Sharia law

[cantaloup63]

Like I said we can get caught up in philosophical semantics that nothing can be wholly proven or disproved, it's so broad and intangible that it is essentially pointless

basing a belief/faith on that philosophy is very weak and is an argument most leave behind in the school play ground

not sure why you keep wishing to imply an insult. I thought that it was this sort of "name-calling" that was left behind in the playground as one matures. So in the interest of keeping it civil, let's keep it civil eh?

It still leaves the over whelming probability that the existence of a god or pixies is false

The key word there is "probability" - by which one can infer a non-zero element which is contradictory to your claim of an absolute "NO"

 

[cantaloup63]

I'm not struggling at all As with schrodinger's cat, since you cannot know for a fact the actualilty, then the paradox is that god (like fairies, elves and goblins) both exists and doesn't exist.

That's not my understanding of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. As far as I'm aware, it requires the reader to think about when something with equal probablity (the gas kills the cat or doesnt) has had enough time to happen then in some cases it has either happened or hasn't - whilst scientists were content to notate the result as 50% happened and 50% not happened.

How you're attempting to ascribe this to a God or not argument is puzzling, as no-one is actually suggesting there is 50% of a god as a compromise to the argument.

Furthermore, your suggestion also asserts equal probability to the existance of a god versus no god. This is the fundamental argument for agnostisicm. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support a god or gods, tooth fairies, goblins, monsters under the bed etc, therefore I am content to not believe in these things.

If I am buying a bed I don't consider the need to deter monsters from dwelling under it in the design and I apply the same common sense to the existance of a god / gods and how I spend my sundays.

The whole thing about shrodinger is that it has nothing to to with "probabilities". It is the paradox that since one cannot know for a fact then both scenarios must be true - the cat is simultaneously both dead and alive. What you then choose to believe is of no consequence - it is your "belief".

The fact that you are happy to believe that there is not a god is as logical and paradoxical as is you chose to believe that there is a god. This isn't a schoolboy argument - far from it.

 

[spacecat]

I think you are getting a tad emotional was I am implying no insult. I do remember having arguments at school based on the same principle you are describing.

 

[cantaloup63]

I think you are getting a tad emotional was I am implying no insult. I do remember having arguments at school based on the same principle you are describing.

In which case I stand corrected. I remember having and witnessing similar arguments throughout my life beyond the realms of schooldays. Apart from anything else, such questions/answers do not lose their validity simply because one gets older.

 

[cajar]

The whole thing about shrodinger is that it has nothing to to with "probabilities". It is the paradox that since one cannot know for a fact then both scenarios must be true - the cat is simultaneously both dead and alive. What you then choose to believe is of no consequence - it is your "belief".

The fact that you are happy to believe that there is not a god is as logical and paradoxical as is you chose to believe that there is a god. This isn't a schoolboy argument - far from it.

The whole point of that experiment was to show that two different states cannot exist simultaneously by illustrating the point with something graphic and visceral - the cat can only be either alive OR dead, not mixed in equal parts, and certainly not both.

I think what you're trying to suggest is that belief alone makes something a truth, such as people believing in god makes it true for them even if the reality is different. Of course that is not the case, something is either true or it isn't and in the case of gods ruling over our world I am certain there be none.

 

[cantaloup63]

The whole point of that experiment was to show that two different states cannot exist simultaneously by illustrating the point with something graphic and visceral - the cat can only be either alive OR dead, not mixed in equal parts, and certainly not both.

Not really a paradox if it is as you describe, which contradicts the fact that is was set up to be the paradox that both cases of live/dead are in existence.

I think what you're trying to suggest is that belief alone makes something a truth, such as people believing in god makes it true for them even if the reality is different. Of course that is not the case, something is either true or it isn't and in the case of gods ruling over our world I am certain there be none.

But this brings into the fore what one means by a "truth", which is a bit heavy going for a Tuesday morning

In summary, my view (based partly upon the application of schrodinger and reinforced by Godel's axiom of incompleteness ) is that one cannot prove one way or the other whether there is a god or not since both possible proofs would lead to a contradiction. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that there might be a god, or indeed might not In either case, it is of no use to us whether or not it exists.

What I am clear about is that manmade religions are a nonsense if they declare themselves to be based upon "god's wishes". If they based their ethics and moralities on a logical and darwinistic basis, then that would be far more satisfactory. For example, and I apologise for restricting the argument, some of the ten commandments seem highly practical for the preservation of one's gene pool.

 

[thatbloke]

So if we base religious beliefs on a darwin basis then survival of the fittest/fastest/strongest would be how we live our lives.
That would be nice. Imagine driving on the motorway?
We need rules that are fair for everyone, religion has given us the basis for these rules, like it or not.

 

[Big Tone]

My God, for want of a better word, (as an Atheist), is not a man-like figure and God is an ‘it’ without gender. God is all around us like a nebulous lumbering entity without any specific form or moral code. It’s the smallest form of life to the largest. It’s all the elements and forces which interact in the universe.

Much of our desperation for Mr God comes from an inveterate human desire that there simply must be more to life than just this. If I am honest, I would like to think so too. But no amount of wishes or prayer is going to give a conclusive answer, so I prefer to live in the real world.

I remember something I read many years ago along the lines of there can only be two options after we die. Either there is absolutely nothing or there is something that could BE again. And the great thing is that when you consider the two, which ever it is it’s a truly amazing thought.

