Joe Rogan-Religion is helpful for dumb people

Post Reply New Topic

Because it seems so much against human nature, and the genes of those who lean in its favor so bound to be selected against.

Kamiyu910, Newton's First Law is not - ever - 'taken on faith'. It has been tested, tested, and tested again. It never fails to hold. It works every time. It is a consistent aspect of our reality, and that is why it is known as a law of nature. It may not have been proven in the mathematical sense of that term, but that is not the way science works in any case, the facts pertaining to any given situation being determined by the evidence at hand, and using that evidence to construct a theory as to why what is being observed is taking place. Faith never comes into it, I cannot stress that enough.

The quote you provide about inertia seems to me to be an actual quote from a book, and not your father (unless he memorised it verbatim, and just repeated it). I'm also confused about who the rocket scientist in this story is, because you say your father is a biologist. Is he both?

Sounds like this Joe Rogan religion should spread a lot then. There are lots of dumb people who could use it!

I only used the quote to show the law, it's not something either of them directly said. I was merely using them as an example of Christians not being stupid. They were discussing most particularly this line: "...in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force." We don't know if an object will keep going forever. It's never been shown, nor is it possible to show it. That's why we have the "unless compelled to change" part. They were talking about objects in space, and how space is infinite, and how can we test if an object will go forever unchanged? How is it even possible? We can say what seems the most logical, but no object has ever gone unchanged, forever, that we know of.

And sorry if it was unclear, but the man my dad was talking to is the rocket scientist.

It seem to me that be more intelligent cause more existential dread. You need to be intelligent to understand what imply "infinity" ,the existential problems implied by the many-worlds interpretation (Strangely enough some peoples more intelligent that me don't have a problem with it; either they don't delve on those questions or they understand something I don't.) or the concept of cessation of existence.
Must likelly less intelligent peoples follow religion as a cultural thing while smart peoples follow or don't follow on more personnal introspection.


"They look like icicles!"
http://animejoy.tv/watch/romeo-s-blue-skies/7 (3:25)
Architecture really declined during 20th century; gothic architecture is way better than the ugly "brutalism" or the weird "deconstructivism". No wonder peoples are in awe from the cathedrals and found religious devotion from them.

Last edited by Tollorin on 23 Jul 2015, 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your claim that we cannot know whether an object, if given an infinite amount of time and space within which to do so, will keep on going forever, just isn't true. Given our understanding of the laws of nature, in particular the one relating to the concept of inertia (the First Law), we actually do know that, absent the influence of any external forces acting upon it, an object will simply continue to move in a straight line (or remain at rest). These laws are universally applicable, and the scenario you gave here, where we have an infinite amount of time and space to play with, makes no difference if we accept that this time and space is not in some alternative reality within the so-called multiverse where the laws may actually differ from ours.

As for space being infinite (in extent or time?), we simply don't know for sure. It might be, but the generally accepted view is that what we usually refer to when we speak of 'the universe' had a beginning approx. 13.7 thousand million years ago. Perhaps the multiverse is temporally eternal, but no one knows.

If 100% certainty is what you are seeking here, well, you just won't find it. That's what religion is for, not science. It would simply not be possible to do what you seem to be demanding here, to observe whether, given an infinite amount of both time and space, an object would eventually deviate from its course in the absence of any force that would compel it to do so. I'd be willing to bet all I have that it wouldn't behave this way.

Do you know who the rocket scientist was? Would you be able to find out?

I am hoping sarcasm otherwise you see it too many simple minds can be brainwashed with ease like chicken little!

Correct I have made at least 10! As to a belief as opposed to gathered data being a waste of time nothing more than goody goody feelings but at the same time justifying genocide, slavery, rape, and war which is why I am against religion because religion promotes it as well as encourages people to give up their freedom and free will and being mindless thralls and slaves to something they cannot see! If a god was to be real and perfect let alone smart as well as predict the future he would not give his creations free will and everything would be perfect and his creations would be obedient no future sins no genocide no slavery no deaths no sinners it would be perfect.

I was making a point and you're taking it a bit too far. I really don't know why this matters so much to you. I have not stated anything untrue. All I said is that it is impossible for us to know for an absolute fact. We assume because of what we do know. Which is a way of taking something on faith, just not a religious faith.

Like seeing an iced over lake, the first person on it takes it on faith that the ice will hold. The people who follow take it as fact that the ice will hold them, since they have seen the first person do it, and they take it on faith that the ice will hold more people. Until enough people get on the ice and break it, anyway. But until that point, people consider it fact that the ice will hold, when they actually don't know for certain. Even if we know something to be 99.99999% true, there is still that possibility of it not being true.

My point was merely stating that not all Christians are stupid. Whether you believe they're correct in their statements or not is irrelevant, it's the subject matter that really counts. And no, I am not giving you the scientist's name, there is no reason to.

This is a contradiction.
And I'd be grateful if you'd stop calling us religious people genocial, slavists etc.
It is true that often people have used religion to fit their personal purposes, but that's not what religion is about.
Also you say religion, while there are many religions who are very different. Pay attention to your words please.

Marx was correct and insightful when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

People forget that when he wrote that, opiates were the only known pain killers. He was saying that religion is, for the masses, the thing that eases their pain.

For whatever it's worth i don't think he really advocated taking it away, but i didn't read his whole book.

The elites, of course, experience a lot less pain, and have a lot of potential opiates.

I was never able to believe. So it was never able to ease my pain.

Seconded.

I'm not at all against atheism or agnosticism, I merely wish that anyone who touts a particular philosophy or belief system (especially vocally) at least have a firm understanding of what they're talking about.

There's not an atheist or anti-theist I know or have read work from who doesn't understand the core aspects of religion and theology; you can't formulate an effective counterpoint if you don't understand the point you're countering. Likewise, there are many atheists and anti-theists who condemn corrupt evangelism and fundamentalists while still acknowledging the beneficial contributions of nonprofit community-oriented churches and religious people in the fields of art, science, humanitarianism, etc. If you're looking at someone like Desmond Tutu and calling them a "mindless slave", then you're no different from the misguided fundamentalists who call Obama the "anti-Christ".

I like to call these people "YouTube atheists" or "YouTube Christians", who have little to no comprehensive understanding of their own viewpoints and rely on tired buzzwords and stereotypes to flame and troll rather than reflect anything meaningful, not wholly unlike a YouTube comment. Regardless of which spectrum of faith you lie on, "Sorry, I don't believe in magical sky fairies" is really no different than "You're going to Hell! God is real because sunsets exist!" in terms of arrogant ignorance.