Religious scriptures inconsistent with Science or Logic

[phenom]

I don't mean to spread hate; but i do mean to bring people to their senses.
Religious(of ANY religion) scripture inconsistent with Science or Logic, are their any?

:confused:

[ToxicBunny]

huh?

[JK8]

Islam is consistent with many scientific inventions and findings.

[PostmanPot]

there are too many!

[phenom]

Islam is consistent with many scientific inventions and findings.

According to the Koran/Qu'ran(reliable quotes found on the web):
*Sperm is produced between the ribs and spine - "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7
*Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky?
Nothing holds them up but (the power of) God.
Verily in this are signs for those who believe. Surah 16:79 Yusuf Ali
*The sun set in murky water: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness," (Quran 18:86).
*Birds can talk: "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (Quran 27:16).
*Ants can talk: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (Quran 27:18).
*Shooting stars are for driving away evil spirits: "And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire," (Quran 67:5).
*# There are 7 heavens and 7 earths! "Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge," (Surah 65:12).

*Hadith - the deeds and sayings of Muhammad. Very important in Islam.
1. Adam was made 90 feet tall. Allah made Adam 60 cubits high (generally a cubit was 18 inches. Therefore, Adam was 90 feet tall) The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. (Hadith, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543, Narrated Abu Huraira.)
2. Muhammad is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they worship Allah. "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah." (Hadith, Vol 1, Book 2, # 24) Narrated Ibn 'Umar.)
# Don't pass wind while praying: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The angels keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, 'O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him." - (Hadith, Vol. 1, Book 8, # 436)
1. Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace."
# A man slept through prayer time and the devil peed in his ear: "It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, 'He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated.'" (Hadith Vol. 4, Book 54, #492)#
1. Magic worked on Muhammad. How can that be if he is a prophet? "Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing," (Hadith, Vol. 4, Book 54, #490).
2. Muhammad was a white man: "While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?"...We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." (Hadith Vol. 1, book 3, #63)
3. Muhammad owned a black slave: "I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me," (Hadith, Vol. 9, Book 91, #368).
4. Muhammad had people killed: "Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka'ba (taking refuge in the Ka'ba)." The Prophet said, "Kill him," (Hadith, Vol. 3, Book 29, #72).
5. Muhammad was a sinner: "The Prophet said, "I say, O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail," (Hadith Vol. 1, Book 12, #711).
6. Muhammad taught lying was okay. "Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369).
Salvation
1. "Then when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no more relationships between them that Day, nor will one ask after another! 102Then those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy,- they will attain salvation: 103 But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide," (23:101-103).
#Women 1. Voluptuous women await Muslim men in paradise. "Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age," (Quran, 78:31-33).
2. It is okay to beat wives: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)..." (Quran, 4:34).
1. Eph. 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word."
3. Muslim men may marry up to four women, but no such provision is made for Muslim women: "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice," (Surah 4:3). # Other
1. Don't take Jews and Christians as friends: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people," (Quran 5:51).
1. In Surah 5:5 it says a Muslim can marry Christians and Jews, but Surah 5:51 says you cannot have Jews and Christians as friends... how does that work?
2. The soul exits through the collar-bone when leaving the body. "Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exit), 27And there will be a cry, "Who is a magician (to restore him)?" 28And he will conclude that it was (the Time) of Parting," (Surah 75:26-28).
3. Drink Camel Urine as medicine: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). Hadith, Vol. 8, Book 82, # 794


and from the top of by head:
*Thunder and lightning are Gods angles
*The toilet may contain actual evil sprites
*non-muslims are the vilest of animals
*"And the sun runs on into a resting place. - "When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: ‘O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"’ (Surah 18:86).
...and many many more

[fivelza]

I don't mean to spread hate; but i do mean to bring people to their senses.
Religious(of ANY religion) scriptures inconsistent with Science or Logic, are their any?

:confused:

Please read many of the other religious threads before delving into another religious debate.

Straight away you open with a statement 'I do mean to bring people to their senses'. I am perfectly 'at my senses', what would your point be ;)

[bwana]

@Orangeman - your anti-Islamic rhetoric is getting tedious now.

[JK8]

According to the Koran/Qu'ran:
*Sperm is produced between the ribs and spine - "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7
Theres an answer somewhere.
*Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky?
Nothing holds them up but (the power of) God.
Do their wings keep them up or is it the air? Who created air?
Verily in this are signs for those who believe. Surah 16:79 Yusuf Ali
*The sun set in murky water: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness," (Quran 18:86).
*Birds can talk: "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (Quran 27:16).
My parrot talks...
*Ants can talk: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (Quran 27:18).
*Shooting stars are for driving away evil spirits: "And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire," (Quran 67:5).
Comets hit after smaller comets breach the the atmosphere, small comets are shooting stars.
*# There are 7 heavens and 7 earths! "Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge," (Surah 65:12).

The rest is not relevant to this disscussion.

[ToxicBunny]

There is a discussion?

[noswal]

What's a "scribtures"

[JK8]

A lot of people in the west (specially you know where) think that the muslims are all backward and are camel jockeys and in general have stereotypical views,The fact is in some cases muslim scientists invented many of the worlds major inventions hundreds of years before european inventors took credit for.here is an Interesting article in the independent on Muslim Inventors and they're innovations we could'nt live without today.

The Muslim world has given us many innovations that we simply take for granted in our daily life.

1.The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia, when he noticed his animals became livelier after eating a certain berry. He boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions. By the late 15th century it had arrived in Mecca and Turkey from where it made its way to Venice in 1645. It was brought to England in 1650 by a Turk named Pasqua Rosee who opened the first coffee house in Lombard Street in the City of London. The Arabic qahwa became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé and then English coffee.

