Middle East protests and 'that' film

bompington

Wallace1492 wrote:

...therefore I may be wrong....

Couldn't quite work out where you were going with that argument but I got that bit ;-)

Wallace1492

bompington wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted.

Not quite sure what this means, but consider this: Christianity basically stands or falls on the contention that Jesus rose from the dead. While this can never be proved or disproved to the satisfaction off all, it is a historical assertion for which the evidence can be examined.

davmaggs wrote:

or Google flying spaghetti monster or Pastafarianiasm

Yawn. Entertaining parodies but add nothing to the argument.

But surely you cannot believe in something that there is very little evidence of, never mind to the satisfaction of any.

We have seen from today's news that cover up's and spin can be perpetrated in todays society to influence the masses even with the openess we have. So how about in the dark days when so few could even read or write. The powe lay with those that wrote the "spin" called the bible, and this has continued for hundreds of years.

Religion has developed from the worshipping of the sun and the moon, and from the development of humans as capable of rational thought, and probaby needing some sort of higher reason to exist. There isn't.

EKE_38BPM

walkingbootweather wrote:

Some of the kindest, most thoughtful and humane people I have met were devout Muslims. Others who might consider themselves as devout, such as the Mutawwa, are less tolerant and insist upon imposing their values on others.

In many muslim countries, westerners are often portrayed as lacking in virtue and whilst we know we aren't all like that, trashy films or cartoons of this type can only serve to show us in a bad light.

I can understand that. Most people who follow a religion are good people. I know a guy who was a tosser before he found religion, now he's a top bloke, maybe all that reading has calmed him down and mellowed him out.
Religion itself isn't a bad thing, whatever makes you happy, but the people in power twist it and the simple masses eat it up and believe wht they are told. In this case, that the film is bad (which it truly is), even though they've probably never seen it and probably never will.

I watched the trailer to see what all the fuss is about. I guess that most of the protesters/rioters/murderers never have and never will.

bails87 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The story about the Christian 11 year old mentally disabled Pakistani girl who was framed by a Muslim cleric for burning pages of the Qu'ran really winds me up. It seems to me that the cleric must have burned the pages himself (which, apparently is a big no-no) just to get her in big trouble. Isn't that a bit like killing your child so that you can frame your wife for murder. If you are a believer, you'd be hurting yourself just to hurt someone else.

Hahaha, you don't think the people in charge actually believe it do you?

It's bollo...nonsense and they know it, but it's an easy job with the chance to lord it (excuse the pun) over a load of fearful peasants who'll happily give you money to keep them on the right side of whoever they're worshipping.

Of course I don't think they believe it. They study it so that they can twist the mind's of the Proles.

bails87

Sorry EKE, looking back that might have come across as a bit hostile towards you. Not intended, I was just reminded of the South Park Scientology (in the closet) episode.

davmaggs

bompington wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted.

Not quite sure what this means, but consider this: Christianity basically stands or falls on the contention that Jesus rose from the dead. While this can never be proved or disproved to the satisfaction off all, it is a historical assertion for which the evidence can be examined.

davmaggs wrote:

or Google flying spaghetti monster or Pastafarianiasm

Yawn. Entertaining parodies but add nothing to the argument.

The reason for my post was your point "a notion that is actually exactly as unprovable as the belief that there is". It fails a test of logic.

In laymans terms; I cannot prove that something imaginary is untrue, it is impossible for me to source evidence. The Church of the Spagetti Monster may or may not be a parody, but it has exactly the same level of proof and 'logic' as Christianity. They use exactly the same arguments as you do, so to accept the legitimacy of one you must accept the other. That is the point of their church.

Accepting my above points, that is not to say I disagree that there is value to religions for their followers, and that many have added greatly to society/history but they shouldn't try and claim that they are based on logic or absolutely sound historical evidence. Sticking to the unworldly/faith is fine, but to stray into the realm of claiming verifiable fact is a stretch.

[I accept I can produce no logic that will lead to agreement]

tailwindhome

What film?

rubertoe

TailWindHome wrote:

What film?

