Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Would it have been stupid for someone to beleive that the world was round before Eratosthenes proved, with math and logic, that it was round?

If they had no reason at all, or no good reason, yes it would be stupid, even if the belief was actually correct. The only thing you can do with no evidence is speculate.

As for the proof thing, that's a strawman. I didn't say people required proof for beliefs. They require evidence. Requiring absolute proof before you believe something is foolish, because if that were the case we'd never believe anything.

Most of your post is attacking this strawman argument (often repeated needlessly), so I can ignore it.

Some people have intensely religious/faith-building experiences, and as such, they have their reason. This is the proof that they need.

Good for them! That still doesn't make it a good reason, just because it satisfies that person.

Faith does no always make people "vulnerable to exploitation".

The very mindset of belief without evidence does. In practice, most only apply such a principle to one area of their lives (religion), and demand evidence in the exact same way as anyone else for the most part.

That said, plenty of cults also exploit religious beliefs.

Take Islam for example. It is a very personal religion, and you are not asked to donate anything,

One of the 5 Pillars of Islam stipulates the giving of 2.5% of a person's wealth for charitable deeds. Research?

It's not going to kill you to let people believe in something.

The irony is that it does kill people, even if it's not myself. Faith healing, for starters? What about all the bizarre beliefs of cults? Exorcism? What about those who are religiously motivated to commit acts of terrorism; that could well kill me?

LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Since when was I not doing that? I don't force children to listen to me. I don't preach on street corners, or knock on peoples' houses asking if they've been saved. In "real life" I only give my opinion if someone wants to hear it. Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything.

This is a standard defence when anyone's beliefs are criticised. It is a rather tedious one, I have to say. You've criticised me. How about you LIVE AND LET LIVE, and stop being a hypocrite?

See, it's a stupid argument. I invited people to scrutinise my posts by replying here. If I were to complain that people did so in a serious topic created for such a purpose it would be stupid whiny bitching, and people would be right to call me out on it.

I disagree that there was ever any evidence for the theories that Copernicus etc. overthrew. This should be clear because they were incorrect. For example, there was never any evidence that the planets and Sun moved around the Earth in complex looping patterns, as opposed to the hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in ellipses, because both would have had the same observational consequences with regards to astronomy from Earth at least. Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Since when was I not doing that? I don't force children to listen to me. I don't preach on street corners, or knock on peoples' houses asking if they've been saved. In "real life" I only give my opinion if someone wants to hear it. Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything.

This is a standard defence when anyone's beliefs are criticised. It is a rather tedious one, I have to say. You've criticised me. How about you LIVE AND LET LIVE, and stop being a hypocrite?.

Since you called people stupid for having belief/faith. I have only criticised your intolerance... But you're entitled to be intolerant and ignorant if you want. No skin off my nose. I don't care that you're posting your opinions on the web (look what I'm doing)...I appreciate your opinion, but that does not mean that I have to agree with it. I don't go preach or knock...I'm just doing what you are: "Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything."

Good for them! That still doesn't make it a good reason, just because it satisfies that person.

What's wrong with someone being satisfied? Plenty of people in this world would tell you that their set of spiritual beliefs are based on personal evidence (so you can't call me on an error of syntax again ) and that just because you don't think it's a good reason, does not mean that it isn't good enough for someone else out there. Who gets to say what a "good reason" is?

One of the 5 Pillars of Islam stipulates the giving of 2.5% of a person's wealth for charitable deeds. Research?

Umm...yeah I do my research, but how is that evidence that the religion of Islam is exploiting its members? (Remember that's what we were talking about...stay on topic!) If they are encouraged to give a percentage of their income to charity, it does not go to benefit the religion as a whole, just the soul of the giver. To exploit means to "take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain". Tell me how Islam does this... this wealth goes to "charitable deeds" such as private charities or organizations such as the Red Cross. That does not seem to be for the "personal gain" of Islam.

The irony is that it does kill people, even if it's not myself. Faith healing, for starters? What about all the bizarre beliefs of cults? Exorcism? What about those who are religiously motivated to commit acts of terrorism; that could well kill me?

Really now, what percentage of the world's religions/cults commit acts of terrorism? What do you think YOUR chances are of being killed? What are the chances that ANY individual in the world will be killed by an act of religious violence. Yes, there are people in Iraq, for example, who have a much greater chance of dying as a result of religious violence, but that does not mean that the religion itself is supporting the actions. Do you know who the main victims are of Islamist-militant violence?--Muslims. Tell me that you think that a religion is supporting this...and show me evidence. Unless we all hop a freighter for the Middle East, or somehow get transported through time to the Crusades, I think that our chances of dying as a result of a religious beleif is pretty low. And my original comment was "It' s not going to kill you to let people believe in something." So, since you have a chance of being killed by a beleif, does that mean that you are going to limit what an individual can beleive? Yeah, that's tolerant.

Originally posted by Xei:

I disagree that there was ever any evidence for the theories that Copernicus etc. overthrew. This should be clear because they were incorrect. For example, there was never any evidence that the planets and Sun moved around the Earth in complex looping patterns, as opposed to the hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in ellipses, because both would have had the same observational consequences with regards to astronomy from Earth at least. Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations.

Sorry, but there was observational and mathematical evidence for the theories that Copernicus and his "descendants" overthrew. For hundreds, even thousands of years, people had been studying the heavens, and their observations pop up all over the place...mythologies, scholarly writings, and in philosophy (do some research on the Aristotileans and the Atomists).= Hundreds of years of observational data...misinterpreted, but still there, nonetheless. However, Ptolemy had mathematically solved the problem of epicycles...which is one reason that it took 1400 years to refute! (Also there was the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquiry...)