2.The ancient Greeks thought our eyes emitted rays, like a laser, which enabled us to see. The first person to realise that light enters the eye, rather than leaving it, was the 10th-century Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist Ibn al-Haitham. He invented the first pin-hole camera after noticing the way light came through a hole in window shutters. The smaller the hole, the better the picture, he worked out, and set up the first Camera Obscura (from the Arab word qamara for a dark or private room). He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one.

3.A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia. From there it spread westward to Europe - where it was introduced by the Moors in Spain in the 10th century - and eastward as far as Japan. The word rook comes from the Persian rukh, which means chariot.

4.A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped to glide like a bird. He didn't. But the cloak slowed his fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute, and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875, aged 70, having perfected a machine of silk and eagles' feathers he tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but crashed on landing - concluding, correctly, that it was because he had not given his device a tail so it would stall on landing. Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him.

5.Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today. The ancient Egyptians had soap of a kind, as did the Romans who used it more as a pomade. But it was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil. One of the Crusaders' most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed's Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.

6.Distillation, the means of separating liquids through differences in their boiling points, was invented around the year 800 by Islam's foremost scientist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, who transformed alchemy into chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and apparatus still in use today - liquefaction, crystallisation, distillation, purification, oxidisation, evaporation and filtration. As well as discovering sulphuric and nitric acid, he invented the alembic still, giving the world intense rosewater and other perfumes and alcoholic spirits (although drinking them is haram, or forbidden, in Islam). Ibn Hayyan emphasised systematic experimentation and was the founder of modern chemistry.

7.The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation. His 1206 Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices shows he also invented or refined the use of valves and pistons, devised some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights, and was the father of robotics. Among his 50 other inventions was the combination lock.

8.Quilting is a method of sewing or tying two layers of cloth with a layer of insulating material in between. It is not clear whether it was invented in the Muslim world or whether it was imported there from India or China. But it certainly came to the West via the Crusaders. They saw it used by Saracen warriors, who wore straw-filled quilted canvas shirts instead of armour. As well as a form of protection, it proved an effective guard against the chafing of the Crusaders' metal armour and was an effective form of insulation - so much so that it became a cottage industry back home in colder climates such as Britain and Holland.

9.The pointed arch so characteristic of Europe's Gothic cathedrals was an invention borrowed from Islamic architecture. It was much stronger than the rounded arch used by the Romans and Normans, thus allowing the building of bigger, higher, more complex and grander buildings. Other borrowings from Muslim genius included ribbed vaulting, rose windows and dome-building techniques. Europe's castles were also adapted to copy the Islamic world's - with arrow slits, battlements, a barbican and parapets. Square towers and keeps gave way to more easily defended round ones. Henry V's castle architect was a Muslim.

10.Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon. It was he who discovered that catgut used for internal stitches dissolves away naturally (a discovery he made when his monkey ate his lute strings) and that it can be also used to make medicine capsules. In the 13th century, another Muslim medic named Ibn Nafis described the circulation of the blood, 300 years before William Harvey discovered it. Muslims doctors also invented anaesthetics of opium and alcohol mixes and developed hollow needles to suck cataracts from eyes in a technique still used today.

11.The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation. In the vast deserts of Arabia, when the seasonal streams ran dry, the only source of power was the wind which blew steadily from one direction for months. Mills had six or 12 sails covered in fabric or palm leaves. It was 500 years before the first windmill was seen in Europe.

12.The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724. Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it.

13.The fountain pen was invented for the Sultan of Egypt in 953 after he demanded a pen which would not stain his hands or clothes. It held ink in a reservoir and, as with modern pens, fed ink to the nib by a combination of gravity and capillary action.

14.The system of numbering in use all round the world is probably Indian in origin but the style of the numerals is Arabic and first appears in print in the work of the Muslim mathematicians al-Khwarizmi and al-Kindi around 825. Algebra was named after al-Khwarizmi's book, Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah, much of whose contents are still in use. The work of Muslim maths scholars was imported into Europe 300 years later by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci. Algorithms and much of the theory of trigonometry came from the Muslim world. And Al-Kindi's discovery of frequency analysis rendered all the codes of the ancient world soluble and created the basis of modern cryptology.


"1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World" is a new exhibition which began a nationwide tour this week. It is currently at the Science Museum in Manchester. For more information, go to www.1001inventions.com

[ajax]

Ag, lock this thread already.

[bwana]

Ag, lock this thread already.I'm tempted to just for the ostentatious misuse of fonts. :eek:

[nocilah]

why should anyone take someone who doesnt know how to spell scripture seriously?

[phenom]

'scribture', was my wrong/quicktyping for scripture

[phenom]

Scripture

scrip·ture [skrípchər]
(plural scrip·tures) or Scrip·ture [skrípchər] (plural Scrip·tures)
noun


1. sacred writing: any sacred writing or book
Buddhist scripture

2. authoritative statement: a statement regarded as authoritative

[14th century. < Latin scriptura "what is written" < script- , past participle of scribere "write"]

[JK8]

'scribture', was my wrong/quicktyping for scripture

A "P" and a "B" is far from eachother on the keyboard.

[nocilah]

'scribture', was my wrong/quicktyping for scripture

so for someone who cant spell and just learnt to use a dictionary (well done ) what other entertainment have you got in store for us today?

[bullfrog]

why should anyone take someone who doesnt know how to spell scripture seriously?

No offense, but how would you spell "a lot" and would you like me to point you to how many times you've misspelled it?

I can understand people questioning the intelligence of people if they can't spell and have many spelling errors in one post, but one or two typo's or errors are fine imho. Now stop questioning everyones ability to spell based on a few errors please.

[bullfrog]

I'm also not saying that I'm agreeing to what the poster is saying, but please stop trying to judge everything on how the poster spells. Find some other way to discredit the poster, not based on how he didn't know how to spell a few words as it's getting really old :(

[bwana]

Thread title has been changed.

