What Do You Follow?

[Kanami]

You're absolutely right. However, I've got problems with the way that you're stating your view. It's like the "sun will rise tomorrow argument". It seems to me that you'll firmly believe that the sun will rise since modern sciencce has "proved" it. So what happens to that science if the sun were to not rise?

I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and if it doesn't, the first thing I turn to would be a logical (scientific) reasoning. (World stopped spinning, Sun went boom, A fleet of alien spacecrafts are blotting out the sun etcetc)

Under no circumstance would I turn to religion for the answer, as Meteor has said, religion isn't logical. And blaming all unexplainable events on divine intervention seems ridiculous. I mean if I went back 2000 years with a walkie-talkie I'd be a miracle worker, or some evil wizard. Technology at the time would have seen it as magic, but we know now that it's not magic at all.

Where did God come from?

He just exists

Is the stupidest answer I've ever heard. I reinstate that there's a difference between seeking an answer (science) and dismissing the issue as unexplainable (religion). The latter being a very immature way of handling things, take my younger sister today

Why didn't you go to school?

Didn't feel like it.

[Raven]

Religion does nothing except give false hope to people in some way. Which isn't a good thing.

It also creates conflict between people. From little things like this thread's little arguments to larger things such as terrorism and murder.

Whoever follows a religion and practices worshiping it is simply wasting hours of their week. I went to something in Poland back in June where everyone attended church, the rev guy said some stuff (it was in Polish but that doesn't matter). We had to squat down for like a minute about three times. Pisstake, I felt. I only did it because the girlfriend's parents asked me to come with them just to see what it was like. I didn't want to but I thought I may as well. We then followed the rev around the church to 3 points which seemed to triangulate the church. The whole thing took like maybe 2 hours, and it felt like the longest 2 hours of my life. If asked to go to another one in my lifetime, I will have to decline. I will decline attending any form of religious outing, for that matter. I'm quite happy doing fuck all as opposed to listening to a person talk about shit I don't care about.

Religion makes me angry.

[eclipse]

I also dislike any form of ignorance, like horoscopes and supremacy groups. Religion is just a facet of that, which seems especially concerned with what people do in their personal lives. At least those others I listed don't try to sell themselves as a divine source of morality.

Whether moral or not, people shape themselves to it. Try asking a supremacy group to consider the fact that they might be wrong. . .on second thought, don't. I like you.

No, I don't think they'd all become better people instantly. After living in ignorance for so long, I wouldn't be surprised if they fell for any number of other ignorant practices. However, it would thin the herd. I know plenty of mostly rational people whose logic goes out the window if you try to touch a subject that conflicts with their faith, like evolution. "Oh I don't believe that." Losing their faith would allow them to reconsider those things they rejected before.

Whose hatred are you talking about? Mine of religion?

If religion is as ridiculous as you think, and these people have latched THAT HARD to it, they'd find something else to fill that void. It probably won't be logic.

The blind hatred I mentioned was the hatred born of willful ignorance. Please don't become like that!

Religion does nothing except give false hope to people in some way. Which isn't a good thing.

It also creates conflict between people. From little things like this thread's little arguments to larger things such as terrorism and murder.

Whoever follows a religion and practices worshiping it is simply wasting hours of their week. I went to something in Poland back in June where everyone attended church, the rev guy said some stuff (it was in Polish but that doesn't matter). We had to squat down for like a minute about three times. Pisstake, I felt. I only did it because the girlfriend's parents asked me to come with them just to see what it was like. I didn't want to but I thought I may as well. We then followed the rev around the church to 3 points which seemed to triangulate the church. The whole thing took like maybe 2 hours, and it felt like the longest 2 hours of my life. If asked to go to another one in my lifetime, I will have to decline. I will decline attending any form of religious outing, for that matter. I'm quite happy doing fuck all as opposed to listening to a person talk about shit I don't care about.

Religion makes me angry.

Make any ideal powerful enough, and it will have the same effect (see: racism). Blame people, not the ideal.

I'm also very sorry you had to go through that! Religion should not be forced, no matter how subtle the force is!

[Raven]

Make any ideal powerful enough, and it will have the same effect (see: racism). Blame people, not the ideal.

I'm also very sorry you had to go through that! Religion should not be forced, no matter how subtle the force is!

I do blame people in a sense, since the ideals were created by people in the first place.

Also, it was a hell of a hot day, I'm surprised some of the older people didn't keel over.