My Christian boss and I had an interesting chat on faith yesterday. When I said how ignorant they were so long ago he said that wisdom came before intelligence and yes they didn’t know many things we know today but they had as much wisdom back then as we do today. It sounded stupid to start with until he cited the example of the riots. They had the intelligence to know what to do to get their ill-gotten gains and organise the venue but they are far from wise.

I’m still deciding whether his argument has much merit or not...

 

[Space cat]

When I said how ignorant they were so long ago he said that wisdom came before intelligence and yes they didn’t know many things we know today but they had as much wisdom back then as we do today.

Everything I've read about the origin of our species seems to agree on one point: Stone age humans were just as smart as we are but they lacked our pool of accumulated knowledge. Intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. You don't need any great intelligence to win Mastermind. But this is wandering way off topic ---

For example, and I apologise for restricting the argument, some of the ten commandments seem highly practical for the preservation of one's gene pool.

Well they must have been or their followers would have vanished without trace; displaced by a different group of humans with a different set of rules. As I said in some other post, religions did more good than harm at a time when there was little else by way of law and order but their achilles heel has always been their inability to adapt to a changing environment. The old rule "go forth and multiply", which was once a good survival strategy, is now a recipe for global disaster.

 

[zanwan]

Late night thought..

As an Atheist, I would probably find more love, comfort and solace in my local church than the b*ll s**t I get every day on TV news and the disrespect and vile behaviour I see on my streets.

Maybe I should go and see for myself what my dear late Mother saw in the RC faith this weekend. When I was at school I did like the sing songs if I’m honest. (Still thought the God thing was nonsense mind).

This makes me wonder, would I be able to attend, (as a white English R.C. indoctrinated guy), how I would be welcome, or not, to a Mosque or would I be cast out before I even got through the door?

Anyone is allowed in a Mosque, its open to all. You are expected to observe/respect a few requirements though

1) Remove your shoes when on the carpetted prayer area

2) Cover your hair

3) Do not talk loudly

4) do not swear or use vulgar language

5) Do not discuss business matters in the mosque or advertise.

6) Also dress modestly, is in cover your arms, legs, chest, shoulders.

Its not a lot of ask and its pretty universal that most places of worship, regardless of religion, will have the same requirements.

Thank you in advance

 

[Big Tone]

Thanks Naz.

Silly question, do they talk in English and in terms I would understand? I'm not saying I'll go, I think I would feel quite intimidated and uncomfotable, but it's interesting and you have fought your corner well here if I may say so.

At the risk of sounding patronising or sycophantic, you come across as a nice intelligent guy and I’d be happy to have you as my neighbour. Certainly nicer than the noisy, disrespectful, white, English nob head I currently have next door.

 

[Space cat]

Certainly nicer than the noisy, disrespectful, white, English nob head I currently have next door.

I didn't know you lived next door to my brother-in-law!

 

[Big Tone]

Certainly nicer than the noisy, disrespectful, white, English nob head I currently have next door.

I didn't know you lived next door to my brother-in-law!

Can you tell him if he or his friends/relatives park across my driveway one more time I'll kick his balls so hard he'll look like he's got three Adams apples.

 

[zanwan]

Thanks Naz.

Silly question, do they talk in English and in terms I would understand?

It depends on the congregation. Sometimes you have a congregation of old men from india, Pakistan etc, and although most can speak english enough to get by, it would be easier for the priest (Imam) to speak in Urdu or Punjabi for these guys to understand the sermons easier.

Then you have Mosques which have a younger congregation or generally more educated in the west, and these sermons will be given in English. Sometimes they will give sermons in both languages catering for all needs.

Then you have the odd fruitcake like Abu Hamza (guy with a hook) who just spews out anger and venom, with not many taking him seriously, although the papers love him as all that talk of killing, bombing, Jihad etc is good for business.

At the risk of sounding patronising or sycophantic, you come across as a nice intelligent guy and I’d be happy to have you as my neighbour. Certainly nicer than the noisy, disrespectful, white, English nob head I currently have next door.

[/quote

Thank you

I actually live in an area which is predominantly white, all my neighbours are white and we have always got on with them. Where i lived a few years back, again the neighbours were white and they were dissapointed when we left as they said we were quiet peaceful neighbours as opposed to the loud music playing rowdy neighbours they'd had previously. Islam, like Christiniaty, requires its adherents to treat neighbours well. So if you were next door to me, i'm sure we'd send round a plate full of curry, tandoori chicken and indian snacks once a week!

 

[Big Tone]

So if you were next door to me, i'm sure we'd send round a plate full of curry, tandoori chicken and indian snacks once a week!

Is next door up for sale?

I have been offered such hospitality from good folk like you and something else I've noticed is I have never, ever, once seen a Muslim throw litter on the ground. It never happens because they all universally respect their environment.

But near where I live you don’t have to wait long for a white English scumbag to throw his empty chip paper on the pavement; just spitting distance from a public bin as well.

No-one’s mentioned it yet but I put it down to the British Empire mentality, probably cuz it’s off topic again soz.

Another rambling I’d like to utter as an observation.. The old days of white against black seems to have disappeared and the violence I often hear or read of these days is between different 'castes'. Is this anyone else’s take or observation too or an undeclared civil war over religions?