Middle East protests and 'that' film

lardboy

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until you've got replicable, peer-reviewed evidence it's just a story, and equally as invalid as Allah, Jehovah, Hubbard or the spaghetti monster. Having 1 billion people agree with you doesn't make it any truer.

Paulie W

davmaggs wrote:

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.

The problem with the scientific method as presented in your link is that it makes claims that cannot be substantiated even on its own terms. Where does the initial hypothesis come from if not from the original researcher with his/her prejudices/biases/perspectives?

Wallace1492

The believers will believe, the non believers wont. However, countless millions have died over the years due to religious ideological clashes. Killing people does not make your God the true one, it just proves you are intollerent, scared, power mad, etc.

Yes, a lot of religious folk are lovely, genuine, caring and kind, rather like Bompington, but it is the radical element that drives division, hatred and intolerance. As a non believer, I think we are far better off without any religion, and live in a free, tolerent, organised and caring society, but that is as much of an imaginary quest as finding the Spaghetti Monster.

bompington

davmaggs wrote:

You're struggling

Now there's a scientific statement if ever I saw one :roll:

As for scientific method, I wish someone had told me about that in the course of 4 years spent getting a 1st class BSc

But at this point I'm going to agree with Pangolin that no-one is very likely to convince anybody else here and sign off by contenting myself that, thanks to Pascal's Wager, I'm quids in ;-)

rick_chasey

lardboy wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until you've got replicable, peer-reviewed evidence it's just a story, and equally as invalid as Allah, Jehovah, Hubbard or the spaghetti monster. Having 1 billion people agree with you doesn't make it any truer.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore if 1 billion people believe it surely?

Point is, people do.

bompington

Wallace1492 wrote:

The believers will believe, the non believers wont. However, countless millions have died over the years due to religious ideological clashes. Killing people does not make your God the true one, it just proves you are intollerent, scared, power mad, etc.

Yes, a lot of religious folk are lovely, genuine, caring and kind, rather like Bompington, but it is the radical element that drives division, hatred and intolerance. As a non believer, I think we are far better off without any religion, and live in a free, tolerent, organised and caring society, but that is as much of an imaginary quest as finding the Spaghetti Monster.

On second thoughts I can't let that one stand, flattered as I am, as it's one of the biggest myths of all about religion.
For a start, the number of people killed because of religion is very, very small compared to the number killed by Fascism and Communism: essentially movements with all the trappings of religion short of actual belief in God.

Secondly, I think you can look at pretty much every "religious" conflict and see that it's actually about political power, or ethnic and cultural conflict. The church has been guilty of horrendous things in the past, without a doubt, but I would say that what you're looking at there is an institution that has got mixed up with political power - not real christianity at all: just read anything printed in red in a bible (i.e. Jesus's actual words) and you'll see some rather startling contradictions with the way that rather a lot of christians, and certainly a lot of established churches, carry on. Turn the other cheek anyone?
For the first 300 or so years, christians were a persecuted minority (as they have remained in a lot of countries ever since). Interestingly, this contrasts strongly with Islam, which you could argue has always been about conquest and cultural and political domination right from the start.

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

lardboy wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until you've got replicable, peer-reviewed evidence it's just a story, and equally as invalid as Allah, Jehovah, Hubbard or the spaghetti monster. Having 1 billion people agree with you doesn't make it any truer.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore if 1 billion people believe it surely?

Point is, people do.

Plenty of people believed the bile about the Liverpool fans, don't make it true though. Virtually all people believed the earth was flat at one point, again it wasn't. It matters a lot to those that care about it, and when there is massive injustice in the name of it, well, it matter quite a lot.

davmaggs

Paulie W wrote:

The problem with the scientific method as presented in your link is that it makes claims that cannot be substantiated even on its own terms. Where does the initial hypothesis come from if not from the original researcher with his/her prejudices/biases/perspectives?

The researcher can state absolutely any hypothesis they like, and they can be as prejudiced as they want. There is no limit to how biased they can be. Their hypothesis will fail when using the method, that is the point of it.

Questioning of the scientific method has been done by far smarter people than us (http://www.experiment-resources.com/raven-paradox.html), and no doubt American creationist have put a great deal of effort into it, but I suspect the bias of the isn't going to be the flaw.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

lardboy wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until you've got replicable, peer-reviewed evidence it's just a story, and equally as invalid as Allah, Jehovah, Hubbard or the spaghetti monster. Having 1 billion people agree with you doesn't make it any truer.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore if 1 billion people believe it surely?

