort of external world, much less an external world which resembles what they are telling you. The leap you make to get over that gap is what is termed "belief."
mrs_bun
02-18-2009, 11:07 PM
Some things are just empirical, BT.
BlaineTog
02-19-2009, 12:48 AM
Some things are just empirical, BT.That would be the definition of sense perceptions. Calling them "empirical" doesn't get around the question of why we should trust/believe in what they're telling us.
Jenius
02-19-2009, 01:12 AM
I think you're being semantical BT, I personally don't really feel that I believe in anything because I acknowledge at some point I could be provided with reason to change my views.
I am fairly sure about a lot of things, darn near positive about others, but I wouldn't call it "belief" because I am merely acting on the assumption that it's more likely I'm right than that I'm wrong. It's the logical choice. You can call that belief if you feel like it, but that's pointlessly semantical and you're just trying to win a debate over words.
Edit: I'm fairly nihilistic if that helps.
Hey, I have this really cool idea.
I even made a thread for it.
http://wut.ca/showthread.php?t=269
Jenius
02-19-2009, 01:24 AM
As a side not the defintion of belief I tend to use is:
"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" ergo by definition, something backed up by observable evidence isn't really belief unless one is trying to say that perception itself is belief.
BlaineTog
02-19-2009, 01:26 AM
I think you're being semantical BT, I personally don't really feel that I believe in anything because I acknowledge at some point I could be provided with reason to change my views.
I am fairly sure about a lot of things, darn near positive about others, but I wouldn't call it "belief" because I am merely acting on the assumption that it's more likely I'm right than that I'm wrong. It's the logical choice. You can call that belief if you feel like it, but that's pointlessly semantical and you're just trying to win a debate over words.Epistemology is an important base for any argument. If you don't know what you know and what you only kinda know, you're screwing yourself from the get-go.
My point is that scientific "knowledge" is no more certain than religious "knowledge." This is important because it takes the snobbery out of the debate, from both sides. Snobbery impedes rational discussion and cranks up the likelihood of being wrong. You can call the difference between being right and being wrong mere semantics if you like, but then, you can also go ®®®® a goat.
Edit: I'm fairly nihilistic if that helps. Well there's your problem.
As a side not the defintion of belief I tend to use is:
"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" ergo by definition, something backed up by observable evidence isn't really belief unless one is trying to say that perception itself is belief.OFF TO THE SEMANTICS THREAD WITH YOU!
...wait, am I trolling my own thread? I suppose it's gone on long enough that it's not really mine anymore.
BlaineTog
02-19-2009, 01:32 AM
As a side not the defintion of belief I tend to use is:
"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" ergo by definition, something backed up by observable evidence isn't really belief unless one is trying to say that perception itself is belief.If it depends on a belief, it is still a belief, just a second-order belief; at the very least, it's no more a certainty. It's knowledge insofar as it flows necessarily from the first-order belief, but it isn't any more certain because it's further from the epistemological gap. Like how you can't hang something from a link in a chain unless the first link is hanging from something solid, no matter how long the chain is.
EDIT: I'm gonna have to bow out, by the way. I've argued this exact same thread probably a hundred times so far, and I've really gotta stop.
Jenius
02-19-2009, 01:35 AM
You know BT I started to type up a post for this but I really don't care. You believe whatever you want to because I know that no matter what anyone replies to you with you'll just be stubborn as a mule and try to reduce everything down to semantics and nitpicking while completely missing the point.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.