"Atheist Life Vs. Religious Life" [video]
"Atheist Life vs. Religious Life" [video]
Magical goats.
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Let's say a miracle is a rare event in the sense that it's "once in a lifetime event". So, a person living 70 years, will have a miracle happen at least once.
70 years of life x 365 days in a year = 25,550 days of life.
1 day out of 25,550 days a miracle occurs.
Now, let's relate that to the worlds' population, which is ~7,000,000,000.
7000000000 times 1/25550 = ~274
This means that approximately 274 miracles occur daily.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Pizza is miraculous, flight is miraculous, the letter i is miraculous.
:P
:P
EDIT: and found. Just linked to the website cause it would blow away filter bypass and I'd be permad
Everything isn't Epic...
Quote:
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.
These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one's heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?
These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one's heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?
Not necessarily directly related to what we are talking about at this moment, but more in relevance to the general idea.
These are the two proponents of Atheism and Christianity respectively, thoughts?
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Let's say a miracle is a rare event in the sense that it's "once in a lifetime event". So, a person living 70 years, will have a miracle happen at least once.
70 years of life x 365 days in a year = 25,550 days of life.
1 day out of 25,550 days a miracle occurs.
Now, let's relate that to the worlds' population, which is ~7,000,000,000.
7000000000 times 1/25550 = ~274
This means that approximately 274 miracles occur daily.
That's called the argument from numbers.
It's where you make arbitrary numbers to fit your conclusion, then go "ta da" and make it seem legitimate. The fact that Daemun read it and fell right into the "LOL THAT'S SO RIGHT" trap just shows how low your standards are for determining something to be factual. Gullible to the bone.
Unfortunately your base premise is incorrect:
"Lets say miracles happen once every life time".
That's a statement that is not factual. Nor can you back it up.
Magic is not real. In all of history and all recorded science, we have not one miracle we can prove/back up.
You're left with only your "life itself is a miracle", which is a rhetorical statement, given the definition of the word miracle and the very explainable phenomena of biological life.
And Daemon, I'm sorry if you thought that repeating "magic is real" over and over in every thread for months without someone calling you on it was "constructive". Eventually someone was going to come around and point out the error in that statement.
[+]
The Biblical definition of a miracle are events that cannot occur normally and thus have divine origin.
Stuff like the plagues on Egypt, Tower of Babel, Talking Donkey, curing the blind, water into wine etc.
The miraculous landing of that plane in the Hudson was miraculous in a "rare occurrence" sense, but not in the biblical sense.
Stuff like the plagues on Egypt, Tower of Babel, Talking Donkey, curing the blind, water into wine etc.
The miraculous landing of that plane in the Hudson was miraculous in a "rare occurrence" sense, but not in the biblical sense.
I didn't say magic existed, I said miracles; by your own definition of miracle:
miracle
: an extremely outstanding and rare event, thing, or accomplishment
"I had cancer, but it suddenly was found to be benign. A miracle!"
Yes, you're right that I can't just assume that it will happen once a lifetime. Maybe it happens once every two lifetimes, even that would mean that >100 would occur daily. Maybe less than that, but I think the cancer example is a good case of a "miracle" and I'm sure something big like that happens often enough to be a daily occurrence with a population of 7 billion people.
miracle
: an extremely outstanding and rare event, thing, or accomplishment
"I had cancer, but it suddenly was found to be benign. A miracle!"
Yes, you're right that I can't just assume that it will happen once a lifetime. Maybe it happens once every two lifetimes, even that would mean that >100 would occur daily. Maybe less than that, but I think the cancer example is a good case of a "miracle" and I'm sure something big like that happens often enough to be a daily occurrence with a population of 7 billion people.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Let's say a miracle is a rare event in the sense that it's "once in a lifetime event". So, a person living 70 years, will have a miracle happen at least once.
70 years of life x 365 days in a year = 25,550 days of life.
1 day out of 25,550 days a miracle occurs.
Now, let's relate that to the worlds' population, which is ~7,000,000,000.
7000000000 times 1/25550 = ~274
This means that approximately 274 miracles occur daily.
That's called the argument from numbers.
It's where you make arbitrary numbers to fit your conclusion, then go "ta da" and make it seem legitimate. The fact that Daemun read it and fell right into the "LOL THAT'S SO RIGHT" trap just shows how low your standards are for determining something to be factual. Gullible to the bone.