But I have to disagree strongly with you when you say that "Part of the scientific method is ensuring that you have eliminated all other possibilities which could explain your observations." Um...if we had to eliminate ALL other possibilities, then nothing (or few things at best) would ever be explained in our observations. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It states that: "when two or more explanations for an event exist, the simpler one is generally true, as it has fewer assumptions." This still means that it could be explained in another way...like the helliocentric model and epicycles.

So, since you have a chance of being killed by a beleif, does that mean that you are going to limit what an individual can beleive? Yeah, that's tolerant.

Another strawman. Are you so incapable of attacking my actual position that you have to repeatedly try to distort it?

People are entitled to believe whatever they want. They are not entitled to act on those beliefs, and their beliefs are certainly not entitled to respect, as you seem to think they do.

But you're entitled to be intolerant

If by "intolerant" you mean "not automatically respect beliefs", then yes, I am. I personally think that not interfering with others' personal beliefs if they harm no one else, and giving my opinion when asked for is tolerant.

Do you respect racists? I don't. I think they have a right to be racist, and will tolerate such a view in the sense that they should be allowed to hold it, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else should respect them. I hold such views in contempt, and I'd say that most rational people would as well.

But I don't see you accusing people of being intolerant towards such views. You certainly aren't respectful of mine (though that said, you repeatedly skew them way off the mark), so you're still a hypocrite, since you're doing the exact same thing about my (distorted) beliefs as I did towards unsubstantiated beliefs.

and ignorant

Another unjustified label. You do seem to like your fallacies. Quote mining, ad hominem, strawmen.

I don't go preach or knock...I'm just doing what you are: "Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything."

Except you're criticising me for doing so under the guise of not allowing people to "live and let live", which is laughable. I'm not criticising you for this, that's the difference. One of us is being a hypocrite, and it isn't me.

What's wrong with someone being satisfied?

Nothing, if it's simply a personal belief that they privately hold and don't force on others in any way. That still doesn't mean the belief should have any respect or value until that can be justified.

Who gets to say what a "good reason" is?

When it can be objectively justified.

ut how is that evidence that the religion of Islam is exploiting its members?

Don't quote me out of context. You said they weren't forced to give, and yet they are, technically. Even if this is for good purposes. I didn't say exploited.

Oh, and remember that in Islam, you can't deconvert so if you disagree with it and change your mind on your religion, you're punished with death. This can and does occur in particularly Islamic societies.

Other religions have similar rules, but unlike Islam's, very very few follow them. Even prominent 'moderate' Muslims in modern societies like in the UK have gone on the record supporting this incidentally.

What do you think YOUR chances are of being killed?

Very low, at least at the moment, since the people who would like to commit mass murder currently don't have WMDs. If some fanatic got their hands on a bunch of nuclear warheads, or other nuclear material, or even something more powerful, then I would say it's a real possibility.

But thankfully that's not going to happen at the moment.

but that does not mean that the religion itself is supporting the actions.

Since these people cherry pick the parts they want to justify themselves, yes, of sorts. In the Koran, you can find peaceful verses as well as shockingly violent ones. Same with the Bible.



Just to make this clear, since you have such trouble understanding me that you repeatedly attack strawmen.

I do not automatically respect beliefs, and I think that automatic respect is a very dangerous and foolish thing as it allows the sheltering of bad or evil beliefs. I am not going to respect unjustified beliefs, until they are backed up with reason or evidence. The funny thing is that we call this the scientific method. It works rather well, as you may have noticed (are you going to criticise the scientific method of intolerance?!)

I believe people should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, as long as they don't impact on others*, and they have no right to force them on others

*I can see this is begging to be used against me. Obviously certain beliefs like "murder is wrong" can be justifiably enforced on people due to the benefit it has on society, and because it is for the protection of other peoples' rights.

Someone move this to R/S, quick.

You guys are right it makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I believe people should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, as long as they don't impact on others*, and they have no right to force them on others

I agree, but...
*Sigh*, since it's obvious that this discussion is going nowhere (and has ceased to become a discussion, but has degenerated into a petty squabble), why don't we agree to disagree; I can go on with my life, letting people believe and practice as they wish, and still respect them as human beings (yes, everyone is entitled to, at the very least, a small degree of respect), and you can go on doing...whatever it is you do...

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I don't go preach or knock...I'm just doing what you are: "Posting my opinions on a small corner of the Internet in a topic discussing such issues (i.e. which invites such opinions) which no one is forced to read in any way is not doing anything."

Except you're criticizing me for doing so under the guise of not allowing people to "live and let live", which is laughable. I'm not criticizing you for this, that's the difference. One of us is being a hypocrite, and it isn't me.

Umm...I wasn't criticizing you for "preaching and knocking", I didn't even say you were doing any of this. I was expressing my belief that you shouldn't label others as "stupid" because they have a spiritual belief that is not based on evidence. I didn't say that you had to change, I was simply disagreeing...based on my beliefs, which you seem so adamant to try and shoot down.

All I've been trying to say is that people with spiritual beliefs are not inferior to those individuals who choose to live a secular life. For whatever reason, this has been a hard concept to grasp for people on both sides of the spectrum.
Solution: (going back to photolysis’s quote) people with religious/spiritual beliefs need to just let the secular community believe what they believe, and the secular community needs to let the spiritual community be as well. Persons within one sphere of beliefs can coexist with people in the other sphere.

Everything WAS created, and it CAN be destroyed. Everything is possible. This law is bullshit... and it has no proof at all. Just because we can't totallty destoy matter with our technology on this planet, doesn't mean it's impossible.