[Kanami]

If religion is as ridiculous as you think, and these people have latched THAT HARD to it, they'd find something else to fill that void. It probably won't be logic.

Make any ideal powerful enough, and it will have the same effect (see: racism). Blame people, not the ideal.

I find the former to be inaccurate. Me, personally. After I left my (then) local church I picked up the violin and video games. I'm not sure if those are "logical" alternatives, but the term isn't being interpreted correctly from what I can tell. It's not being "illogical" that's the problem. It's defining "illogical" as okay.

"It's illogical, who gives a fuck?" seems to be the response I mainly receive. And frankly, that is rather stupid. You're entitled to your own beliefs and practices, sure. But promoting it as "right" when you can't back it up with anything seems rather weak.

As for too powerful, I agree, everything turns bad at extreme levels. Even happiness But with "ideals > people" I have to agree that the people are the ones making the ideals. Even if it's "divine" words from God, it went through the translation process of man.

In regards to "racism" being an example, I found that interesting, since religion as a whole shares similar traits. For example, the whole idea of non-believers going to hell, elevates the believers above the others. There's even cases today when non-belivers are excluded (Local Private High School only accepts Christians/Catholic applicants for teachings, right down to the gardener)

[eclipse]

I find the former to be inaccurate. Me, personally. After I left my (then) local church I picked up the violin and video games. I'm not sure if those are "logical" alternatives, but the term isn't being interpreted correctly from what I can tell. It's not being "illogical" that's the problem. It's defining "illogical" as okay.

Think of those that drove you away from religion, not yourself. What do you think they'd be like if they weren't religious?

"It's illogical, who gives a fuck?" seems to be the response I mainly receive. And frankly, that is rather stupid. You're entitled to your own beliefs and practices, sure. But promoting it as "right" when you can't back it up with anything seems rather weak.

I don't remember saying anything about my belief being the only correct one. I do believe the world would benefit if we'd all be a little nicer to each other.

As for too powerful, I agree, everything turns bad at extreme levels. Even happiness But with "ideals > people" I have to agree that the people are the ones making the ideals. Even if it's "divine" words from God, it went through the translation process of man.

In regards to "racism" being an example, I found that interesting, since religion as a whole shares similar traits. For example, the whole idea of non-believers going to hell, elevates the believers above the others. There's even cases today when non-belivers are excluded (Local Private High School only accepts Christians/Catholic applicants for teachings, right down to the gardener)

As horribly preachy as this will sound (please forgive me), I think we humans are more like sheep than most of us are willing to admit. Find a good shepherd, and follow him/her. In this case, the shepherd can be someone spouting off some ideal (even logic!), and people will follow.

Funny how there's another perfectly good way of dividing people that has nothing to do with the divine. . .it goes to show that if people want to hate others, they will find a way. I'd much rather hit the root cause of willful ignorance, rather than the symptoms (like racism).

As for private schools. . .since their funding comes from elsewhere, they can do whatever the hell they want, in terms of accepting people. One of the more famous ones in my area, for the longest time, accepted kids. . .based on race. Go figure.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah, but here's the problem. While it is impossible to factually deny that you are God, it is equally impossible to factually confirm it too. In fact, this rings true for almost any scientific "proof" that exists.

Since when did proof need proof to be valid, brah?

Scientist: The reason that we still exist on this earth is because the carbon cycle allows us to. Any air that we breath in gets recycled by plants which in turn creates more breathable air. God does not have a hand in this system.

Me: Oh yeah? Prove it.

Scientist: *rushes into a long winded explanation of the carbon cycle*

Me: You still haven't proved anything. You've only given me an explanation of why it COULD be possible that God doesn't do anything.

You're saying that we have no proof of the carbon cycle, we just know it's there and that's that? It's perfectly fine to mix your ideals with science to fit your own needs, but please don't be wrong about it.

It's not just the cycle. It's the element itself. It allows incredibly complex molecules; it's life's "backbone" as Wikipedia puts it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life

I recommend you go further than Wikipedia by the way.

Who determines which facts of science are correct? We do but it's only from what we perceive. We can say something like "the sky is blue for x, y and z reason" but the truth of the matter is that we are only going off what we can perceive, even after experiments.

Well, what if we said the sky was blue solely because donkeys shit on Tuesday? Would science be credible then?

We have PROOF of these things. Yeah, it may just be our speculation, but as far as I know, we're the only known life able to speculate, so who else are you going to listen to? What else has evidence and logic to back up what it says?