Unfortunately your base premise is incorrect:
"Lets say miracles happen once every life time".
That's a statement that is not factual. Nor can you back it up.
Magic is not real. In all of history and all recorded science, we have not one miracle we can prove/back up.
You're left with only your "life itself is a miracle", which is a rhetorical statement, given the definition of the word miracle and the very explainable phenomena of biological life.
And Daemon, I'm sorry if you thought that repeating "magic is real" over and over in every thread for months without someone calling you on it was "constructive". Eventually someone was going to come around and point out the error in that statement.
Let's find something else to discuss where we might actually make headway, or God forbid, agree on. Read the link I posted, maybe you'll get some lol's and 'true dats' out of it.
Ok for this whole Miracle thing, I really do want to weigh in so here is an idea I had on it, I think I was a bit baked at the time.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Ok for this whole Miracle thing, I really do want to weigh in so here is an idea I had on it, I think I was a bit baked at the time.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
To take my stance on it-
I know you don't watch at work, but that will explain when you aren't there.
Some people would say that narrowly missing a car that was speeding past a stop sign would be a miracle even. It depends a lot on what you believe a "rare occurrence" to be.
The fact of the matter is that you must now scale that occurrence with the large number of 7,000,000,000. So these miracles(narrowly escaping death, discovering cancer to be benign, discovering new biological and scientific information by chance) will happen a LOT more than once a day.
The fact of the matter is that you must now scale that occurrence with the large number of 7,000,000,000. So these miracles(narrowly escaping death, discovering cancer to be benign, discovering new biological and scientific information by chance) will happen a LOT more than once a day.
[+]
Ifrit.Daemun said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Ok for this whole Miracle thing, I really do want to weigh in so here is an idea I had on it, I think I was a bit baked at the time.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
I honestly just want an opinion/idea on it because I didn't really get one at the time I posted it.
To take my stance on it-
I know you don't watch at work, but that will explain when you aren't there.
So patience, it is a virtue.
Ah ok. Let's redefine a miracle to be common things that have no supernatural origin. Then let's get our opponent to agree they happen (based on our changed definition). Let's then use the original definition to justify a supernatural god.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
[+]
Here it is, bolding relevant parts:
babies are atheistic or nontheistic by default.
do they have a belief system?
ehhhhh. nah.
lack-there-of.
example:
i'm an atheist.
i used to consider myself to be a christian within social constrains.
I wasn't convinced of it so I moved on to other things and eventually developed the way I see things, if something convinces me otherwise, sure I might want to adopt, but it's going to ba a hard sell.
I believe we are God so to speak, we've been capable of destroying the whole planet for a while now yes?
on the other side of that coin one could attest to many miracles in the world, medical science or otherwise vested in human interaction.
Why would one with a belief such as that need to believe in a higher being that we can't see?
Because using the term we are "God" in honestly a metaphor developed on our interpretation of the world around us previously prescribed by religion.
So if you remove the metaphor and just succinctly state what I previously stated about destruction and "miracles" all on our own why would I need to assign a God?
Is this Humanism?
Where is Elanabella when I need him.
Apologies for the typographical errors, I am a bit stoned at the moment so I don't currently have the finesse that I typically see myself having, I hope what I said made sense to someone and is not just disregarded as stoner drivel.
edit:
and yes one could imply that i'm attesting miracles and disasters to be the only substantial sign of god and that makes what I think a "belief", but wouldn't in that point make my belief Humanism(i hope I'm right that it's humanism, I could check and I might later if I don't get a POV from our resident humanist), and in turn would make humanism be my belief and atheism a qualifier for what I believe in.
and you guys are both mad, stop trying to *** the emotional level or at least stop talking about it!
edit: and my understanding of a miracle is a simple one, not some grand-standing interpretation.
a miracle fits the vector of something i don't understand nor I could explain, does that mean it's magic?
nah it just means i don't understand it.
and this links back together with what I quoted previously as well I will requote:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
babies are atheistic or nontheistic by default.
do they have a belief system?
ehhhhh. nah.
lack-there-of.
example:
i'm an atheist.
i used to consider myself to be a christian within social constrains.
I wasn't convinced of it so I moved on to other things and eventually developed the way I see things, if something convinces me otherwise, sure I might want to adopt, but it's going to ba a hard sell.
I believe we are God so to speak, we've been capable of destroying the whole planet for a while now yes?
on the other side of that coin one could attest to many miracles in the world, medical science or otherwise vested in human interaction.