[phenom]

Thank you bullfrog; but, "he didn't know how to spell a few words", kindly define "few"

[nocilah]

No offense, but how would you spell "a lot" and would you like me to point you to how many times you've misspelled it?

I can understand people questioning the intelligence of people if they can't spell and have many spelling errors in one post, but one or two typo's or errors are fine imho. Now stop questioning everyones ability to spell based on a few errors please.

i am not questioning intelligence, i am questioning the validity of the claim the poster is making by starting yet another religious debate thread without having any sense to spell the title of his/her debate correctly.

it leads me to believe that entering any form of debate with this person will probably be filled with other inconsistent ideologies and conclusions.

[Nod]

I'm still in the dark as to the purpose of this thread. The topic is not a question, it's a statement. Maybe someone can enlighten me on what the actual issue is?

[bullfrog]

Thank you bullfrog; but, "he didn't know how to spell a few words", kindly define "few"

I can't honestly say that I've read the whole thread, so I don't know how many errors you made. I might have said it a bit wrong, I just meant that you shouldn't be judged for making errors. If you made only 1 error or 5 (a few) errors or not, you shouldn't be judged by it.


i am not questioning intelligence, i am questioning the validity of the claim the poster is making by starting yet another religious debate thread without having any sense to spell the title of his/her debate correctly.

it leads me to believe that entering any form of debate with this person will probably be filed with other inconsistent ideologies and conclusions.

He accidentally spelled something wrong, not much to base your claim on ;)

Besides if you think it's invalid then all you have to do is not debate :p

[bullfrog]

I'm still in the dark as to the purpose of this thread. The topic is not a question, it's a statement. Maybe someone can enlighten me on what the actual issue is?

I think that the poster is trying to discredit all forms of religion based on scientific fact...but don't take my word for it.

[nocilah]

I can't honestly say that I've read the whole thread, so I don't know how many errors you made. I might have said it a bit wrong, I just meant that you shouldn't be judged for making errors. If you made only 1 error or 5 (a few) errors or not, you shouldn't be judged by it.



He accidentally spelled something wrong, not much to base your claim on ;)

Besides if you think it's invalid then all you have to do is not debate :p

sure - accidents happen.

[Edwe]

I think that the poster is trying to discredit all forms of religion based on scientific fact...but don't take my word for it.

Anyone experiencing déjà vu or is it just me? Can't we have one central "science (supposedly) disproves religion" thread or even a separate "Religion" subforum, since these kinds of threads are becoming too commonplace, in my opinion.

I've countered just about every kind of "science disproves religion" post at least once in one of the other threads already, so I can start quoting myself and recycling my posts ;)

[Neo]

This topic is wearing very thin and was probably started to incite yet another 'lively' religious debate.

Anyone with web access (i.e. all of us) know that the common scriptures are very old (at least 1500 years) and thus largely incompatible with modern scientific thinking.

If you're really interested in some good posts on the subject look for responses to the ramblings of a member called douwdouw. Many forum members have posted good links on this topic.

/edit
See EDWE beat me to it :) But I agree, all these 'religous' threads can be merged as none of them stay on topic! We can just have one called "Any religious debate"
edit/

/footnote
And it'll help dodo tremendously, not having to jump between threads all the time
footnote/

[nocilah]

/footnote
And it'll help dodo tremendously, not having to jump between threads all the time
footnote/

:D

[Xarog]

Science and religion are inconsistent with each other solely because they address different things.

Science cannot replace religion, and niether can religion replace science.

Religion requires you to make certain assumptions that you cannot prove - hence needing faith for any belief.

But science does the same. Science tells you that experiments are repeatable and the results are reliable. Do the same test with the same tools and get the same result. However, in order to do that, one has to assume that one's eyes are working properly - an assumption that cannot be proven.

How do you know you are really seeing what is infront of you? How do you know that your eyes aren't lying? Why isn't it all just an elaborate illusion? You don't. You can only have faith that your eyes are telling you the truth, just as you have to trust that your soul is correct when you hold any religious beliefs.

Logic dictates that we do not believe in things we cannot prove to be true. It is therefore illogical to believe that science is truth. In that regard, both religion and science are identical to each other.

[Nod]

How do you know you are really seeing what is infront of you? How do you know that your eyes aren't lying? Why isn't it all just an elaborate illusion? You don't. You can only have faith that your eyes are telling you the truth, just as you have to trust that your soul is correct when you hold any religious beliefs.

Thats why there is normally a group of scientists working on the same project, proving of disproving the same theory. Because the method of testing is known, other scientists can repeat it and confirm. One persons eyes is not going to skew an outcome.

[Claymore]

Science cannot replace religion, and niether can religion replace science.

Correct. Science deals with reality.


But science does the same. Science tells you that experiments are repeatable and the results are reliable. Do the same test with the same tools and get the same result. However, in order to do that, one has to assume that one's eyes are working properly - an assumption that cannot be proven.

Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.

[hj2k_x]

Correct. Science deals with reality.



Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.

Yeah man, i don't follow this argument at all.

[Xarog]

Thats why there is normally a group of scientists working on the same project, proving of disproving the same theory. Because the method of testing is known, other scientists can repeat it and confirm. One persons eyes is not going to skew an outcome.
You're still assuming that your eyes are correctly reporting on the existence of other scientists. Basically you're assuming that there's an objective reality being perceived by your perceptions.


Correct. Science deals with reality.
So does religion.


Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.
Indeed. But it it's the only logical conclusion to draw without making unfounded assumptions. It doesn't matter if it's likely that an objective reality exists; what matters is that you cannot prove it.

[Nod]

@Xarog: You and douwdouw should get together. Your logic and grasp on reality is about the same.

[Xarog]

Hey bru, just because you don't grasp the finer points of subjectivity doesn't mean that my reasoning capabilities OR my grasp on reality is in any way lacking.