Point is, people do.

Plenty of people believed the bile about the Liverpool fans, don't make it true though. Virtually all people believed the earth was flat at one point, again it wasn't. It matters a lot to those that care about it, and when there is massive injustice in the name of it, well, it matter quite a lot.

You're talking about stuff that's discreet and provable.

Faith and religion isn't, so you can't approach it that way.

In this context, it doesn't matter if Muhammad actually existed or not, and if he is what the Koran says or not.

Point is, plenty of people do, and plenty of people get particularly angry, to the point of rioting, when he is depicted.

That's what matters. The rest is irrelevant in the context.


When it comes to social issues, truth's pretty relative anyway.

Wallace1492

bompington wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The believers will believe, the non believers wont. However, countless millions have died over the years due to religious ideological clashes. Killing people does not make your God the true one, it just proves you are intollerent, scared, power mad, etc.

Yes, a lot of religious folk are lovely, genuine, caring and kind, rather like Bompington, but it is the radical element that drives division, hatred and intolerance. As a non believer, I think we are far better off without any religion, and live in a free, tolerent, organised and caring society, but that is as much of an imaginary quest as finding the Spaghetti Monster.

On second thoughts I can't let that one stand, flattered as I am, as it's one of the biggest myths of all about religion.
For a start, the number of people killed because of religion is very, very small compared to the number killed by Fascism and Communism: essentially movements with all the trappings of religion short of actual belief in God.

Secondly, I think you can look at pretty much every "religious" conflict and see that it's actually about political power, or ethnic and cultural conflict. The church has been guilty of horrendous things in the past, without a doubt, but I would say that what you're looking at there is an institution that has got mixed up with political power - not real christianity at all: just read anything printed in red in a bible (i.e. Jesus's actual words) and you'll see some rather startling contradictions with the way that rather a lot of christians, and certainly a lot of established churches, carry on. Turn the other cheek anyone?
For the first 300 or so years, christians were a persecuted minority (as they have remained in a lot of countries ever since). Interestingly, this contrasts strongly with Islam, which you could argue has always been about conquest and cultural and political domination right from the start.

I agree with you in a lot of ways there. Religion has got mixed up with political power, but what ever the religion, it has been complicit in the undertakings, and has protected its power when push came to shove. That is why Staes and Political activities should be completely removed from any sort of religious connetations, however, this will never happen. Yes the so-called words of the Son of Man certainly preach tolerance, love thy neighbor etc, so why has there been and continues to be such intollerence in all religions?

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're talking about stuff that's discreet and provable.

Faith and religion isn't, so you can't approach it that way.

In this context, it doesn't matter if Muhammad actually existed or not, and if he is what the Koran says or not.

Point is, plenty of people do, and plenty of people get particularly angry, to the point of rioting, when he is depicted.

That's what matters. The rest is irrelevant in the context.


When it comes to social issues, truth's pretty relative anyway.

And so it comes full circle. Just because billions believe, it does not make it The Truth. I am all for tolerence, and each to their own. But because a person/prophet/god has been depicted badly, does not require the rioting that we have seen. There are plenty of underlying issues that have contributed to the riots, and as Bompington has suggested, very much political and for other hidden agenda's.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're talking about stuff that's discreet and provable.

Faith and religion isn't, so you can't approach it that way.

In this context, it doesn't matter if Muhammad actually existed or not, and if he is what the Koran says or not.

Point is, plenty of people do, and plenty of people get particularly angry, to the point of rioting, when he is depicted.

That's what matters. The rest is irrelevant in the context.


When it comes to social issues, truth's pretty relative anyway.

And so it comes full circle. Just because billions believe, it does not make it The Truth. I am all for tolerence, and each to their own. But because a person/prophet/god has been depicted badly, does not require the rioting that we have seen. There are plenty of underlying issues that have contributed to the riots, and as Bompington has suggested, very much political and for other hidden agenda's.

Who's saying it's the truth? I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Point is, people think it is, and behave accordingly, and it's the kind of thing where people aren't easily persuaded.

As someone who's not from their culture, you're not in a position to comment on whether their reaction is justifyable or not.