Why would one with a belief such as that need to believe in a higher being that we can't see?
Because using the term we are "God" in honestly a metaphor developed on our interpretation of the world around us previously prescribed by religion.
So if you remove the metaphor and just succinctly state what I previously stated about destruction and "miracles" all on our own why would I need to assign a God?
Is this Humanism?
Where is Elanabella when I need him.
Apologies for the typographical errors, I am a bit stoned at the moment so I don't currently have the finesse that I typically see myself having, I hope what I said made sense to someone and is not just disregarded as stoner drivel.
edit:
and yes one could imply that i'm attesting miracles and disasters to be the only substantial sign of god and that makes what I think a "belief", but wouldn't in that point make my belief Humanism(i hope I'm right that it's humanism, I could check and I might later if I don't get a POV from our resident humanist), and in turn would make humanism be my belief and atheism a qualifier for what I believe in.
and you guys are both mad, stop trying to *** the emotional level or at least stop talking about it!
edit: and my understanding of a miracle is a simple one, not some grand-standing interpretation.
a miracle fits the vector of something i don't understand nor I could explain, does that mean it's magic?
nah it just means i don't understand it.
and this links back together with what I quoted previously as well I will requote:
Quote:
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.
These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one's heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?
-Richard Feynman
These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one's heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?
-Richard Feynman
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Ah ok. Let's redefine a miracle to be common things that have no supernatural origin. Then let's get our opponent to agree they happen (based on our changed definition). Let's then use the original definition to justify a supernatural god.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
It's not baited agreement argument if my purpose isn't to make you believe in supernatural. I just watched you try to disprove Daemun by saying that miracles don't occur daily. And well, I simply couldn't allow you to have that as valid ammunition considering the colloquial use of the word "miracle".
You claimed that miracles don't occur daily and stated that as absolute truth and I don't accept that. It depends on the frame of reference of a miracle. "Miracle" in reference of the universe probably occurs thousands of years apart. The colloquial "miracle" for humans occurs much more than once a day, yet these events are still rare from our perspective.
Saying you won't believe what I write because it's bated agreement is like people saying they won't believe the earth is round because they're worried that the next thing "the round teachers" will try to do is rob them of their money. These are two completely unrelated things.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Ah ok. Let's redefine a miracle to be common things that have no supernatural origin. Then let's get our opponent to agree they happen (based on our changed definition). Let's then use the original definition to justify a supernatural god.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
You haven't pointed out any errors in any weak points I've made. This all started because you called me out when I was talking about a completely different subject. You have no one to blame for the last two pages but yourself. I gave you one polite invitation to move on. You did not accept. Accept this as my last rebuttal to you because simply, arguing on the internet is quite dumb, and we've moved beyond discussion and expression to that point. You've even resorted to name calling a couple of occasions (and I retaliated in jest, but did nonetheless), so we've gone below bad. If you care to join me, we can talk about other questions brought up (such as Vinvv's questioning of each person's definition of miraculous), or you can continue on this path and I'll simply ignore you.
And just so we're clear, this isn't an attack at your character, nor is it me being mad. I'm simply trying to politely save face for both us before we end up being 'those' people on the forums that people try to avoid any time these topics come up.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Definition of a Miracle:
: an extremely outstanding and rare event, thing, or accomplishment
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Ah ok. Let's redefine a miracle to be common things that have no supernatural origin. Then let's get our opponent to agree they happen (based on our changed definition). Let's then use the original definition to justify a supernatural god.
Also, I do believe you were the one to "redefine a miracle" in that sense. From the moment of entering this discussion I have solely used your definition of a miracle. So, you were trying to use baited agreement on yourself?
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
[+]
Sylph.Linkk said:
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
Sylph.Linkk said:
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
Edit: The correct rebuttal was prosthetic limbs. I'm awarded no points, and may God have mercy on my soul. +1 for catching the reference
Ifrit.Daemun said:
Sylph.Linkk said:
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
Edit: The correct rebuttal was prosthetic limbs. I'm awarded no points, and may God have mercy on my soul. +1 for catching the reference
If you can't it's a miracle until you can.
I think we'll be able to do a lot of this stuff(and already have in many respects) in the future anyway as we further understand the world around us.