[supersunbird]

"Religious(of ANY religion) scripture inconsistent with Science or Logic, are their any?"

Maybe a better way would be to ask:

Religious(of ANY religion) scriptures that are consistent with Science or Logic, are THERE any? (but its still bad bad english)

[Nod]

Hey bru, just because you don't grasp the finer points of subjectivity doesn't mean that my reasoning capabilities OR my grasp on reality is in any way lacking.

I'm an introvert, I live in my own head most of the time.
Anyways, I'm not the one that is trying to pull a Matrix :D

[Xarog]

I'm an introvert, I live in my own head most of the time.
Anyways, I'm not the one that is trying to pull a Matrix :D

*sigh*

I'm not trying to pull a matrix. I'm merely trying to explain how science is limited, and that the way it's limited is similar to the way religion is limited.

Science is still useful, and despite not knowing for sure whether you can believe what your eyes see or not, you'd still be stupid to walk infront of a moving truck.

[Nod]

*sigh*

I'm not trying to pull a matrix. I'm merely trying to explain how science is limited, and that the way it's limited is similar to the way religion is limited.

Science is still useful, and despite not knowing for sure whether you can believe what your eyes see or not, you'd still be stupid to walk infront of a moving truck.

But you have to agree, that you went a bit far with the whole "you can't trust anything you experience" theme, you were going for.

Science can be limited, in that people tend to focus too much on proving their theory (or whatever), and loosing sight of other evidence that might alter that theory.

[Xarog]

But you have to agree, that you went a bit far with the whole "you can't trust anything you experience" theme, you were going for.

Science can be limited, in that people tend to focus too much on proving their theory (or whatever), and loosing sight of other evidence that might alter that theory.
I have to admit no such thing. I was talking about being able to prove that there is an objective reality. That is impossible to do because all we experience is a subjective reality (experience of thoughts not withstanding).

There is no shades of grey when it comes to being able to logically prove something. Science assumes that your senses report on an objective reality, but it cannot prove it. Thus, science is also based on unprovable assumptions just like religion.

Speaking practically, when you presume that there is an objective reality and your senses are reporting on it accurately, it is a safe assumption to make.

[Gunny]

I have to admit no such thing. I was talking about being able to prove that there is an objective reality. That is impossible to do because all we experience is a subjective reality (experience of thoughts not withstanding).

There is no shades of grey when it comes to being able to logically prove something. Science assumes that your senses report on an objective reality, but it cannot prove it. Thus, science is also based on unprovable assumptions just like religion.

Speaking practically, when you presume that there is an objective reality and your senses are reporting on it accurately, it is a safe assumption to make.

So what you are saying is if I see a buss coming towards me it might not realy be there or scientifically it has been proven that metal is hard I shouldnt believe it therefore I can stand in front of the moving buss and not get hurt ?

[Xarog]

So what you are saying is if I see a buss coming towards me it might not realy be there or scientifically it has been proven that metal is hard I shouldnt believe it therefore I can stand in front of the moving buss and not get hurt ?

That's not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if you see a bus coming at you, it's probably there, but you don't know for sure. You are relying (aka trusting) on your senses to tell you the truth.

[Geriatrix]

Ah, we're talking Chan Buddhism here.

[Gunny]

That's not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if you see a bus coming at you, it's probably there, but you don't know for sure. You are relying (aka trusting) on your senses to tell you the truth.

So if I can see, feel, hear and smell the bus and it hurts me when I walk into it I have proved my senses are working so I can believe them.

[ToxicBunny]

But will they still be working AFTER the bus his ridden over you though?

[Geriatrix]

So if I can see, feel, hear and smell the bus and it hurts me when I walk into it I have proved my senses are working so I can believe them.

Maybe he means this. (I have to warn you though, I'm a bit tired so this might seem TOTALLY incoherent and OT)
Say someone slips you some Acid(LSD) and you don't know it and you suddenly see little pink flying trolls coming through the window.
Those darn trolls gang up on you and pee on you. You feel the warm liquid on your face. You smell it but wait, it smells like sweat. So were the trolls really there? You saw them right? And you felt their urine, but maybe it was sweat from the hot afternoon.

Because remember, its not the eyes that see or the ears that hear, its the brain. And the brain believes what it wants(which tends to get wacky with certain chemicals). But this IMHO has got to do with conscience perception and not physical reality.

So yeah your senses can lie but the bus will still take your ass out.

[Gunny]

But we not talking about druged up halucinations

[Geriatrix]

But we not talking about druged up halucinations

I know, I know. I was only trying to understand what Xarog meant by verbalizing(typing) it out load. I think his point was that your senses are not fool proof.
Look at psychotics or the metally deranged. They are not drugged up(although they probably should be) but they still see and perceive things they experience as real that the rest of us don't.

But of course that doesn't make it real to the rest of us. So his point is sort of valid(Xarogs, not the psychotic). Senses are somewhat unreliable. But not statistically ;)

[Xarog]

So if I can see, feel, hear and smell the bus and it hurts me when I walk into it I have proved my senses are working so I can believe them.

Nope. I could theoretically hijack all the nerves going into your brain, excite the nerves (i.e. send electrical impulses) in the right way to make you see hear and smell the bus, and then excite your pain nerves at the right time so that you feel as if you'd hit the bus. If I did this, you'd have no way of knowing whether a bus really hit you.


I know, I know. I was only trying to understand what Xarog meant by verbalizing(typing) it out load. I think his point was that your senses are not fool proof.
Look at psychotics or the metally deranged. They are not drugged up(although they probably should be) but they still see and perceive things they experience as real that the rest of us don't.