My point is that people shouldn't mention the word "proof" with regards to philosophy. Ever. Nothing can be proven and nothing can be disproven. Including science. And you should probably drop that little argument of yours.

Wrong...sorta. More like nothing should ever be regarded as the absolute truth. Things can definitely be proven and disproven. We do it all the time.

I think you're literate (Hypothesis). You're reading and writing with me on the Internet (observation and analysis). That's proof that you're literate (conclusion). Are you illiterate or literate? Tell me.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Yeah, but here's the problem. While it is impossible to factually deny that you are God, it is equally impossible to factually confirm it too. In fact, this rings true for almost any scientific "proof" that exists.

Scientist: The reason that we still exist on this earth is because the carbon cycle allows us to. Any air that we breath in gets recycled by plants which in turn creates more breathable air. God does not have a hand in this system.

Me: Oh yeah? Prove it.

Scientist: *rushes into a long winded explanation of the carbon cycle*

Me: You still haven't proved anything. You've only given me an explanation of why it COULD be possible that God doesn't do anything.

At which point the scientist realizes that you're a fucking retard and ignores you. He's given you a direct explanation that is substantiated by clear, observational proof.

Don't compare belief in the divine and the lack of evidence it brings to scientific methodology and its results. They're utterly different.

Who determines which facts of science are correct? We do but it's only from what we perceive. We can say something like "the sky is blue for x, y and z reason" but the truth of the matter is that we are only going off what we can perceive, even after experiments.

Considering that the color blue is defined by our senses, I'd say that's pretty fucking irrelevant.

My point is that people shouldn't mention the word "proof" with regards to philosophy. Ever. Nothing can be proven and nothing can be disproven. Including science. And you should probably drop that little argument of yours.

With your line of logic, nothing period can be proven.

I mean, I know that's what you're going for, but I just wanted to point that out to try and outline how seriously ridiculous that is.

You're absolutely right. However, I've got problems with the way that you're stating your view. It's like the "sun will rise tomorrow argument". It seems to me that you'll firmly believe that the sun will rise since modern sciencce has "proved" it. So what happens to that science if the sun were to not rise?

Well, the scientific community would crumble if that were to happen, since planet Earth's life is sustained by the Sun's energy.

Repeatable tests don't prove scientific theories.

Yes, they do. Repeated tests are the exact basis of scientific theories. The fact that they are repeatable is what makes them what they are.

You can make an educated guess saying that "if I turn the temperature up to 100*C, this pot of water will boil" if you've done the test 15 times. But what if the 16th test says differently? Even doing the test 1000 or 1000000 times doesn't guarantee that you get the same result if you were to do it one more time.

It does point to the observed phenomenon being a factual occurrence. Which is why it occurs continuously.

Unless you're absolutely psychic, it is impossible to predict without a shadow of a doubt that you will get the same result the next time you do the test. You can be pretty sure that you know what will happen but never 100% certain.

How do you know that we will never be 100% certain? Can you show that to be completely true?

Check and mate brah.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[eclipse]

How do you know that we will never be 100% certain? Can you show that to be completely true?

Check and mate brah.

How do you know it always WILL be exactly as expected?

[Meteor]

Repeatable tests don't prove scientific theories.

You can make an educated guess saying that "if I turn the temperature up to 100*C, this pot of water will boil" if you've done the test 15 times. But what if the 16th test says differently?

We also have to agree that action X causes reaction Y. If you don't, then you can't know or even hypothesize anything. Maybe you'll wake up inside out tomorrow. Maybe you'll try to take a bath, and the tub fills up with rainbows. Maybe gravity will stop for a minute. It's just ludicrous to say repeatable tests aren't significant; it is, after all, the only thing we can base anything whatsoever upon.

If the sixteenth test conflicts with the other results, that's more likely a sign of human error/intervention. Remember, to be significant, the test which disproves the others must also be repeatable. Otherwise it could be a different isotope of water, a different altitude, a broken thermometer, or even alien technology. Those are all better explanations than saying God forgot to make the water boil at the right time.

If religion is as ridiculous as you think, and these people have latched THAT HARD to it, they'd find something else to fill that void. It probably won't be logic.

The blind hatred I mentioned was the hatred born of willful ignorance. Please don't become like that!

Make any ideal powerful enough, and it will have the same effect (see: racism). Blame people, not the ideal.