We in the West are in no position to decide whether their behaviour is acceptable or not, with the exception of the killing of a Western representative.

All we can do is decide if we care or not about their reaction, and put measures in place to protect official representatives.

clarkey cat

agenda's.

This is the real problem with today's society. Errant apostrophes.

cyclingprop

clarkey cat wrote:

agenda's.

This is the real problem with today's society. Errant apostrophes.

+1. And, over use of, commas.

lardboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

lardboy wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until you've got replicable, peer-reviewed evidence it's just a story, and equally as invalid as Allah, Jehovah, Hubbard or the spaghetti monster. Having 1 billion people agree with you doesn't make it any truer.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore if 1 billion people believe it surely?

Point is, people do.

The truth always matters, which is why religions almost universally decry science and research. Belief can be changed, the truth can only be refined.

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're talking about stuff that's discreet and provable.

Faith and religion isn't, so you can't approach it that way.

In this context, it doesn't matter if Muhammad actually existed or not, and if he is what the Koran says or not.

Point is, plenty of people do, and plenty of people get particularly angry, to the point of rioting, when he is depicted.

That's what matters. The rest is irrelevant in the context.


When it comes to social issues, truth's pretty relative anyway.

And so it comes full circle. Just because billions believe, it does not make it The Truth. I am all for tolerence, and each to their own. But because a person/prophet/god has been depicted badly, does not require the rioting that we have seen. There are plenty of underlying issues that have contributed to the riots, and as Bompington has suggested, very much political and for other hidden agenda's.

Who's saying it's the truth? I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Point is, people think it is, and behave accordingly, and it's the kind of thing where people aren't easily persuaded.

As someone who's not from their culture, you're not in a position to comment on whether their reaction is justifyable or not.

We in the West are in no position to decide whether their behaviour is acceptable or not, with the exception of the killing of a Western representative.

All we can do is decide if we care or not about their reaction, and put measures in place to protect official representatives.

But they have decided to comment on western culture, by rioting at a tasteless depiction of their "Prophet". We are in a position to comment on others activities, as long as it is done in a rational and constructive way. We should not be depicting their religion in a negative way, completely agree.

clarkey cat

This thread: topic; keep on, please.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

But they have decided to comment on western culture, by rioting at a tasteless depiction of their "Prophet". We are in a position to comment on others activities, as long as it is done in a rational and constructive way. We should not be depicting their religion in a negative way, completely agree.

Don't think it's a comment on Western culture.

I just think they really really really don't like Muhammad being depicted in publications.

Daz555

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.

Children are simply indoctrinated. Barring the few exceptional converts and born-agains, most religious people simply follow the religion that their family and community tell them is true.

Makes it even more of a nonsense to be honest. Whenever you hear someone say that there is the one true faith you know full well that if they had been born in another country or in another time then they would be spouting a different truth. I think Dawkins made this point at one time or another.

bompington

Daz555 wrote:

Whenever you hear someone say that there is the one true faith you know full well that if they had been born in another country or in another time then they would be spouting a different truth. I think Dawkins made this point at one time or another.

So presumably if he'd been born in Libya, he'd be right out there rioting then ;-)

pangolin

Daz555 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?

Edited.

Children are simply indoctrinated. Barring the few exceptional converts and born-agains, most religious people simply follow the religion that their family and community tell them is true.

Makes it even more of a nonsense to be honest. Whenever you hear someone say that there is the one true faith you know full well that if they had been born in another country or in another time then they would be spouting a different truth. I think Dawkins made this point at one time or another.

A lot of people in my church were not brought up in a Christian family. Have you got evidence for your assumption or are you just guessing? Certainly there are probably more that were brought up Christian, but those who weren't are by no means 'exceptional'.

Anyway, I am finding my faith being described as a nonsense quite insulting. Where can I riot for greatest effect please?

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But they have decided to comment on western culture, by rioting at a tasteless depiction of their "Prophet". We are in a position to comment on others activities, as long as it is done in a rational and constructive way. We should not be depicting their religion in a negative way, completely agree.

Don't think it's a comment on Western culture.

I just think they really really really don't like Muhammad being depicted in publications.

No, they do not. But I think it also being used as an excuse to attack western facilities, probably driven by radical elements. Best not to depict Muhammad at all.

Wallace1492

pangolin wrote:

Daz555 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?