But of course that doesn't make it real to the rest of us. So his point is sort of valid. Sense are somewhat unreliable. But not statistically
Well as you say, senses are unreliable. How can you prove something using unreliable evidence? You can't. Science is only meaningful if there is a real world which it is measuring. Science assumes there is a real world out there, just as religion assumes that there is a God out there.

[Geriatrix]

Yep, you probably can't say that something is absolutely true. But you can say something is statistically more accurate and plausible because of a shared perception of cause and effect.
But once again I want to stress that this has got to do with individual perception of reality. If a cup falls on the floor and no one perceives it falling, it still breaks. But if someone comes across the shattered cup, they add that sense driven piece of information to their personal perception of reality.
Anyhoo, night guys.

[Gunny]

Some ppl are living in the matrix..... disprove that I am touching the keys on my keyboard. or looking at these posts on my monitor. Oh wait thats right you controlling the whole worlds synaptics so actualy the net does not exsist and niether do I.

Plausible but highly improbable.

If we just percieve that molecules exsist, going with your argument that science cannot prove it does then none of us exsist.

[Nod]

Lets look at the word subjective (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=subjective) for a moment, because Xarog Like to throw it around:

sub&#183;jec&#183;tive
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

In all of these, its clear that only one person is involved. So saying that a group of scientists, is still not seeing the real results, is not accurate.

[Xarog]

Lets look at the word subjective (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=subjective) for a moment, because Xarog Like to throw it around:


In all of these, its clear that only one person is involved. So saying that a group of scientists, is still not seeing the real results, is not accurate.

You DO realise that each scientist is a different person, and each view the world through subjective perception, right? I mean really it's ridiculous. That's like saying murder can only be murder if you kill one person because the dictionary says that murder is to "kill a given person with premeditation". :rolleyes:

More than that, how the hell do you know the scientists are really there in the first place? YOU'RE STILL ASSUMING YOUR SENSES ARE ACCURATELY REPORTING ON AN OBJECTIVE REALITY EVEN WHEN YOU TRY TO PROVE THAT YOUR SENSES ARE ACCURATELY REPORTING ON AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. In other words this is NOT logical. You cannot assume the very thing you are trying to prove to be true when you are trying to conclusively prove that it is true. :mad:

[Claymore]

You're still assuming that your eyes are correctly reporting on the existence of other scientists. Basically you're assuming that there's an objective reality being perceived by your perceptions.

Correct. We may all be characters in some advanced game or simulation. But reality is as reality does; whether or not everything is real, it *behaves* exactly as if it is. So if our reality is not real, it's exactly as if it were, so we may as well treat it as real.


So does religion.

The trappings etc. of religion may deal with reality, but the basic premise does not.

[Xarog]

Correct. We may all be characters in some advanced game or simulation. But reality is as reality does; whether or not everything is real, it *behaves* exactly as if it is. So if our reality is not real, it's exactly as if it were, so we may as well treat it as real.
Indeed, but only for the purposes of interacting with the reality.


The trappings etc. of religion may deal with reality, but the basic premise does not.
This I will not agree to. By any standard, the existence or non-existence of God will affect our reality. It may not interfere with the laws of physics, but if that's all you're talking about then your definition is to narrow.

[Gunny]

Right Religion is based on an entity that as yet cannot be proved or disproved to exist.

[Xarog]

Right Religion is based on an entity that as yet cannot be proved or disproved to exist.

Just as science is based on a physical reality that as yet cannot be proved or disproved to exist. ;)

[Gunny]

But physical reality is tangable. As I said before if pysical reality is non exsistant we become non entities.

[Xarog]

But physical reality is tangable. As I said before if pysical reality is non exsistant we become non entities.
Only because you associate your mind with your body. You have no proof that this is the case. Again you are making unprovable assumptions. ;)

And what the hell does reality being "tangible" have to do with anything? I've freely admitted that your physical senses perceive a physical reality - it does nothing to weaken my POV.

[icyrus]

While this stand point may be entertaining from a philosophical point of view, suggesting that it puts science and religion on the same ground is disingenuous at best.

[Xarog]

Well then you have better point out a difference that is not affected by the subjectiveness of Science.

[icyrus]

Well then you have better point out a difference that is not affected by the subjectiveness of Science.

If your point is that all human experience is subjective then it applies as much to religion as it does science, therefor you can compare them from the same frame of reference.

[Xarog]

I never said any different.

Edit :
The opening post claims that religion is inconsistent with science and logic. I was merely pointing out that whatever way religion was inconsistent with logic, so was science.

[ghoti]

I've countered just about every kind of "science disproves religion" post at least once in one of the other threads already, so I can start quoting myself and recycling my posts ;)

I dont think science is out to disprove religion. Just the bull***** in it. If a religion has no bull***** in it, then there is nothing for the religion to worry about.

To me science is the understanding of God, and therefore walks hand in hand with "religion"

[Nick333]

Any experience that is repeatable and that yields measurable results can be said to be objective. That is to say that any member of the human species( or any other intelligent being) who is in possesion of the senses required to experience a phenonema can repeat and measure an objective experience.
It doesn't matter that it is possible for everyone who repeats the experience to be suffering from a delusion, as long as the measured results of the experience are always the same.
If everything we experience is a delusion it is still possible to observe the delusion objectively (scientifically).
For instance distance can be experienced objectively because it can be measured with bits of plastic that we call rulers that are always identically calibrated (unless you believe that rulers recalibrate themselves to suit every individuals personal delusion).
In the world (delusion) that we all share, religious experience will always be subjective. Religious experience is always an indvidual occurence and can never be measured.

[Xarog]

Any experience that is repeatable and that yields measurable results can be said to be objective.
Only if one does not use subjective means to obtain the results.


It doesn't matter that it is possible for everyone who repeats the experience to be suffering from a delusion, as long as the measured results of the experience are always the same.
Wrong.


If everything we experience is a delusion it is still possible to observe the delusion objectively (scientifically).
Wrong.