I find it ridiculous because one simple thing (a book of instructions from god) can cause someone to suppress his/her logic. Those are the kind of people that have a chance of functioning well without religion. They think they forfeit their eternal salvation by letting logic lead them to a conclusion that conflicts with holy scripture, and taking away religion takes away that mental roadblock. I know several of these people, and used to be one of them. But I decided to let logic call the shots, which is something I know others are capable of, if they could be talked out of their faith.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread somewhere, I treat religious people on a case-by-case basis. Some people take comfort in religion, which doesn't affect or bother me. So you are right, religion itself is not the issue. Though it most certainly does encourage ignorance, in many cases.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Meteor

[Life]

Rather than sit here and contest every little point whether it's in context or not (you boys seem to have that down to a science, pardon the pun), I'm just going to state my point with regard to your arguments.

What I don't get is where this idea of "science is infallible since we can do repeated tests to prove something" is coming from. Take the periodic table for example. Why is Chlorine similar to Fluorine? Because Mendeleev (a human being, mind you) said that Chlorine and Fluorine share similar traits (loose electrons in the outer shell as an example). But what stops Chlorine from being more similar to something like Radium rather than Fluorine? The simple answer would be "because we've done tests to prove that Chlorine is similar to Fluorine and Radium is completely different". However, what if Ra and Cl are more similar than Cl and F because we don't have the technology to run such a test that would actually prove what is contrary to popular belief?

Think of it as Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Back then, people didn't have the technology to prove otherwise and went with the consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The important thing here is that when people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, they put it under the category of science as well. And look at how that turned out.

My point is that both of you (Esau and Phoenix) are being just as close minded as people who say that science is bunk. In fact, you two are on the opposite side of the spectrum because it seems that neither of you will ever want to admit that science can be wrong. You know what I'm saying? I personally take science and religion hand in hand. I'm a religious Jew who believes in Hashem (God) and I was studying Chemistry and Physics last year in university. To me, both sides of the argument (Science is perfect vs. Faith is perfect) just sound stupid in my mind.

[eclipse]

I find it ridiculous because one simple thing (a book of instructions from god) can cause someone to suppress his/her logic. Those are the kind of people that have a chance of functioning well without religion. They think they forfeit their eternal salvation by letting logic lead them to a conclusion that conflicts with holy scripture, and taking away religion takes away that mental roadblock. I know several of these people, and used to be one of them. But I decided to let logic call the shots, which is something I know others are capable of, if they could be talked out of their faith.

Here is where we differ. I think they'd be just as hopeless without religion, because I'm not that optimistic about humanity in general. They'd find something else that validates whatever beliefs they have, and stick with it. In your case, you went the logic route, which is far preferable to many of the alternatives out there.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread somewhere, I treat religious people on a case-by-case basis. Some people take comfort in religion, which doesn't affect or bother me. So you are right, religion itself is not the issue. Though it most certainly does encourage ignorance, in many cases.

In my books, you're cool. Now hurry up and find a time where Myrm!Lena levels everything! ;)

I'm religious because it asks for something simple, yet so very hard to do - be nice to everyone, and put the inner judgmental asshole elsewhere. I will be happy to tell you about my religion if you ask me about it, but I won't argue about it, or make you feel bad because you don't share the same faith.

The ignorance that I see from others who claim to be Christian seems to ignore the core of "be nice to everyone". Funny that.

*looks at post above hers*

I think I was right in my opinion that Life is awesome!

Edited October 28, 2010 by eclipse

[Esau of Isaac]

How do you know it always WILL be exactly as expected?

I don't. I never said it will be.

The point is to illustrate the illogic in claiming as an absolute statement that nothing can be absolutely true.

Rather than sit here and contest every little point whether it's in context or not (you boys seem to have that down to a science, pardon the pun), I'm just going to state my point with regard to your arguments.

What I don't get is where this idea of "science is infallible since we can do repeated tests to prove something" is coming from. Take the periodic table for example. Why is Chlorine similar to Fluorine? Because Mendeleev (a human being, mind you) said that Chlorine and Fluorine share similar traits (loose electrons in the outer shell as an example). But what stops Chlorine from being more similar to something like Radium rather than Fluorine? The simple answer would be "because we've done tests to prove that Chlorine is similar to Fluorine and Radium is completely different". However, what if Ra and Cl are more similar than Cl and F because we don't have the technology to run such a test that would actually prove what is contrary to popular belief?

