Ben Stein

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

btw, if you've never read Kirkegaard or Kant, I'd highly recommend reading them in conjunction with each other, as they somewhat address this topic, and they put their points much better than wading through my half-assed thought process.

 

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:23 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

well it doesn't have to be about what is right or wrong, it's all about what makes the most sense to you. if you think evolution is completely possible and makes sense, then believe it. if you think the adam and eve stories make more sense, then believe that

 

i don't believe in god, but i don't think i'd ever say he's not real

 

your last statement though, i mean that's the problem...unless you are saying that God is real in a literary or in a sense of the creation of the human idea of God.

 

I mean, your statement sounds more Agnostic than it would Atheist.

well, i can't disprove god. no one can

people made up the concept of god. but if there is a higher power, it doesn't have to be a religious figure necessarily

like i said, it's all about what makes the most sense to you

and no, you don't seem rude at all

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:27 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

btw, if you've never read Kirkegaard or Kant, I'd highly recommend reading them in conjunction with each other, as they somewhat address this topic, and they put their points much better than wading through my half-assed thought process.

 

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:23 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

well it doesn't have to be about what is right or wrong, it's all about what makes the most sense to you. if you think evolution is completely possible and makes sense, then believe it. if you think the adam and eve stories make more sense, then believe that

 

i don't believe in god, but i don't think i'd ever say he's not real

 

your last statement though, i mean that's the problem...unless you are saying that God is real in a literary or in a sense of the creation of the human idea of God.

 

I mean, your statement sounds more Agnostic than it would Atheist.

 

well, i can't disprove god. no one can

 

people made up the concept of god. but if there is a higher power, it doesn't have to be a religious figure necessarily

 

like i said, it's all about what makes the most sense to you

 

and no, you don't seem rude at all

yessssss yessssss

your comment on the higher power not necessarily being a religious figure is what fascinates me....are there readings on that scientific/philosophical because I want to delve more into that topic.

I often find that it's also just as silly to rap on how inaccurate the Bible and other religious texts are, when I find as many truths in those as Socrates, Bakunin, Kant and Nietzsche, Sagan and so many others.

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:17 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 7:41 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 6:49 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

atheists are looking for an easy way out, just as religious beliefs.

 

there is a commonality between the two that must be reconciled.

 

it may blow people's minds, but science and religion grew out of each other.

 

please expand on your first statement.

 

i agree with your last one. both arose because people questioned how the universe worked. however, science relies on observable facts while religion relies on made-up stories. that can't be reconciled because they are two totally different ways of explaining nature.

 

belief that nothing concerns the governance of the universe is just as silly as saying the universe is governed by Thor or whoever the idol of worship may be. atheists always sorta piss me off because , and im generalizing here, they are just as blind in their worship of science, and yes i mean worship. things that are "proven" are proven, end of story, and you are a fool if you challenge any of it....which sorta overrides the meaning of the scientific process in the first place.

 

99.9% true is not an ultimate truth. Atheists choose to side with the 99.9% as an ultimate truth, but it is not, scientifically, they are incorrect and therefore are hypocritical in their stance.

 

I am an Agnostic, I think its the most logical position to be honest.

 

and im sure there is fault in my argument, its stupid, etc etc. that's fine, but my point is that there is a flaw in every argument, and to uphold the tenets of Christianity or the tenets that no greater power exist are equally as foolish.

 

i also feel that a large majority of atheists (i myself being one for a time) do it out of spite for organized religion instead of real deep analysis of the idea of a "God" or greater power.

 

and to an extent, i cant fault them for that...i mean organized religion is as much at fault as modern politics for the fake veil of civilization slowly fettering away its own sheath.

ah, dude, i totally agree with you. i'm agnostic too *high five*

i think atheism is confusing because it all relies on the definition of god. most atheists just don't believe in the abrahamic concept of god, a large man that sits in the sky and counts your sins, which i think is perfectly fair and logical. the abrahamic religions (or most religions on earth, for that matter) haven't provided enough evidence to show their legitimacy. most of their explanations for how the world works have been proven to be faulty. if you look at their holy books as metaphors though... well, you can derive any type of underlying meaning from any large literary work if you are creative enough.

as the great carl sagan said about himself, "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." makes sense!

yes, that quote is perfect. don't believe something until it makes sense to you. if you have no way of figuring it out, then it's not worth it. one thing i'm a little annoyed with, is when religious people say scientists do nothing but bullshit everyone. it's like they believe all scientists are part of one big conspiracy with the objective to bullshit the world. why would you want to believe that? that's so paranoid. surely there must be something in science that makes at least a little sense, no matter how strong your religious faith is.