"Life of Brian" I assume.

bompington

davmaggs wrote:

In laymans terms; I cannot prove that something imaginary is untrue

...which gives away the fact that you're making the a priori assumption that it's imaginary.

While completely ignoring what I said - that Christianity did not start off with a bunch of metaphysicians arguing logic, it started off with a bunch of uneducated guys making a claim that would have seemed as impossible to their listeners then as it does now (our assumption that people then were simply stupider than us is something similar to racism), a claim that was in fact not just counter-cultural but frankly offensive to pretty much anyone who heard it (jews on theological grounds, romans political), a claim that could, and did, get most of them tortured to death, and most importantly a claim that they backed up by saying they were eye witnesses of a historical event- and 30 years later (that's how long scholars reckon it took for the first bits of the bible that dealt with Jesus's life to actually get written down) they were still pointing out that there were eye witnesses, in a way that invited people to go and check with them.


None of which sounds very much like any of the "evidence" for the FSM.

walkingbootweather

Well if there are eye witnesses then it must be true.

bails87

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Edited.

walkingbootweather

bails87 wrote:

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Don't ask me, I'm a dyslexic agnostic - I lie awake at night wondering if there even is a dog

EKE_38BPM

bails87 wrote:

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Edited.

I've recently read The Life Of Pi (total rubbish, don't waste your time reading it), and I don't think Pi ever does choose between Islam, Christianity or Hinduism.

SimonAH

I used to be into sado-masochistic bestial necrophilia, but finally realised it was just flogging a dead horse.

bompington

walkingbootweather wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Don't ask me, I'm a dyslexic agnostic - I lie awake at night wondering if there even is a dog

Kind of falls flat without the insomniac bit...

cyclingprop

bompington wrote:

...which gives away the fact that you're making the a priori assumption that it's imaginary.
.

And to you it is true because you start at that point?

Logic would suggest that the least there will be in any given space is nothing. In order that scientists agree to the existence of something in that space, their modus operandi requires quantifiable evidence.

We know that history is a collection of stories, some of which correlate, some of which don't. The accepted method is to test those stories, accounts and any available physical evidence to come to a balance conclusion on what most likely happened.

There is quantifiable evidence that the bible exists (of course many versions do). The bible is a collection of stories and accounts; though I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using the bible to cross reference and correlate stories in the bible (*there may be other texts I'm missing). However, I am not comfortable with the number of scientific impossibilities told as fact in the bible, which are then used by followers as "evidence" of a 'higher being' - for example if he 'rose from the dead' then more likely he wasn't dead in the first place, or someone else moved him.

Ultimately my brain needs quantifiable, empirical evidence of a 'creator' in order to believe one exists. And no one has that.

bompington

cyclingprop wrote:

The accepted method is to test those stories, accounts and any available physical evidence to come to a balance conclusion on what most likely happened...

...I am not comfortable with the number of scientific impossibilities told as fact in the bible ... for example if he 'rose from the dead' ...

So presumably, you've followed scientific procedure and tried raising someone form the dead using the same method as the original experiment? You can't discount it as a scientific impossibility until you have... ;-)

walkingbootweather

bompington wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Don't ask me, I'm a dyslexic agnostic - I lie awake at night wondering if there even is a dog

Kind of falls flat without the insomniac bit...

Good point - well argued.

Let's try that again

bails87 wrote:

Hmmm, so what makes people pick one religion over another? At what point does one decide one will be Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc?

Don't ask me, I'm a amnemonic dyslexic agnostic insomniac - I forget jokes about lying awake at night wondering if there even is a dog

cyclingprop

bompington wrote:

So presumably, you've followed scientific procedure and tried raising someone form the dead using the same method as the original experiment? You can't discount it as a scientific impossibility until you have... ;-)

No, but plenty of other heathens have killed people to death before and I'm not aware of any other such stories.

pangolin

cyclingprop wrote:

bompington wrote:

So presumably, you've followed scientific procedure and tried raising someone form the dead using the same method as the original experiment? You can't discount it as a scientific impossibility until you have... ;-)

No, but plenty of other heathens have killed people to death before and I'm not aware of any other such stories.

