Kuribo64
Views: 8,671,507 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
08-16-18 08:44 AM
Guest:

0 users reading What are your beliefs? | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Stygmax
Posted on 07-29-16 11:30 AM Link | #75165
Actually, I take it back. There's only so long any religious dialouge can go on before declining, it seems. I'd be content with just stating my beliefs and not elaborating any further if I had to. If you try to "justify" them to others it won't end well, there's more than sufficient evidence for that.
Status: It was really, really fun, guys - thanks for the ride!

Baby Luigi
Posted on 07-29-16 07:13 PM Link | #75227
Posted by StapleButter
There is no 'correct' explanation here, noone was there back then to watch it. You can only say "X is simpler so it's more likely" but we know zero for sure. Saying "it is the correct explanation" is similar to religious zealots pretending their religion is the right one and the others are wrong.


The problem with your points is that you operate on "no one was there to watch it" fallacy. We also don't know exactly where the moon came from, we didn't experience how our mountains are formed, how our Solar System was formed, and how we received dinosaur bones, but it did leave evidence behind, such as moon rocks having similar composition to Earth rocks, hence why we have the asteroid collision theory with the early Earth, which is the most accepted theory regarding formation of the Moon because of all the particular tests that were run for it. As for mountains and the solar formation, the former is explained by tectonic plates and continental drift, while the latter is explained by observing extrasolar stars and protostars, as well as spectography and a lot of other things.

Anyone who believes in these scientific theories aren't saying that they are 100% correct. Science is never about absolute certainty, it operates on uncertainty most of the time, actually. However, more theories are accepted than others because there's more evidence supporting that theory than other theories, hence why they believe about the Solar formation theory rather than...anything else. If there's anything that would prove these scientific beliefs that have a major substantial error in them, then the scientific community will openly embrace it and look into it. I mean, Dark Matter is one of those theories that would be great if there was something else operating the gravitational curve of galaxies.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 07-29-16 07:24 PM Link | #75231
Posted by xkitten
deck of cards =/= the universe/earth/evolution

it's kinda unfair to compare to that, tbh.

You're not really getting my point. We always ponder the chances of us being here, which I'd imagine is pretty slim. This is taking the very specific conditions for life to exist, especially complex life. But concluding that since we're so insignificant in this world, this possibly couldn't have been by "chance", it's a fallacy.

Posted by StapleButter
there's a question it doesn't solve, though


where does the 'basic matter and energy' come from

it can't just magically start existing out of nowhere

That's the wrong question to ask when it comes to science. It's like asking what's north of the north pole. Probably impossible to answer.

Posted by StapleButter
if you can't prove it, you can't say it's "correct" or "incorrect", sorry.

That's not really how science works (and also, see how courts work: they do not operate on proof, they operate on evidence and rejecting and NOT rejecting null hypothesis and NEVER accepting null hypothesis). Science isn't about being correct or not, it's on confidence levels and evidence. We have facts and we then construct theories to glue these facts and provide falsifiable predictions. I would say that Marionumber1 has the basic grasp of Occam's razor, but I wouldn't go as far to say as "the simpler theory is automatically correct", just "more likely to be correct, especially since it's much easier to confirm and falsify".

Pretty much what Wikipedia says right here below.

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.


This includes the existence of God. "God" is an unnecessary part (and very convoluted given the sheer amount of religions AND the sheer amount of branches AND how inconsistent the Bible is AND the sheer amount of interpretations of this god AND how human memory just plain sucks AND that rational thought that was meant to filter out biases wasn't widespread), which is why I subscribe to Occam's razor to bolster my atheistic views.

An excellent example of how valuable applying Occam's razor would be is during the period where geocentrism was the dominant view, but it had several problems, such as planets seemingly retrograding in the sky rather than traveling in a straight line. Epicycles were introduced which solved the problem. The geocentric model, however, became increasingly convoluted as there were more epicycles introduced as new data arose. The heliocentric model was introduced and slowly gained acceptance for its simplicity, making far fewer assumptions. At the time, there was no way these people could just shoot a machine into space and see Earth rotating the sun, but the heliocentric model was elegant and made complete sense compared to the mess of geocentrism.