Edited.

Children are simply indoctrinated. Barring the few exceptional converts and born-agains, most religious people simply follow the religion that their family and community tell them is true.

Makes it even more of a nonsense to be honest. Whenever you hear someone say that there is the one true faith you know full well that if they had been born in another country or in another time then they would be spouting a different truth. I think Dawkins made this point at one time or another.

A lot of people in my church were not brought up in a Christian family. Have you got evidence for your assumption or are you just guessing? Certainly there are probably more that were brought up Christian, but those who weren't are by no means 'exceptional'.

Anyway, I am finding my faith being described as a nonsense quite insulting. Where can I riot for greatest effect please?

I agree with Daz, most families bring children up in the "Faith" that the parents have. How many is "a lot" if they converted to Christianity, and what did they convert from? It is my experience that someone brought up without religious teaching would not suddenly "see the light". And far more certainly turn their back on any religion.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But they have decided to comment on western culture, by rioting at a tasteless depiction of their "Prophet". We are in a position to comment on others activities, as long as it is done in a rational and constructive way. We should not be depicting their religion in a negative way, completely agree.

Don't think it's a comment on Western culture.

I just think they really really really don't like Muhammad being depicted in publications.

No, they do not. But I think it also being used as an excuse to attack western facilities, probably driven by radical elements. Best not to depict Muhammad at all.

For sure, but it's all entwined together. That the West do things like depict Muhammad is, presumably, indicative of wider behaviour they're unhappy with. Wouldn't take a lot of searching to work out what that is.

Not sure about not depicting Muhammad.

If you hold free speech and expression dear, and I do (despite my Mod ways, natch ), then you might just say "Ja, the Middle east will not be happy, but ultimately it's a part of our culture to allow this stuff, so they'll just be p!ssed off". I firmly believe no-one has a right to not be offended.

tailwindhome

rubertoe wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

What film?

"Life of Brian" I assume.

No. Seriously. What film?

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But they have decided to comment on western culture, by rioting at a tasteless depiction of their "Prophet". We are in a position to comment on others activities, as long as it is done in a rational and constructive way. We should not be depicting their religion in a negative way, completely agree.

Don't think it's a comment on Western culture.

I just think they really really really don't like Muhammad being depicted in publications.

No, they do not. But I think it also being used as an excuse to attack western facilities, probably driven by radical elements. Best not to depict Muhammad at all.

For sure, but it's all entwined together. That the West do things like depict Muhammad is, presumably, indicative of wider behaviour they're unhappy with. Wouldn't take a lot of searching to work out what that is.

Not sure about not depicting Muhammad.

If you hold free speech and expression dear, and I do (despite my Mod ways, natch ), then you might just say "Ja, the Middle east will not be happy, but ultimately it's a part of our culture to allow this stuff, so they'll just be p!ssed off". I firmly believe no-one has a right to not be offended.

True. So by that logic, we can be offended by their behaviour when we offend them. If they burned pictures of God, bibles or depicted so called Western or Christian symbols, there would not be rioting on the streets of London (maybe there would be but not for that reason!). What comes across to me is that Islam is far less tolerent, and not being brought up or embedded in that culture, I find it hard to understand that. Why not just turn the other cheek?

walkingbootweather

Wallace1492 wrote:

Why not just turn the other cheek?

You've been to an 'old firm' match, right?

Wallace1492

walkingbootweather wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Why not just turn the other cheek?

You've been to old firm match right?

Many.... and in general it is good fun, banter and I have very good friends on both sides. But there is a hard core radical element on both sides, that sadly detracts from the sporting behaviour, and to an extent, this has turned me against it.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

We in the West are in no position to decide whether their behaviour is acceptable or not.

What a load of crap. Their behaviour was illegal for a start, and morally reprehensible. FWIW my wife is a Turkish Muslim and gets really f*cking annoyed by behaviour like this. Islam has simply been used as an excuse to riot/vent grievances with the West.

walkingbootweather

Wallace1492 wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Why not just turn the other cheek?

You've been to old firm match right?

Many.... and in general it is good fun, banter and I have very good friends on both sides. But there is a hard core radical element on both sides, that sadly detracts from the sporting behaviour, and to an extent, this has turned me against it.

My experience of islamic counties is much like this. The majority of people are absolutely fine, with a small minority of radicals that are less tolerant.