Then we would amend our current understanding of the elements to fit with what is observably demonstrable.

Think of it as Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Back then, people didn't have the technology to prove otherwise and went with the consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The important thing here is that when people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, they put it under the category of science as well. And look at how that turned out.

Yeah, exactly; look at how the scientific community evolved to the changing landscape.

Although, and this is just a little bit relevant, but what was it again that had caused the idea of heliocentrism to be denied at every corner again? It was something pretty big...what was it...

My point is that both of you (Esau and Phoenix) are being just as close minded as people who say that science is bunk. In fact, you two are on the opposite side of the spectrum because it seems that neither of you will ever want to admit that science can be wrong. You know what I'm saying? I personally take science and religion hand in hand. I'm a religious Jew who believes in Hashem (God) and I was studying Chemistry and Physics last year in university. To me, both sides of the argument (Science is perfect vs. Faith is perfect) just sound stupid in my mind.

I'm not saying science can't be wrong, I'm saying that stating something can be wrong and vesting belief in it being wrong are two entirely different things. It's one thing to understand that it's physically possible for our understanding of heat to be completely different from what it really is; it's another thing to claim that heat is the source of God because of that. It makes you look like an utter loon.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Meteor]

What if Ra and Cl are more similar than Cl and F because we don't have the technology to run such a test that would actually prove what is contrary to popular belief?

Think of it as Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Back then, people didn't have the technology to prove otherwise and went with the consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The important thing here is that when people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, they put it under the category of science as well. And look at how that turned out.

My point is that both of you (Esau and Phoenix) are being just as close minded as people who say that science is bunk. In fact, you two are on the opposite side of the spectrum because it seems that neither of you will ever want to admit that science can be wrong. You know what I'm saying? I personally take science and religion hand in hand. I'm a religious Jew who believes in Hashem (God) and I was studying Chemistry and Physics last year in university. To me, both sides of the argument (Science is perfect vs. Faith is perfect) just sound stupid in my mind.

The periodic table doesn't even try to prove anything. It's a diagram depicting relationships of atomic properties. I'm sure we could rearrange it to accommodate new information.

However, I know what you're getting at. It is possible that we will some day construct instruments that show everything we understood about the world is not correct, disproving our old theories. Until/unless that happens, we have sufficiently historically proven them to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. But if our current knowledge provides meaningful predictions, why do you think it's so wrong?

Science, as a process, could potentially be wrong. Sure. However, I can't see why you think it's an illogical idea. Even animals and small children use science without having to be taught. Like I said before, without science, nothing at all makes any sense. We would literally be incapable of learning anything. Given that it has been right in so many cases, it's pretty foolish to discard the entire idea.

Here is where we differ. I think they'd be just as hopeless without religion, because I'm not that optimistic about humanity in general.

I'm religious because it asks for something simple, yet so very hard to do - be nice to everyone, and put the inner judgmental asshole elsewhere. I will be happy to tell you about my religion if you ask me about it, but I won't argue about it, or make you feel bad because you don't share the same faith.

Would you be hopeless without religion?

I do have a few questions, if you don't mind. Subsequent ones depend on how you answer. Why do you need religion to be nice?

(P.S. With FE12 coming out, I'd rather not devote my time to a game that will be outdated soon >_>)

[Life]

However, I know what you're getting at. It is possible that we will some day construct instruments that show everything we understood about the world is not correct, disproving our old theories. Until/unless that happens, we have sufficiently historically proven them to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. But if our current knowledge provides meaningful predictions, why do you think it's so wrong?

I don't. I just don't like the fact that people run around and believe that what we know thanks to science is absolute fact and cannot be changed. These people are no better than religious fanatics who claim that you will go to hell if you don't believe in x deity since they hold science in the exact same light. If you don't accept this fact as true (take creationism as an example), you are a complete dumbass.

[Phoenix Wright]

My point is that both of you (Esau and Phoenix) are being just as close minded as people who say that science is bunk. In fact, you two are on the opposite side of the spectrum because it seems that neither of you will ever want to admit that science can be wrong. You know what I'm saying? I personally take science and religion hand in hand. I'm a religious Jew who believes in Hashem (God) and I was studying Chemistry and Physics last year in university. To me, both sides of the argument (Science is perfect vs. Faith is perfect) just sound stupid in my mind.

