Religious scriptures inconsistent with Science or Logic

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#61
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

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,558
#62
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 bullsh!t in it. If a religion has no bullsh!t 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"
 
Last edited:

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,272
#63
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#64
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,272
#65
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#66
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,272
#67
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.
 

Gunny

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
2,149
#70
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
76,443
#71
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#72
supersunbird said:
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.

Gunny said:
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

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
2,149
#73
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.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
76,443
#75
Only problem being my imagination makes people who argue with me and who argue in circles, which drives me insane.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#77
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

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,589
#78
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 than I ever could.
 

Gunny

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
2,149
#79
So we exsist in nothing and minds consist of nothing ? Your argument breaks down right there.
 
Top