Usually miss out the tomb, big rock, going back 3 days later to clean the body, and son of God parts though

Not sure what we are trying to achieve here, no one is going to convert anyone on a forum. Religious debates online usually end up in people repeating their own opinions at each other with gradually angrier wording.

bompington

pangolin wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

bompington wrote:

So presumably, you've followed scientific procedure and tried raising someone form the dead using the same method as the original experiment? You can't discount it as a scientific impossibility until you have... ;-)

No, but plenty of other heathens have killed people to death before and I'm not aware of any other such stories.

Usually miss out the tomb, big rock, going back 3 days later to clean the body, and son of God parts though

Not sure what we are trying to achieve here, no one is going to convert anyone on a forum. Religious debates online usually end up in people repeating their own opinions at each other with gradually angrier wording.

True.

Let's end it here:

You unbelievers are like Hitler!

rick_chasey

It obviously is offensive beyond belief to significant numbers of people.

Regardless of why.

Now, whether a society that broadly doesn't and cherrishes free speech and expression cares, or should care, is a different question.

On that question I take a reasonably cold war approach to it > this the way we do things and we don't really care if you don't like it, and given your poor international behaviour regarding our representatives, we'll be removing our embassy staff / heavily fortify our embassies.

But to argue that it isn't something people should be offended by it is a bit odd. It obviously is, in a big way.

It's just whether that is a you should care, beyond protecting your own representatives from violence (regardless of the cause of the violence).

rick_chasey

^^ Of course, that attitude isn't particuarly pratical with regard to international relations, but you'd hope some principals would be adhered to regardless, though I doubt it. International relations is a lot more pragmatic than that, and probably for good reason.

cyclingprop

Rick Chasey wrote:

^^ Of course, that attitude isn't particuarly pratical with regard to international relations, but you'd hope some principals would be adhered to regardless, though I doubt it. International relations is a lot more pragmatic than that, and probably for good reason.

Why would you want to stick to headteachers?

clarkey cat

walkingbootweather wrote:

Some are devoted to Shimarno ... SRAM....

who are these heathen?

they must be ANNIHALATED.

SteppenHerring

I'm making a film. It's called "Buddha: Fat smug tw@t".

clarkey cat

cyclingprop wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

^^ Of course, that attitude isn't particuarly pratical with regard to international relations, but you'd hope some principals would be adhered to regardless, though I doubt it. International relations is a lot more pragmatic than that, and probably for good reason.

Why would you want to stick to headteachers?

titter titter Rick. naughty step for you.

walkingbootweather

SteppenHerring wrote:

I'm making a film. It's called "Buddha: Fat smug tw@t".

Could I play the lead?

clarkey cat

walkingbootweather wrote:

SteppenHerring wrote:

I'm making a film. It's called "Buddha: Fat smug tw@t".

Could I play the lead?

are you fat?

walkingbootweather

clarkey cat wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

SteppenHerring wrote:

I'm making a film. It's called "Buddha: Fat smug tw@t".

Could I play the lead?

are you fat?

Like Meatloaf.

(two outta three ain't bad)

davmaggs

bompington wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

In laymans terms; I cannot prove that something imaginary is untrue

...which gives away the fact that you're making the a priori assumption that it's imaginary.

While completely ignoring what I said - that Christianity did not start off with a bunch of metaphysicians arguing logic, it started off with a bunch of uneducated guys making a claim that would have seemed as impossible to their listeners then as it does now (our assumption that people then were simply stupider than us is something similar to racism), a claim that was in fact not just counter-cultural but frankly offensive to pretty much anyone who heard it (jews on theological grounds, romans political), a claim that could, and did, get most of them tortured to death, and most importantly a claim that they backed up by saying they were eye witnesses of a historical event- and 30 years later (that's how long scholars reckon it took for the first bits of the bible that dealt with Jesus's life to actually get written down) they were still pointing out that there were eye witnesses, in a way that invited people to go and check with them.


None of which sounds very much like any of the "evidence" for the FSM.

You're struggling. If I replace the rather slapdash term "imaginary" with "entirely unverifiable", then the statement stands.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

I'll leave the soundness of biblical accounts to others.