Religion general
ЅℰℒᎯℙℋℐℰℒ 
Pomegranates :P
While traditionally Judeo/Christian Europe is being overly tolerant towards Muslims building mosques in European cities.
Look at what happens when Christians try to build a church in a Muslim country
Look at what happens when Christians try to build a church in a Muslim country
Scrabbleman 
[screams in German]
@SeraphimDawn
The same thing once happened in my country and yet, we let other Muslims build their mosques everywhere.
What’s wrong with one church?
The same thing once happened in my country and yet, we let other Muslims build their mosques everywhere.
What’s wrong with one church?
Jaded Zagros
According to them, Islam good Christianity bad.
King of Kings
@SeraphimDawn
The same thing once happened in my country and yet, we let other Muslims build their mosques everywhere.What’s wrong with one church?
According to them, Islam good Christianity bad.
Eeveeinheat 
@HJSDGCE
Because Muslims are extremely intolerant on average when compared to other religions. That’s a statement of fact.
Because Muslims are extremely intolerant on average when compared to other religions. That’s a statement of fact.
ЅℰℒᎯℙℋℐℰℒ
Pomegranates :P
@Eeveeinheat
Funny, cause in the Middle Ages. The Islamic Moors were more tolerant towards Jews and other Christian sects than Spanish Catholics were to them.
Funny, cause in the Middle Ages. The Islamic Moors were more tolerant towards Jews and other Christian sects than Spanish Catholics were to them.
Zincy 
In Vino Veritas
@YetAnotherBrony
My history knowledge is a little weak in this area, but from what I remember reading, in order to defend the Spanish and North African territories they brought in fighters from other parts of the Muslim world that had more hardline views, and said views began to spread rapidly, which is why there was a sudden shift of tolerance in what was otherwise a fairly egalitarian empire.
My history knowledge is a little weak in this area, but from what I remember reading, in order to defend the Spanish and North African territories they brought in fighters from other parts of the Muslim world that had more hardline views, and said views began to spread rapidly, which is why there was a sudden shift of tolerance in what was otherwise a fairly egalitarian empire.
ЅℰℒᎯℙℋℐℰℒ
Pomegranates :P
Christians were also similarly tolerant to other faiths until Charlemagne and Justinian times.
Zincy
In Vino Veritas
@SeraphimDawn
Actually, the first crusade was mostly a trade and power war when the Muslim empire restricted eastward trade by claiming territory in eastern Byzantium and the invasion of Anatolia. Europe worried about further expansion, and further loss of trade which would have dramatically reduced their power and influence. It would have been unlikely that Turks would have been able to seize any land in mainland Europe, as they’d of had to cut through the rest of Byzantium, and cross territory they would have had little experience in fighting in. The Spanish front was tenuous at best, as evidenced by them having to pull fighters in from other areas to hold it.
It was still a legitimate war, after all an empire survives on trade, but for the first crusade at least mainland Europe was in little direct danger.
Actually, the first crusade was mostly a trade and power war when the Muslim empire restricted eastward trade by claiming territory in eastern Byzantium and the invasion of Anatolia. Europe worried about further expansion, and further loss of trade which would have dramatically reduced their power and influence. It would have been unlikely that Turks would have been able to seize any land in mainland Europe, as they’d of had to cut through the rest of Byzantium, and cross territory they would have had little experience in fighting in. The Spanish front was tenuous at best, as evidenced by them having to pull fighters in from other areas to hold it.
It was still a legitimate war, after all an empire survives on trade, but for the first crusade at least mainland Europe was in little direct danger.
Scrabbleman
[screams in German]
@Zincy
God dammit, ancient Muslim empire. Why did you have to go and fuck up all you neighbours?
The same goes to you, ancient Christian empire.
God dammit, ancient Muslim empire. Why did you have to go and fuck up all you neighbours?
The same goes to you, ancient Christian empire.
Random-Rambling
tinyurl.com/dymbb3a
@Zincy
@SeraphimDawn
@SeraphimDawn
@Zincy
@HJSDGCE
Not an atheist myself, but I am curious what world history would have looked like if religion of any kind never became a thing.
Probably the same, except different: better in some way, worse in others.
@SeraphimDawn
@SeraphimDawn
@Zincy
@HJSDGCE
Not an atheist myself, but I am curious what world history would have looked like if religion of any kind never became a thing.
Probably the same, except different: better in some way, worse in others.
