[jeff744]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wonder why they focused on religious beliefs, as opposed to spiritual ones.

Does that include karma, belief in luck, and/or jinxes? Religion is defined, spiritual is a lot less solid.

[PluggyRug]

jeff744 jeff744:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I wonder why they focused on religious beliefs, as opposed to spiritual ones.

Does that include karma, belief in luck, and/or jinxes? Religion is defined, spiritual is a lot less solid.

I must use all of them and many more, after all I do support the Maple Leafs.

[Tricks]

JEDI MOFUCKA!

[Lemmy]

[Tricks]

Oh my god I love Jim Jefferies. I love his comedy specials.

[Lemmy]

[Zipperfish]

raydan raydan:

I've always thought that some scientists turn to religion/spirituality because science does not have all the answers. In this case, spirituality completes knowledge.

I have no problem not knowing all the answers myself, even with the fact that we'll probably never know. Maybe when I get to be your advanced age, Zip, I'll start looking at that spiritual stuff.

Analytical thinking can't know all the answers, even by it's own internal logic. That was the rather mind-boggling but inescapbel conclsuion of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical deduction is based on fundamental axioms that are unproven but accepted on faith. Not only that but logical induction is, as Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out while he wasn't chasing sheep, ultimately circualar.

Our entire citadel of reason is built on thin air, held aloft by faith.

[ShepherdsDog]

so the more analytical your thought process is, the more you have to rely on 'faith' to maintain your presumptions?

[CanadianJeff]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Bill Maher said it best, in Religulous. Anything more than 'I don't know' is just arrogance.

So is it arrogant of me to assert that there is no such thing as Zeus? What about Baal? Set? Mithra? The flying spaghetti monster?

I agree that it's arrogant to dismiss the entire concept of "God" but Yahweh, Vishnu and others have traits that are defined by their holy books.

It is hardly arrogant or wrong to point out logical impossibility on the existence of such things. It's a pursuit of the truth.

So no, the next time that I say I do not beleive in the existence of a Yahweh whose book relies on the tale of a naked couple in a made up paradise eating a magical fruit of knowledge after being tricked by a talking snake leave me alone and go away or don't be amazed if I treat you like a fool.

edit: Grammar added.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

raydan raydan:

I've always thought that some scientists turn to religion/spirituality because science does not have all the answers. In this case, spirituality completes knowledge.

I have no problem not knowing all the answers myself, even with the fact that we'll probably never know. Maybe when I get to be your advanced age, Zip, I'll start looking at that spiritual stuff.

Analytical thinking can't know all the answers, even by it's own internal logic. That was the rather mind-boggling but inescapbel conclsuion of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical deduction is based on fundamental axioms that are unproven but accepted on faith. Not only that but logical induction is, as Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out while he wasn't chasing sheep, ultimately circualar.

Our entire citadel of reason is built on thin air, held aloft by faith.

Incorrect.

[ShepherdsDog]

I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't believe. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. I believe that sentiment has been about the extent of any exchanges I've had with you. I've also made it pretty clear that I don't support organized religion and that at best I'm an agnostic. And anyone who wants to call another a fool should at least be able to tell the difference between no and know.

[CanadianJeff]

actually I missed a comma after the word no there.

"So no, the next time..."

That and seriously I was addressing the statement made and I bear no ill will towards you at all so why the personal antics?

That's what I've been repeating the last few weeks. There are few people here that are willing to discuss a topic without drawing some sort of personal line in the sand.

I for one will always give a "flying fuck" about what other people think because I'm interested in what's true.

I hope that in time everyone would be more willing to engage discussions with that principle in mind.

[ShepherdsDog]

Then I retract my criticism on that point and apologize. You don't express yourself very succinctly, as the rest of the sentence points out. Attention to clarity would eliminate this.

$1:

So no, the next time that I say I do not beleive in the existence of a Yahweh, whose book relies on the tale of a naked couple, in a made up paradise, eating a magical fruit of knowledge, after being tricked by a talking snake, leave me alone and go away, or don't be amazed if I treat you like a fool.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

so the more analytical your thought process is, the more you have to rely on 'faith' to maintain your presumptions?

Yes, or perhaps better worded: the more you delve into analytical thought, the more you realize that it is essetnially faith-based.

Bertrand Russell on his masterpiece Principia Mathematica:

$1:

I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than elsewhere. But I discovered that many mathematical demonstrations, which my teachers wanted me to accept, were full of fallacies ... I was continually reminded of the fable about the elephant and the tortoise. Having constructed an elephant upon which the mathematical world could rest, I found the elephant tottering, and proceeded to construct a tortoise to keep the elephant from falling. But the tortoise was no more secure than the elephant, and after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.
--Portraits from Memory, 1956

[Zipperfish]

sandorski sandorski:

Analytical thinking can't know all the answers, even by it's own internal logic. That was the rather mind-boggling but inescapbel conclsuion of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical deduction is based on fundamental axioms that are unproven but accepted on faith. Not only that but logical induction is, as Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out while he wasn't chasing sheep, ultimately circualar.

Our entire citadel of reason is built on thin air, held aloft by faith.

Incorrect.[/quote]

Which part? Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? The basis of logical deduction on unproved axioms? Or the Problem of Induiction?