I don't think either of us are being close-minded about science. Both of us are perfectly aware of the flaws in science, however, and now I'm just speaking for myself, I rely on science to give me answers, not religion. I don't look to God. Why would I? I know science exists, but I still have giant doubts about God. It's as I said, if we (people) tried to prove something with possibly incorrect logic (ie, the sky is blue because donkeys shit on Tuesday), there had BETTER be incredibly convincing proof. If not, than I reject the idea entirely, science or not.

Thankfully, basic principles of science don't allow such ridiculousness. I think the reason why you think that is more because of, again I'm just speaking for myself here, my arguing style rather than my actual beliefs. Meteor is a more passive arguer, clearly. My suggestion to you would be to not take things personally.

If, by chance, you meant when I was claiming to be God, then you just gotta know it was all in good fun (at least on my end). I don't hate eclipse or anyone on this forum at all (hell, I think Phoenix is funny). There's no reason for me to. I've got just as many faults as anyone else here.

Just so you know, I think that if anyone thinks science is one hundred percent correct all the time, every time, I usually classify them as an "idiot." The same goes for religion. Though to be honest, I don't speak to people that would fit into one of those, or I don't get to know them well enough to find out.

If you're put off by my arguing style, well then I'm sorry. As much as I'd like to be, I'm not as intelligent as people like Esau, Meteor, Crystal Shards, Narga, Death, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. For me, it's gonna take practice to come up with witty shit like they do. It's gonna take practice to articulate my arguments successfully (and in my opinion I have improved a great deal). Maybe I'll never be able to; but to tell myself that I'm at my intellectual peak at sixteen is just stupid (and also a sign of some self-esteem problems). That's why I say not to take things personally, because I only mean well.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

Thankfully, basic principles of science don't allow such ridiculousness. I think the reason why you think that is more because of, again I'm just speaking for myself here, my arguing style rather than my actual beliefs. Meteor is a more passive arguer, clearly. My suggestion to you would be to not take things personally.

If, by chance, you meant when I was claiming to be God, then you just gotta know it was all in good fun (at least on my end). I don't hate eclipse or anyone on this forum at all (hell, I think Phoenix is funny). There's no reason for me to. I've got just as many faults as anyone else here.

Just so you know, I think that if anyone thinks science is one hundred percent correct all the time, every time, I usually classify them as an "idiot." The same goes for religion. Though to be honest, I don't speak to people that would fit into one of those, or I don't get to know them well enough to find out.

If you're put off by my arguing style, well then I'm sorry. As much as I'd like to be, I'm not as intelligent as people like Esau, Meteor, Crystal Shards, Narga, Death, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. For me, it's gonna take practice to come up with witty shit like they do. It's gonna take practice to articulate my arguments successfully (and in my opinion I have improved a great deal). Maybe I'll never be able to; but to tell myself that I'm at my intellectual peak at sixteen is just stupid (and also a sign of some self-esteem problems). That's why I say not to take things personally, because I only mean well.

Where do I say that I'm offended by your arguing style or your points? Are you talking about my comment about responding to every little point (something that I find pointless since arguments get dragged off topic that way)? Or me saying that both extremes are dumb? Or does this go back to the original point that I made?

I'm simply saying that your side of the argument seems just as ridiculous as the side that you label (albeit not purposely). Maybe it's a flaw in your oration since you're not trying to misrepresent your argument? I'm simply responding back to your points with logic and my opinions. But you should probably work on your wit a bit more if you want to seem entertaining.

To me, trying to be witty is pointless. If you can express your point without pulling out a sarcastic response, why go for the humour when it can offend someone?

[Phoenix Wright]

Where do I say that I'm offended by your arguing style or your points? Are you talking about my comment about responding to every little point (something that I find pointless since arguments get dragged off topic that way)? Or me saying that both extremes are dumb? Or does this go back to the original point that I made?

I mean "if" because I'm not sure if you're perturbed by my style. It was more like "in the event that you are..."

Haha, no. I'm not taking that small comment personally. It was more for what I may have said than what you said.

I'm simply saying that your side of the argument seems just as ridiculous as the side that you label (albeit not purposely). Maybe it's a flaw in your oration since you're not trying to misrepresent your argument? I'm simply responding back to your points with logic and my opinions. But you should probably work on your wit a bit more if you want to seem entertaining.

That's what I said, yeah.

Wit isn't my main focus when arguing. Arguing my point is my main focus. I'd rather get my point across than be funny. When I said "it'll take practice..." I meant that to get my point across and find out how to be humorous in the same post is a goal of mine. No, I don't want to be humorous in all of my posts, but I'd like to be in some.