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 07:38 PM (rev. 2 of 07-29-16 07:39 PM) Link | #75237
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I would say that Marionumber1 has the basic grasp of Occam's razor, but I wouldn't go as far to say as "the simpler theory is automatically correct", just "more likely to be correct, especially since it's much easier to confirm and falsify".


Yeah, I understand that Occam's razor can't prove anything. It just informs my belief that a god doesn't exist, since that adds unnecessary complication and fails to provide a better explanation than science for anything. There's also the problem that the existence of a god can't be falsified, making it a useless supposition from a scientific standpoint.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 07-29-16 07:54 PM Link | #75245
I couple Occam's razor with Russel's teapot, plus what I believe what happens after braindeath is just a lack of any feeling, and I become a pretty strong atheist, one who even argues that society doesn't even need religion. Religion in of itself just isn't rational for me to accept it. You don't need religion to have a moral code either.

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 08:54 PM Link | #75274
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I believe what happens after braindeath is just a lack of any feeling

If anything, this is something I generally highly doubt.

If Heaven really doesn't exist or whatever, I think that reincarnation would happen instead of just.. er, dying. Basically, being literally born again. It just makes more sense to me, and you just live another life, I guess.

I don't really know. Nobody knows for sure. That's the thing about beliefs - there's nothing to prove anything completely right or wrong in this case. :P
-fiverpost™
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 08:56 PM Link | #75275
Posted by xkitten
If anything, this is something I generally highly doubt.

If Heaven really doesn't exist or whatever, I think that reincarnation would happen instead of just.. er, dying. Basically, being literally born again. It just makes more sense to me, and you just live another life, I guess.

I don't really know. Nobody knows for sure. That's the thing about beliefs - there's nothing to prove anything completely right or wrong in this case. :P


Why does it make more sense to you? If there's no afterlife, why would consciousness be contained in anything other than the brain?

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 08:57 PM Link | #75276
dunno really

i just don't think that life abruptly ends. I think has it goes on in some way.
-fiverpost™
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 08:59 PM Link | #75277
Posted by xkitten
dunno really

i just don't think that life abruptly ends. I think has it goes on in some way.


Does that come from your belief in religion, or does it cause your belief in religion?

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 07-29-16 09:00 PM Link | #75278
fiver, do you have any clue how life went before you were born? No, you simply didn't exist. To me, death is like that, like not being born. It's comforting to listen to reincarnation, and it's a thought I've pondered, like why is consciousness given in me, how did this consciousness happen, but it's just my brain existing. It's hard to explain.

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 09:02 PM Link | #75279
I'd say some of both.

It was mostly caused by simply being raised as a Christian. I also legitimately believe many things there too, so it's not like I'm just doing this because my parents are :P

Ninja'd, and no, I don't remember the time a bit before I was born (when I was developing). Then again, I busted my head when I was three and can't remember about anything before that happened. :I

But yes, it's always interesting to consider these things.
-fiverpost™
[image]

Baby Luigi
Posted on 07-29-16 09:33 PM Link | #75280
xkitten, you do realize that every aspect of yourself, your personality, your memories, your thoughts, your preferences....they're all result from the functional living brain? Have you ever heard of Phineas Gage? The poor guy has been driven an iron rod through his head, and he survived. But his original personality didn't, and he became a totally different person.

StapleButter
Posted on 07-30-16 05:44 PM Link | #75336
oh and for those who talk about Occam's razor: remember how some early men tried to describe how stars, Sun, Moon etc worked.

Not knowing about space and considering Earth as the center because it's their point of view, they first established a theory where all the stars and crap were on a sphere whose center is Earth.

Simple. Easy. The simplest theory is the correct one, right?

Except we eventually found out that it was more complex than that. Much, in fact.


Just saying.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-30-16 05:51 PM Link | #75338
Posted by StapleButter
oh and for those who talk about Occam's razor: remember how some early men tried to describe how stars, Sun, Moon etc worked.