Whatevo
Arch-Rarifag
@YetAnotherBrony
Probably more racist, hierarchical, and reacrionary. Religions are the memeplexes from which muh equality comes from.
>inb4 Pagan Internet Defense Force
Your tribal religions were not egalitarian in the same sense. They were at best amenable to separation and self determination if one city wanted to worship Marduk instead of Dagon.
After all, the closest of the big religions to Paganism is Hinduism. Most reactionary religion by far
Probably more racist, hierarchical, and reacrionary. Religions are the memeplexes from which muh equality comes from.
>inb4 Pagan Internet Defense Force
Your tribal religions were not egalitarian in the same sense. They were at best amenable to separation and self determination if one city wanted to worship Marduk instead of Dagon.
After all, the closest of the big religions to Paganism is Hinduism. Most reactionary religion by far
Cirrus Light 
// - Addendum, in a C____ - style comment; It’s 7 am and I should not be awake right now. In fact, I’m somewhat furious that I’ve been up this long and haven’t gone to sleep yet. So there may be some typos or whatever.
Sciencepone of Science!
Religion is an interesting thing.
I’m in a certain chat with a number of atheists, and those that aren’t atheist view things very differently than I do. One of them, in a course of a lengthy discussion, simply said “you cannot know what the afterlife will be like.”
I disagreed.
Now, the chat itself is completely unrelated to this, so this is all off-topic and generally frowned upon by the people there, so in an attempt to appeal their constant offense at my existence, I’m taking it here (though truth be told, no matter how hard I try to be courteous and reasonable, certain members will never cease to say I’m absolutely insufferable and drive them to drink, so I know my effort is futile, but despite this, I, for some reason, still feel some need to be polite, so I’m taking the discussion elsewhere, to a place that is also better for writing long messages and lengthy replies than a chat room).
So here’s my reply:
THE REPLY
What do you mean by “know”? You mean a certain degree of certainty, I take it? If you mean anything with any degree of certainty, I can’t agree, and here’s why:
Relativity
What is a theory? You know I’m obsessed with relativity, so we’ll use that since I know it well. It’s a lengthy series of equations that relate in certain ways with variables that hold certain meanings. You become more sure in a theory by testing it. You say; “When I plug these numbers in, I get these numbers out. If reality does the same, this must describe reality.”
So you go and test it. The theory says light should curve around a mass. You photograph a star’s position near the sun, and when it’s not near the sun, and confirm light does that. It explains the precession of Mercury’s orbit. It says if you bounce radar signals off Venus as it’s near the sun, or further away, it’ll take them different amounts of time. You test it, and it does. Your confidence in the theory builds.
Now you’ve got another test coming up; you are to fly an airplane with an atomic clock, and compare the air measurements to the ground.
Can you “Know” that the measurements will be different, as the theory predicts? Well, sort of. You can have a high degree of confidence that they will, because the theory has been right in the past, and these concepts - the slowing of the clock, the bending of the light, and the signals taking longer from Venus - they are all closely related in such a way that the more others are true, the more likely this last one - the different clock rates - is to be true.
They’re fundamentally related, other parts have been correct, so you are right to have high confidence that this last part will be correct, too.
The First Step…
Now, the philosophical points we discussed earlier are similar - the basis of those were that qualia exists, and that physical reality exists, but is entirely second to qualia. If you accept that, it is not reasonable to think that physical reality should end qualia, since it is entirely secondary. As I said, it is to think the audience dies when the movie ends, since the two are entirely different and even somewhat unrelated things - different sets of physical experiences correspond to different “Realities” - dreams, drug trips, what have you, while the qualia holds constant. Throughout all the different realities, qualia has held constant, so I (having only had dreams, but many), feel safe to assume that it will hold constant. Reality is more cohesive and sequitor than dreams, but it is, nonetheless, merely one of many “states” my qualia passes through, and objectively speaking, there’s nothing really special about its cohesiveness or sequitor-ness. To assign special values to those things is a bias based on traditional views of “this is reality and that isn’t”.
But, you would be right to say that that says nothing about what reality would come after this, any more than it predicts what dream I will have tonight (or rather, today!).
To get there, we go to the taboo topic of religion.
If you compare these paragraphs, I’ve structured them identically to the paragraphs on relativity to make a point:
Mormonism
What is a belief? You know I’m a Mormon, so I’ll use that set of theology since I know it well. It can effectively be boiled down to a few key concepts, yet it is many different interrelated ideas. You become more sure in a belief by testing it. You say; “When I do this, this should be the result. If reality does the same, this must describe reality.”