To me, trying to be witty is pointless. If you can express your point without pulling out a sarcastic response, why go for the humour when it can offend someone?

Wit isn't just sarcasm.

As I've said, I want to get my point across first, and have humor in there later. Ben Franklin wouldn't have been as entertaining in his biography if it wasn't filled with his personal humor. And in my opinion, his argument would not be as strong either.

Offending people is inevitable for the most part. I'm bound to do it some time or another. That's why I said not to take it personally.

EDIT: Oh, and in my opinion, I don't mind much when the topics here get...off topic. The same people post here, and we usually don't get too many new people. It's more like a "FFtF, but serious" forum to me. I don't think anyone has completely derailed a discussion here for a long time. Maybe I am right now, but as I've said, I don't really mind. I read all the posts, and I'll respond to the ones I want to and ignore the ones that I agree with or that are a part of some one else's argument.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Meteor]

I don't. I just don't like the fact that people run around and believe that what we know thanks to science is absolute fact and cannot be changed. These people are no better than religious fanatics who claim that you will go to hell if you don't believe in x deity since they hold science in the exact same light.

I can't say that I've ever met someone with such a strong view of science. They would have to ignore the fact that science revises itself. Anyone completely unwilling to even consider other options is very ignorant indeed.

However, I must say I think I'd be slightly less irritated by the one who felt so strongly about science, because he'd be relying on someone else's data rather than someone else's superstition.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Meteor

[Defeatist Elitist]

I don't. I just don't like the fact that people run around and believe that what we know thanks to science is absolute fact and cannot be changed.

Nobody in the world believes this, as far as I know.

The whole fucking point of Science is that it adapts and evolves to become more and more up to date. That is what Science is pretty much by definition.

[Kanami]

Think of those that drove you away from religion, not yourself. What do you think they'd be like if they weren't religious?

I honestly think they'd be better people :/ We can all agree that being Christian doesn't equate to a bad or dumb person. And if their fanatical devotion to the unknown was peeled away, that'd make them a better person.

I don't remember saying anything about my belief being the only correct one. I do believe the world would benefit if we'd all be a little nicer to each other.

I don't remember you saying that either, however I said "correct" which in relation I firmly believe the concept of the Christian God to be "incorrect." It's been asked above in a similar fashion, but what has "religion" and the world being "a little nicer" have to do with with eachother?

As horribly preachy as this will sound (please forgive me), I think we humans are more like sheep than most of us are willing to admit. Find a good shepherd, and follow him/her. In this case, the shepherd can be someone spouting off some ideal (even logic!), and people will follow. Funny how there's another perfectly good way of dividing people that has nothing to do with the divine. . .it goes to show that if people want to hate others, they will find a way. I'd much rather hit the root cause of willful ignorance, rather than the symptoms (like racism).

You'

re joking right? You can't hit "ignorance" <_< That's like trying to get rid of human idiocy. You can educate people as much as you like, it'll still always be there. I agree with the human sheep, however I do not believe that the role of the shepherd should be played but a fictitious character. Certainly not one which can't be held accountable for his teachings.

As for private schools. . .since their funding comes from elsewhere, they can do whatever the hell they want, in terms of accepting people. One of the more famous ones in my area, for the longest time, accepted kids. . .based on race. Go figure.

It's this sort of attitude which fuels racism. By separating certain ethnicities and then raising them, you create internal attitudes (them and us). And people in the neighbor hood get a strong impression of the ethnicity/religion (Negative or positive).

In complete honesty, I don't have a problem with "black" people, but I wouldn't welcome a "blacks only" school in my neighborhood.

Furthermore, what's the point in restricting enrollment like that?

Edited October 29, 2010 by Kanami

[Anouleth]

Um, what? Being at the top of the food chain is extremely advantageous. It has allowed us to dominate the planet, and at a simpler level, given us very high odds of passing on our genes. What other species has a life anywhere near as luxurious as us?

So what? There is no 'advantage' to being at the top of the food chain, as I said before. The most successful and wide-spread species are simple bacteria or plants, not intelligent mammals or carnivores who depend on vast herbivorous populations to stay alive.

There are no other species that have lives as luxurious as us (at least, not in the West). But who cares? Genes are not designed to make our lives luxurious or easy. And in comparison to the life of a tree, how can you even compare who has a better standard of living?