ben stein is a douche. stop generalizing that "our children have no conscience". that's a sensationalist statement with sensational examples to back it. he just sounds like an old fart, which is precisely what he is.

thats one of the things i love about humanity, we are capable of this amazing capacity to reason and attempt to quantify and define all things of the universe, but thats just it. it's our capacity as humans, in reality, we may know fuck-all about anything.

one of things i love talking about is, if someone tends to rely on science versus mysticism and revelation, when someone hears music and they are moved by it whereas another listener is not at all....or they both are,

one using reason and science, mathematics would state that he was moved because the music triggered certain neurons in the brain to make him feel that way, whereas a mystic or someone with some sort of unproven belief would say its impossible to define that feeling that way.

love, hatred, greed, etc etc

who do you side with/ both? none? one? so many questions.\\

fuck man life is amazing...haha

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:45 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

one using reason and science, mathematics would state that he was moved because the music triggered certain neurons in the brain to make him feel that way

this makes the most sense to me. kinda sucks though, knowing that all powerful emotion is just tiny little neurons doing their thing. the brain is powerful enough to make it seem like it's really something amazing though

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:48 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:45 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

one using reason and science, mathematics would state that he was moved because the music triggered certain neurons in the brain to make him feel that way

 

this makes the most sense to me. kinda sucks though, knowing that all powerful emotion is just tiny little neurons doing their thing. the brain is powerful enough to make it seem like it's really something amazing though

see that's where i want to say I don't totally side with science,

it might be right, i dunno, but if we were ever to invent some incredibly complex equation explaining why we feel we do, i hope i am not alive to hear about it.

i don't think a complex equation negates those feelings, or makes them any less magical. it just explains an aspect of existence, and the fact that we were able to arrive at an explanation is just as mystifying.

i think it's beautiful that we're so incredibly complex. like, fractals are beautiful, but easily explained by mathematics. does that diminish their beauty? i don't think so.

also, yes, specific neurons are triggered when you feel some emotion, this is undeniable fact. but think about all the work that went into shaping those neural pathways, into molding your brain into the way it is now so that when you hear that song, you'll react the way you do. think of all the reinforcement of some pathways and culling of others when you were a child to make you into the person you are today, different from everyone else. there will never be a complex equation to describe every person because we are all so ridiculously unique. you think differently, you perceive differently, your consciousness is different from every other consciousness out there. it think it's pretty awesome.

(i got a boner for science)

ben stein is a nut. when he was puffing his anti-evolution film on some talk show he seriously said that evolution is flawed because it couldn't explain gravity.

  On 12/28/2009 at 9:41 PM, azatoth said:

ben stein is a nut. when he was puffing his anti-evolution film on some talk show he seriously said that evolution is flawed because it couldn't explain gravity.

isn't gravity one of the few inexplicable forces? like, all explanations of it totally fall apart on the quantum level or something.

Fuck Ben Stein, he was a speech writer for Nixon, which is all you really need to know about his agenda.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/confessions.asp

  On 12/28/2009 at 9:11 PM, Hoodie said:

i think it's beautiful that we're so incredibly complex. like, fractals are beautiful, but easily explained by mathematics. does that diminish their beauty? i don't think so.

 

also, yes, specific neurons are triggered when you feel some emotion, this is undeniable fact. but think about all the work that went into shaping those neural pathways, into molding your brain into the way it is now so that when you hear that song, you'll react the way you do. think of all the reinforcement of some pathways and culling of others when you were a child to make you into the person you are today, different from everyone else. there will never be a complex equation to describe every person because we are all so ridiculously unique. you think differently, you perceive differently, your consciousness is different from every other consciousness out there. it think it's pretty awesome.

 

(i got a boner for science)

This is precisely why I take an interest in neuroscience. The brain is remarkable, there's still so much to research and investigate. Although I am studying Psychology in university, I aim to head towards the field of neuropsychology.. unfortunately, psychology in itself can sometimes come across as 'too many theories, not enough answers'. I'm a great admirer of the scientific method however psychology can be very difficult to measure - the theories can be extremely subjective as well.

On the subject of religion, I'd agree with the notion that one can not prove there is or is not a "God". I personally prefer to stick to what is considered relevant. On a social level, there are many problems in the world.. I don't like to see religion coming at the top of priorities in society because to me it holds no social relevance at all. Science leads us to a path of progression and ingenuity, it can solve technical problems in the world. If a patient falls ill, whether they are religious, agnostic or an atheist, medical science is going to get them through their time in hospital - not prayer or a higher power.