Ifrit.Daemun said:
Sylph.Linkk said:
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
Edit: The correct rebuttal was prosthetic limbs. I'm awarded no points, and may God have mercy on my soul. +1 for catching the reference
I heard about the synthetic skin....but I hadn't heard anything about prothetic limbs.
time to chop off my arm and leg for a serious edward elric cosplay.
Ifrit.Daemun said:
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Ah ok. Let's redefine a miracle to be common things that have no supernatural origin. Then let's get our opponent to agree they happen (based on our changed definition). Let's then use the original definition to justify a supernatural god.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
It's called the baited agreement argument.
Oh and Daemun, just because I'm pointing out the errors in your weak arguments, doesn't mean I'm mad.
You seem very upset however that I disagree with your poor definitions.
uMad.
You haven't pointed out any errors in any weak points I've made. This all started because you called me out when I was talking about a completely different subject. You have no one to blame for the last two pages but yourself. I gave you one polite invitation to move on. You did not accept. Accept this as my last rebuttal to you because simply, arguing on the internet is quite dumb, and we've moved beyond discussion and expression to that point. You've even resorted to name calling a couple of occasions (and I retaliated in jest, but did nonetheless), so we've gone below bad. If you care to join me, we can talk about other questions brought up (such as Vinvv's questioning of each person's definition of miraculous), or you can continue on this path and I'll simply ignore you.
And just so we're clear, this isn't an attack at your character, nor is it me being mad. I'm simply trying to politely save face for both us before we end up being 'those' people on the forums that people try to avoid any time these topics come up.
You're wanting me to accept "your version of miracle". As if I'm not fully aware of the entirety of what you (and Daemun) are viewing to be miraculous.
It's very obvious what you're referring to.
It's very obvious that when you limit the definition of miracle to be "anything nice that happens", it seems to give you a basis of evidence.
The FACT remains however that Daemun was claiming that MAGIC (yes, *** magic, his words) happens every day. Not just "rare nice things", but supernatural, unexplainable, magical things that originate from a supreme omnipotent deity.
You're conflating his assertion that these supernatural MAGICAL things happen ALL THE TIME, by stating the obvious "some nice things do happen by chance".
Daemun's "why are you picking on me" response is getting a bit old though, considering his desire to poke his head in every religious thread I've read thus far and give his opinion, without backing it up.
[+]
I guess Daemun is just upset I'm using my "Magic" called logic to debunk his incredulous claims.
[+]
Sylph.Linkk said:
Until 1 person grows a limb, miracles in the religious sense is pure garbage.
Sounds like someone was reading "Why wont God heal amputees?"
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
I guess Daemun is just upset I'm using my "Magic" called logic to debunk his incredulous claims.
we explain and understand "magic" through scientific method over time.
magic exists until an explanation appears.
Penn & Teller illustrate such things quite well.
I don't believe miracles are what you think I think they are(< confusing, you may have to read it a couple times). In fact, I'm pretty solid in my views of atheism.
Actually, my purpose in this conversation was to show you that arguing about it isn't going to get to the goal you expect. Especially not when using logical fallacies and angry personal attacks.
You simply won't put a nail in the coffin of religion by doing these things. Sadly, you can't do it even WITH logical perfection and coming from a humble standpoint. Why can't you put the final nail in the coffin? Because there simply isn't a lid. No amount of reason can "finish off" religion because it will always be pushed further back.
"Well, God didn't create the world, the pile of molten iron and various meteors did." >>>>> "Well, what created those things?"
"Well, God didn't create the universe, the big bang did." >>>>> "Well, what created the big bang?"
I do wish we could all be on the same page and just focus on the good will towards people instead of throwing religion vs. religion vs. non-religion into the mix.
Actually, my purpose in this conversation was to show you that arguing about it isn't going to get to the goal you expect. Especially not when using logical fallacies and angry personal attacks.
You simply won't put a nail in the coffin of religion by doing these things. Sadly, you can't do it even WITH logical perfection and coming from a humble standpoint. Why can't you put the final nail in the coffin? Because there simply isn't a lid. No amount of reason can "finish off" religion because it will always be pushed further back.
"Well, God didn't create the world, the pile of molten iron and various meteors did." >>>>> "Well, what created those things?"
"Well, God didn't create the universe, the big bang did." >>>>> "Well, what created the big bang?"
I do wish we could all be on the same page and just focus on the good will towards people instead of throwing religion vs. religion vs. non-religion into the mix.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.