For instance distance can be experienced objectively because it can be measured with bits of plastic that we call rulers that are always identically calibrated (unless you believe that rulers recalibrate themselves to suit every individuals personal delusion).
Wrong.


In the world (delusion) that we all share, religious experience will always be subjective. Religious experience is always an indvidual occurence and can never be measured.
Correct. However, the same goes for everything else we experience.

[Nick333]

Only if one does not use subjective means to obtain the results.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Correct. However, the same goes for everything else we experience.

Um...OK then. You know what you are actually behaving like a lunatic. Honestly. Your logic is faulty beyond belief and you are apparently the only person who believes this crap. So unless you really think you are some lone genius bravely espousing the truth against all odds, get a grip.

[Xarog]

Um...OK then. You know what you are actually behaving like a lunatic. Honestly. Your logic is faulty beyond belief and you are apparently the only person who believes this crap. So unless you really think you are some lone genius bravely espousing the truth against all odds, get a grip.

Lone genius, huh? :D

This stuff is pretty standard fare - take any basic and I'm by no means the first person to come up with it. Any basic philosophy class will explain the problems with subjectivity.

If you want a historical explanation, go look at Plato's illustration of being stuck in a cave and simply being able to see the shadows of the beings outside.

[Nick333]

Lone genius, huh? :D

This stuff is pretty standard fare - take any basic and I'm by no means the first person to come up with it. Any basic philosophy class will explain the problems with subjectivity.

If you want a historical explanation, go look at Plato's illustration of being stuck in a cave and simply being able to see the shadows of the beings outside.

I tell you what, stop being ridiculous and explain how the measurement of distance with a calibrated tool is a subjective experience.

[Xarog]

Simple - you're still looking at the ruler with your eyes.

[supersunbird]

Just leave Xarog be in his little mind games...

[Gunny]

What Xarog is saying is that everything is a figment of your imagination therefore he doesnt exsist niether do I niether does the universe leaving nothing not even a dot. Something has to be real otherwise there would be nothing.

[ToxicBunny]

Just to throw a spanner in the works....

You are all figments of my imagination and its very very definately WHY i dislike most of humanity, cos i have a messed up imagination... :D

[Xarog]

Just leave Xarog be in his little mind games...
It's not mind games. How you define reality is important. Understanding your own relationship to reality is important. Understanding the limits of the tools you use to describe reality is also important. This is what my argument addresses, and pity the fool that thinks its mere mind games.


What Xarog is saying is that everything is a figment of your imagination therefore he doesnt exsist niether do I niether does the universe leaving nothing not even a dot. Something has to be real otherwise there would be nothing.
Correct - to a point. I know I think - there is no subjectivity involved in that experience. Hence my mind exists; but I cannot conclusively draw any conclusions about how my mind exists without resorting to using subjective perceptions, namely sight, hearing and so forth.

[Gunny]

If you are so sure your mind exsists it must be made up of something. If not there is nothing, if there is nothing your mind cannot exsist. So matter exsists and it cannot be destroyed.

[NewsFlash]

Just to throw a spanner in the works....

You are all figments of my imagination and its very very definately WHY i dislike most of humanity, cos i have a messed up imagination... :D

Thanks for your honesty. :)

[ToxicBunny]

Only problem being my imagination makes people who argue with me and who argue in circles, which drives me insane.

[Gunny]

Only problem being my imagination makes people who argue with me and who argue in circles, which drives me insane.

Its not going in circles stop imagining things.

[Xarog]

If you are so sure your mind exsists it must be made up of something. If not there is nothing, if there is nothing your mind cannot exsist. So matter exsists and it cannot be destroyed.

Nope. You're assuming that because there is a mind, there is also a brain. There is no non-subjective evidence for something to this conclusion.

[texo]

Any basic philosophy class will explain the problems with subjectivity. If you want a historical explanation, go look at Plato's illustration of being stuck in a cave and simply being able to see the shadows of the beings outside.

The "problems" which you seem to have with subjectivity are due to the fact that your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are over-simplified and incorrect.

"Subjective" and "objective" are not logical opposites... as explained far more eloquently in this article (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html) than I ever could.

[Gunny]

So we exsist in nothing and minds consist of nothing ? Your argument breaks down right there.

[LoneGunman]

brain = 'hardware'
mind = 'software'

[supersunbird]

brain = 'hardware'
mind = 'software'

And the whole argument = noware :D

[Xarog]

The "problems" which you seem to have with subjectivity are due to the fact that your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are over-simplified and incorrect.

"Subjective" and "objective" are not logical opposites... as explained far more eloquently in this article than I ever could.
Rubbish. The article makes a critical mistake. Furthermore, I am not even preaching metaphysical idealism, because that too makes unprovable assumptions. Metaphysical idealism assumes that there is no objective reality. What I am saying is fundamentally different, because I say we have no way of knowing, EITHER WAY, whether or not there is an objective reality.

Quoting from the article :


Metaphysical idealism is the view that there is no reality independently of people's minds — in other words, according to metaphysical idealism, so-called "physical" things don't really exist at all. Nothing exists independently of our experiences, and since our experiences are private, they count as "mental" and thus "in our minds", so nothing exists independently of our minds. (I say "our" minds, but of course, a real idealist would object to this locution, since one consequence of metaphysical idealism is the possibility that other people may exist only in my mind; i.e., there may be no other minds except mine.)

Metaphysical idealism was popular in philosophy in the early 1800's, and re-emerged in the late 20th century as deconstruction or post-modernism. Once you understand how most people oversimplify the terms "subjective" and "objective", it's not hard to understand why good-hearted people get snookered by metaphysical idealism. Here's a typical argument.

(Premise 1) All my experiences are metaphysically subjective (i.e., no one else has my unique experiences; all my experiences are from my unique point of view).