Why should intelligence have come about earlier? It had to start somewhere, and what do you know, we happen to have it. I feel like this is glaringly obvious.

So why did it take so long? Why did it take hundreds of millions of years to develop what you think is the most important thing to a species? Evolution does not wait around. The reason it didn't evolve with dinosaurs or with trilobites is simply because they couldn't support complex nervous systems. They weren't warm-blooded. They didn't have the varied diet necessary.

Why couldn't a body have evolved into its current form? How do you explain hominids of lesser intelligence? As our brains improved, our bodies lost unnecessary functions. Voila.

That's exactly my point. You said 'Without our intelligence, we wouldn't even be at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't be near it.' But it is because of our intelligence that we have lost these other functions. So the actual fact is, that without intelligence, it's impossible to predict exactly how we would have evolved and where we would have ended up.

[eclipse]

EDIT: . . .and I totally missed Kanami. My bad!

Would you be hopeless without religion?

Let's say I wouldn't be in front of my computer answering this, and leave it at that.

I do have a few questions, if you don't mind. Subsequent ones depend on how you answer. Why do you need religion to be nice?

I am mistrustful by nature, and have very little faith in humanity.

(P.S. With FE12 coming out, I'd rather not devote my time to a game that will be outdated soon >_>)

You know when it's coming?!

I honestly think they'd be better people :/ We can all agree that being Christian doesn't equate to a bad or dumb person. And if their fanatical devotion to the unknown was peeled away, that'd make them a better person.

I am of the opinion that you are far too optimistic, but arguing the point won't prove much of anything. Another difference of opinion, I guess.

I don't remember you saying that either, however I said "correct" which in relation I firmly believe the concept of the Christian God to be "incorrect." It's been asked above in a similar fashion, but what has "religion" and the world being "a little nicer" have to do with with each other?

One of us has got to be right regarding the Christian God! :P

Jesus left two commandments. The first was to love God with all your heart (Christians, by name, will. I don't think this one should be forced on anyone). The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. "Your neighbor" can be anyone from the person next door to the guy who took the last seat on the train (even though he's perfectly healthy and you've got a broken ankle) to the furry in Albuquerque. Assuming every Christian followed Jesus' commandments, things like racism and homophobia wouldn't be tied to Christianity. . .and you wouldn't be in arms about it, because the people in your former church would have wished you well, and told you that if you had a change of heart, you knew where to find them.

You're joking right? You can't hit "ignorance" <_< That's like trying to get rid of human idiocy. You can educate people as much as you like, it'll still always be there. I agree with the human sheep, however I do not believe that the role of the shepherd should be played but a fictitious character. Certainly not one which can't be held accountable for his teachings.

Well, we got rid of how many species on this planet? :P

I think I addressed what would happen if Christians would pay more attention to Jesus and less on random Deuteronomy laws. I'm more comfortable with a "fictitious character" (especially one whose only requirement is to believe and love), as I've seen too many real-life people become corrupted by the power they wield.

It's this sort of attitude which fuels racism. By separating certain ethnicities and then raising them, you create internal attitudes (them and us). And people in the neighbor hood get a strong impression of the ethnicity/religion (Negative or positive).

This isn't a single school. It's a chain of them, and they are ridiculously wealthy.

In complete honesty, I don't have a problem with "black" people, but I wouldn't welcome a "blacks only" school in my neighborhood.

I. . .I don't want to answer this. . .

Furthermore, what's the point in restricting enrollment like that?

"Because it was the wish of the one who founded this school over a century ago."

Edited October 29, 2010 by eclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

Evolution does not wait around.

It's currently debatable. We have no idea if evolution is constant or not.

The reason it didn't evolve with dinosaurs or with trilobites is simply because they couldn't support complex nervous systems. They weren't warm-blooded. They didn't have the varied diet necessary.

You answered your own question. It takes time to form complex systems. We're here now as a result of millions of years of evolution.

That's exactly my point. You said 'Without our intelligence, we wouldn't even be at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't be near it.' But it is because of our intelligence that we have lost these other functions. So the actual fact is, that without intelligence, it's impossible to predict exactly how we would have evolved and where we would have ended up.

There's a reason why we lost the functions: we got something better (in my opinion).

@eclipse: Are you truly saying that if you weren't religious, you would literally not be able to live as you do now?

Edited October 29, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Phoenix Wright]

dpftw

Edited October 29, 2010 by Phoenix Wright