On the whole, I'd say that the religions we see today are there as emotional comfort for most.. it's a way of understanding the world around you e.g through the stories in the Bible as an example. Religion tends to reject new ideas, so it doesn't become emergent and up to date in anyway. Anything that holds an established world view can be dangerous and backwards. In history we see that there were astronomers who had become threatened by the religious community for their new discoveries. These astronomers wanted to share information with the public however religion unfortunately intercepted these new ideas. Although the world has changed drastically since then, we still see science today being a low priority of concern in the mainstream media.

  On 12/28/2009 at 9:41 PM, azatoth said:

ben stein is a nut. when he was puffing his anti-evolution film on some talk show he seriously said that evolution is flawed because it couldn't explain gravity.

what the hell do they even have to do with each other??

all this talk got me thinking about something. i don't like it when i see religion being taught to young children. i don't want to say that religion is a bad thing, but a child is going to believe anything at a young age. they wouldn't really be old enough to question it. parents should probably think twice about putting their children in the hands of religious education. i think some don't realise their kid is born without religion, and they need to choose their own path as they grow up. it may be the same as theirs, but sometimes it might be different.

i'd actually be curious to see what would happen if religious education was eliminated. would later generations have more atheists/agnostics then we do now? considering there wouldn't be nearly as much pressure and influence. or would it be the opposite and we would have less? i'm not taking a side, i just find the idea interesting to think about

ben stein is a bitch

on my honeymoon in hawaii my wife and i were just wanting to grab one drink in a touristy bar so we found this one that as we walked in had a giant poster of Ben Stein in it with an essay written by him on it. As we tried to make out what it said the realization hit us that we were standing inside an establishment he owned. we had a lol then went to the bar next door.

  On 12/28/2009 at 9:11 PM, Hoodie said:

i think it's beautiful that we're so incredibly complex. like, fractals are beautiful, but easily explained by mathematics. does that diminish their beauty? i don't think so.

that's a wonderful thing to say! and it explains a lot about how i feel about spirituality. yes, some things are explicable by theories! but people don't wonder why those theories are true, or why the framework we live in is in place, or what that framework is. random number theory can turn into a spiritual discussion very quickly. there is so much beauty in the world, and it moves us - not because of what explains it, but because it is beautiful.

sorry, i wish i could articulate this better, and i may try later. but props to you hoodie, and brandi b, you and i also share some guiding principles

edit @calxsherbet - it's hard to avoid teaching any kind of dogma to a child. lots of "science-minded" people tend towards dogma as much as lots of religous people. teaching many systems, openness, problem solving, and love would be ideal in my world . .

is religion useful in the world? Yes

It provides an ethical/moral code for people to live by.

It provides a community of like-minded individuals to connect with.

It provides tradition with which people can feel connected to an even larger community than their immediate surroundings.

It provides a goal to reach, i.e. in helping sick people reach better health, ultimate goal of enlightenment (this falls under ethical code in some cases)

is religion necessary? No

In every single case, there are people in the world that find something in their life that satisfies these basic qualities that organized religion provides humanity. Does a non-religious person suddenly have no morals? absolutely not. Can you be part of a community of ethically like-minded people without a religious affiliation? of course. Can you have traditions in your family or otherwise that aren't tied to a certain faith? yes. Can you set yourself goals and do good work in the world without a certain faith in a supernatural power? duh.

Each religion in the world provides all these important qualities in some capacity or another, but each one comes with a completely pointless theology. They all have made-up stories, pointless limitations (only burkas, meditate all the time, no pork, the list goes on) and a huge overbearing history of bullshit that followers should conform to. Religions have also been known to start fights sometimes.

When you've got the important things that matter without following a faith, why anyone ever want to buy into all the Dungeons and Dragons bullshit that comes with a certain theology is completely beyond me. Just cut out the middleman and focus on what matters: living your life in an ethical manner and contributing back to your communities, from your family to the entire world. don't waste your time arguing about whether your god is better.

so did everyone miss the part where he advocates hitting children?

I didn't miss the part where he insinuated Dr. Spock was at fault for his son's suicide. What a contemptible piece of shit human being is Ben Stein.

the quote on "Xpelled, Unintelligent Design" :

"I Love This Movie!" -Ben Stein

what a stupid ignorant piece of pious shit.

you guys hate him because he has different beliefs than you. sad.

i hate him because he worked under Nixon.