(Premise 2) "Subjective" is the opposite of "objective". If X is subjective, it can't be objective, and vice-versa.

(Premise 3) If my experiences are metaphysically subjective, then by Premise 2, any statements I make about my experiences must be epistemologically subjective — they are "merely" my beliefs, or my opinions. By Premise 2, nothing metaphysically subjective can suddenly acquire the prestige of "objectivity". For any X, if X is subjective, X stays subjective.

(Conclusion) But — hang on to your seats, now, this is the big "insight" — [b]Premises 1 and 3 are true of everyone![b]

Now for the mistake the article makes : The article wrongly assumes that objective and subjective are not opposites based on the idea that two opposites cannot be present in the same thing. I.e. reality cannot be both subjective and objective at the same time. The mistake lies in lumping existence together with the perception of existence. They are two totally different things.

Here's a perfect example :

But people tend to say furthermore that "subjective" and "objective" are logical opposites in the strongest sense: they are negations or contradictories of each other. This means that if X is subjective, it can't be objective, and if X is objective it can't be subjective. In other words, people mistakenly think everything has to be EITHER subjective OR objective. This leads to startling consequences. You have a headache. You feel it, and nobody else does, so you say it's "subjective" (private). But look at the other notions that go with "subjective": if it’s subjective, it’s just your opinion. But opinions have no standing — so why should the doctor believe you when you say you have a headache? The doctor doesn't feel your headache; it's just your opinion — and you might find yourself agreeing that you can't be "objective" about your headache. And since your headache isn't objective, it isn't really REAL at all! The headache is "really" just in your mind. (This is the philosophy behind Christian Science.)
Although the PAIN of the headache is entirely subjective, it does not mean that the cause is subjective too.


So we exsist in nothing and minds consist of nothing ? Your argument breaks down right there.
I exist in something. But beyond my own thoughts I cannot know for sure what that something is. So maybe it's encased in a brain, but then again maybe my mind is nothing but something akin to pure energy. You understand the concept of a soul, surely?

(Not that I'm saying that my mind is in my soul, or that I even have a soul - only that it's a possibility you cannot exclude.)

[Nick333]

Your view must at least admit the possibility of an objective reality. Things may not be as they seem, but surely they may also be?

[Xarog]

Your view must at least admit the possibility of an objective reality. Things may not be as they seem, but surely they may also be?
Indeed. I have never doubted the possibility of an objective reality existing. Infact I personally believe that it IS the case. I also believe that I really am sitting at a computer typing this out, and that somewhere you really do exist as another thinking being.

However, I also know that at no point can I ever prove this belief. :)

[LoneGunman]

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion
that has ever infected the world."
-Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire", French author and playwright

[Nick333]

Indeed. I have never doubted the possibility of an objective reality existing. Infact I personally believe that it IS the case. I also believe that I really am sitting at a computer typing this out, and that somewhere you really do exist as another thinking being.

However, I also know that at no point can I ever prove this belief. :)

It still doesn't put science and religion on the same footing in the proof stakes.

Once we have all made the necessary assumptions about reality we can then objectively consider the apparent evidence.

[LoneGunman]

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."
-Freidrich Nietzsche, German philosopher

[Xarog]

It still doesn't put science and religion on the same footing in the proof stakes.

Once we have all made the necessary assumptions about reality we can then objectively consider the apparent evidence.

Just like once you've made all the neccessary assumptions about God you can prove the divinity of Christ.

[phenom]

LGM, why try to debunk, Christianity when their is Islam

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion
that has ever infected the world."
-Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire", French author and playwright
ridiculous(i see it as complicated), but bloody, sorry i subjectively don't agree!; but thats your subjective opinion too.



Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah’s not going to turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people. - Jerry Vines


Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman
- Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologos

[LoneGunman]

Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious,
fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and
therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand
in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius.
I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold
misery to the human race.
-Bertrand Russell

[phenom]

Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.
- Sigmund Freud

[Mr TB]

Can I say something?

A) Science like you said deals with reality...
So your mind is involved...
B) Religion however deals with the supernatural... higher intelligence...
So your spirit is involved...

and the supernatural as the bible says... will be called idiotic... by reality.

[Mr TB]

Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious,
fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and
therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand
in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius.
I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold
misery to the human race.
-Bertrand Russell

I assume Bertrand Russel is Frenchman... do a little survey on the french social life... The French killed the Hugenotes and for that sin well...

[texo]

You "assume" incorrectly. He was a was a British philosopher, logician, and mathematician...

... and for that sin as well... what?

[LoneGunman]

"If you want to get together in any exclusive situation
and have people love you, fine- but to hang all this
desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy
who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been
bad or good- and CARES about any of it- to hang
it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain
working."
-Frank Zappa

[-toady-]

Go Frank!!!!!! *laffin.......:D

[qewrty]

Can I say something?

A) Science like you said deals with reality...
So your mind is involved...
B) Religion however deals with the supernatural... higher intelligence...
So your spirit is involved...

and the supernatural as the bible says... will be called idiotic... by reality.

B is not reality. There is also no evidence for a spirit living inside you. That feeling inside of you called "I" is your spark of consciousness; the real miracle of life.

Your deistic tendencies are natural - from an early infant age most of us exhibit it. Grow beyond that and accept how complex your brain is that you perceive it to be of supernatural nature.

People used to use your argument (dubbed NOMA by Jay Gould) of non-overlapping Magisteria to keep conflict between religion and science to a minimum. We no longer need to sing this song as the voice of rationality comes to the forefront. :p

[Rkootknir]

I exist in something. But beyond my own thoughts I cannot know for sure what that something is. So maybe it's encased in a brain, but then again maybe my mind is nothing but something akin to pure energy. You understand the concept of a soul, surely?You're being very solipsistic. :)

Some (many?) philosophers would agree that you can't prove that your perceptions are reliable. Trying to prove it invokes the logical fallacy of begging the question. eg,

1. You cannot prove that your perception is reliable using your senses; and
2. You cannot use your senses without knowing your perception is reliable.