Not knowing about space and considering Earth as the center because it's their point of view, they first established a theory where all the stars and crap were on a sphere whose center is Earth.

Simple. Easy. The simplest theory is the correct one, right?

Except we eventually found out that it was more complex than that. Much, in fact.


Just saying.


As we pointed out, Occam's razor is a guiding tool for selecting a particular hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything. The principle states that the theory requiring the fewest assumptions to fit the facts should be chosen.

In early days of human life, we lacked the observation of the universe to tell us that a geocentric theory didn't explain things. As we began to observe more, the geocentric explanation failed, and we continually had to make it more complex. This began to imply, through Occam's razor, that it was incorrect.

Occam's razor is most useful for selecting a theory when we've made enough observations to narrow down theories. But that's not surprising. Your argument against its utility just doesn't make sense.

StapleButter
Posted on 07-30-16 05:54 PM Link | #75339
I'm well aware. I wasn't saying that it's automatically wrong or anything.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 07-30-16 06:30 PM Link | #75340
Posted by StapleButter
oh and for those who talk about Occam's razor: remember how some early men tried to describe how stars, Sun, Moon etc worked.

Not knowing about space and considering Earth as the center because it's their point of view, they first established a theory where all the stars and crap were on a sphere whose center is Earth.

Simple. Easy. The simplest theory is the correct one, right?

Except we eventually found out that it was more complex than that. Much, in fact.


Just saying.

They're not theories though.

Posted by Wikipeds
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.


When early men and women tried to describe their surroundings, they're affected by preconceived biases because of a lack of data. They also had to make a lot of assumptions, which Occam's Razor is primarily dealing with. Remember, the geocentric view was attractive because it seemingly made sense AND it meshed very well with Christian theology, to the point where questioning it would get you persecuted. But even at its time, people observed flaws and Aristarchus in 270 BC even proposed an alternate explanation.

"Not knowing about space and considering Earth as the center because it's their point of view"

That's a key point in why we use Occam's razor. The core of it is the assumptions people make rather than basing their observations on data and pure facts. It's a hard thing to filter out this, which is why is took us so long to realize that we're orbiting the sun and why the scientific method had to be invented.

NoSkinnedKoopa
Posted on 08-07-16 04:12 PM Link | #75834
I am also a Christian. Though I do hate those stereotypical Christians who immediately call out and say you're going to Hell and blah blah. And also, I believe going to church every Sunday is not a necessity. Your "religion" or "belief of a powerful being" should depend on your relationship with whatever you believe is a high power. Don't believe in something because you fear it and don't wanna go to whatever your interpretation of "Hell" is. Believe in this "whatever you want to call it" because you strive for something greater beyond this life and you actually want to have a relationship with it because you know it is good from the feeling of your heart. That is what you should feel from your belief and if you feel is it right and you're choosing to do this out of your own will, not from forced beliefs of what other people tell you in this world, then it must be correct. I feel that from my faith or rather relationship in Christianity. :)

I will not enforce this to those of you who do not agree with me. That goes against what I believe because I believe your beliefs, if you choose to have any, should come from none other than your own heart.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 08-07-16 09:38 PM Link | #75843
I'm aware that most Christians are tolerant with people of differing beliefs. They say that God created and loves all of us so I take it that we're supposed to love each other. Fundamentalists boil my blood though, and I really hate it when people kill or promote hatred in the name of God.

StapleButter
Posted on 08-08-16 08:00 PM Link | #75885
killing in the name of God is utter bullshit anyway. God doesn't need justice warriors.


I get the feeling that He doesn't really care about us anyway.


I have another belief, but it's not religious. It's more about how the current system is running out of steam and will eventually implode. But I have ranted a lot about that junk already, don't wanna derail this thread.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

cros107
Posted on 08-10-16 10:19 PM Link | #75990
I am a devout Pastafarian.

Just kidding. I'm atheist.

I like to think that everything in the universe has a reasonable explanation. Just saying "God did it" isn't enough.

____________________
No, not doing SM64DS hacking, just here for the waffles.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Page rendered in 0.030 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 29, rows: 232/232, time: 0.017 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.