So you end up arguing in circles.

Philosophers have field days arguing this (See Hume, Descartes, Russell and Moore).

Personally, I prefer to think that what I observe is reality. :)
I assume Bertrand Russel is Frenchman... do a little survey on the french social life... The French killed the Hugenotes and for that sin well...Your assumption is wrong. Russell was British. The rest of your paragraph can be most simply described as gobbledygook (with no relevance to the quote at all as far as I can see? :confused:).

[edit]
My goodness douwdouw. I go away for 2 weeks and the forum is filled with (at last count) 623 posts of unintelligible gibberish. Just where do you get your time from?

[edit 2]
And why in the name of all that is pure and holy can't I view any member profiles? Just get redirected to the main site...

[Xarog]

You're being very solipsistic.

Some (many?) philosophers would agree that you can't prove that your perceptions are reliable. Trying to prove it invokes the logical fallacy of begging the question. eg,

1. You cannot prove that your perception is reliable using your senses; and
2. You cannot use your senses without knowing your perception is reliable.

So you end up arguing in circles.

Philosophers have field days arguing this (See Hume, Descartes, Russell and Moore).

Personally, I prefer to think that what I observe is reality.
You're free to think that what you observe is reality, infact I do the same. However, you and I both know you can't prove it :) - and that's all I really set out to explain.

[Nick333]

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Better yet, drop a heavy weight on your foot and then contemplate the nature of reality. :)

[Rkootknir]

Better yet, drop a heavy weight on your foot and then contemplate the nature of reality. :)Samuel Johnson did something similar:
Refutation of Bishop Berkeley:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

-Boswell: Life:D

[Xarog]

The problem is I'm not denying that the sensations exist, I'm merely questioning their origin.

[Nick333]

The problem is I'm not denying that the sensations exist, I'm merely questioning their origin.

Well in this case the origin of the sensation you would experience would be the electrical pulses sent to your brain from the crushed nerve endings in your foot. :D

[Nick333]

The problem is I'm not denying that the sensations exist, I'm merely questioning their origin.

Well in this case the origin of the sensation you would experience would be the electrical pulses sent to your brain from the crushed nerve endings in your foot. :D

To prove otherwise would first of all require an alternative hypothesis and then some evidence. Go on then. :p

[Xarog]

Well in this case the origin of the sensation you would experience would be the electrical pulses sent to your brain from the crushed nerve endings in your foot. :D
Or my imagination which has created the electrical impulses as well as the foot.

[Nick333]

Samuel Johnson did something similar::D

Thats good enough for me. :D

[Nick333]

Or my imagination which has created the electrical impulses as well as the foot.

Prove it.

[Xarog]

Prove it.
I'm not arguing that all of this is in my head - I'm simply saying I cannot rule it out.

[Nick333]

I'm not arguing that all of this is in my head - I'm simply saying I cannot rule it out.

Yes, which leads us to something similar to Russells tea cup. Just because something is possible, doesn't make it probable or even worthy of consideration.

[Xarog]

Irrelevant.

[Mr TB]

By chance I came across this remark about Voltaire in the Collected Essays and Addresses of Augustine Birrell (London, 1922), vol. 1 p.49; "Voltaire, who knew Pope, asserts that he could not speak a word of French, and could hardly read it; but Voltaire was not a truthful man, and on one occasion told lies in an affidavit."

Search for truth and you find it...

[LoneGunman]

search for a 10 ton truck filled with donkey sewerage, and you'll find it too..

the dodo got that above posting "By chance I came across this remark about Voltaire etc etc."" by cutting and pasting from
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
(search on the page for the phrase 'by chance I came across this remark" etc etc.)

seems like donkey dodo is reduced to feverish cutting and pasting in lieu of using the brain..

naughty and sinful to be misrepresenting himself in posting to make it seem that HE was reading something..

[Mr TB]

search for a 10 ton truck filled with donkey sewerage, and you'll find it too..

the dodo got that above posting "By chance I came across this remark about Voltaire etc etc."" by cutting and pasting from
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
(search on the page for the phrase 'by chance I came across this remark" etc etc.)

seems like donkey dodo is reduced to feverish cutting and pasting in lieu of using the brain..

naughty and sinful to be misrepresenting himself in posting to make it seem that HE was reading something..

Nope not claiming the quote sir, read more about nicaea and then one of your buddies defended Voltaire's so-called error when he said the bible will be extinct within 100 years. Within 50yrs he was dead and his house a storehouse for bibles... now his integrity is also sanitised...is that the word your friends like to use?

[Xarog]

LGM

See now why I say those quotes are nothing but trouble? ;)

[LoneGunman]

if you make a quote without saying "I am making a quote" - especially one that starts off "By chance I came across this remark about Voltaire .."

you are directly implying that YOU came across a remark etc etc..

so if I hadnt pointed out that you cut and pasted the entire posting - you'd have been happy to let people think that YOU were the clever one doing all that reading..
So in essence, you've shown yourself to be a liar, by doing that.

[Mr TB]

if you make a quote without saying "I am making a quote" - especially one that starts off "By chance I came across this remark about Voltaire .."

you are directly implying that YOU came across a remark etc etc..

so if I hadnt pointed out that you cut and pasted the entire posting - you'd have been happy to let people think that YOU were the clever one doing all that reading..
So in essence, you've shown yourself to be a liar, by doing that.

LG I DD indeed came accross the above quoted by chance, i was not searching for something to damage his integrity. You have taken the above matter now out of context. As you will note i was very tolerant when insulted in other threads by your buddies, not running to the Moderators. An apology will be appreciated...