So you go and test it. The religion makes certain statements about sin, repentence, morality, and happiness. You follow what it says, and find yourself happier (subjective, yes, but a start nonetheless). It explains, satisfactorily, why evil and good exist as they do - no small feat. It says if you pray and ask for help with faith, it can miraculously arrive. You test it, and it does, many times. Your confidence in the belief builds.
Now you’ve got another test coming up; you are inevitably going to die.
Can you “Know” what will happen when you die? Well, sort of. You can have a high degree of confidence, because the belief has been right in the past, and these concepts it taught - Justice and Mercy in repentance, and impossible events you would never believe had they not happened to yourself as a result of your application/testing of these beliefs - they are all closely related in such a way that the more others are true, the more likely this last one - the nature of eternity - is to be true.
They’re fundamentally related, other parts have been correct, so you are right to have high confidence that this last part will be correct, too.
The differences
Now, the big difference with religion is this; you cannot distinguist null results from positive ones as easily as you can in the lab.
You see, that’s the important thing. If the two aren’t different, you can’t make scientific conclusions. You can take a lab, and empty it out of all interference, or take metal balls and roll them down inclines - or whatever. But you can’t control life in the same way you can control basic kinematics, and you can’t predict life in the same way that you can predict Newtonian gravity. The fact that you cannot know what would happen otherwise makes it so someone who isn’t inclined to believe can always call it “coincidence” no matter how extreme the events are, and contrawise, there are always events you can attribute to the “supernatural” that would’ve happened anyways.
I put “supernatural” in quotation marks, though, because I don’t honestly believe any of it is supernatural. There is only nature - anything that seems beyond it, is merely nature that is beyond our current understanding. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, if you will. Any nature far beyond our current understanding, is indistinguishable from the supernatural.
And yes, many atheists have noticed…
Something I’m noticing is that religion seems to make a lot of simplifying observations - unification of principles. You see, science isn’t just about explaining, as much as explaining well enough to predict.
Religion offers some basic structure to life, but not a precise prediction, though it does offer principles with which you can explain.
Funnily enough, though, string theory is an example of a theory that offers absolutely incredible explanatory power, yet its predictions are extremely hard to predict (ie, it’s hard to actually use the tools to make predictions with it, and the predictions it makes that we do know are hard to test), and it’s near-impossible to disprove, leading some scientists to actually insult it on the basis of some supposed similarity to religion, since the modern scientific community is largely fedora-tipping atheist.
Funny thing, really.
I’m in a certain chat with a number of atheists, and those that aren’t atheist view things very differently than I do. One of them, in a course of a lengthy discussion, simply said “you cannot know what the afterlife will be like.”
I disagreed.
Now, the chat itself is completely unrelated to this, so this is all off-topic and generally frowned upon by the people there, so in an attempt to appeal their constant offense at my existence, I’m taking it here (though truth be told, no matter how hard I try to be courteous and reasonable, certain members will never cease to say I’m absolutely insufferable and drive them to drink, so I know my effort is futile, but despite this, I, for some reason, still feel some need to be polite, so I’m taking the discussion elsewhere, to a place that is also better for writing long messages and lengthy replies than a chat room).
So here’s my reply:
THE REPLY
What do you mean by “know”? You mean a certain degree of certainty, I take it? If you mean anything with any degree of certainty, I can’t agree, and here’s why:
Relativity
What is a theory? You know I’m obsessed with relativity, so we’ll use that since I know it well. It’s a lengthy series of equations that relate in certain ways with variables that hold certain meanings. You become more sure in a theory by testing it. You say; “When I plug these numbers in, I get these numbers out. If reality does the same, this must describe reality.”
So you go and test it. The theory says light should curve around a mass. You photograph a star’s position near the sun, and when it’s not near the sun, and confirm light does that. It explains the precession of Mercury’s orbit. It says if you bounce radar signals off Venus as it’s near the sun, or further away, it’ll take them different amounts of time. You test it, and it does. Your confidence in the theory builds.
Now you’ve got another test coming up; you are to fly an airplane with an atomic clock, and compare the air measurements to the ground.
Can you “Know” that the measurements will be different, as the theory predicts? Well, sort of. You can have a high degree of confidence that they will, because the theory has been right in the past, and these concepts - the slowing of the clock, the bending of the light, and the signals taking longer from Venus - they are all closely related in such a way that the more others are true, the more likely this last one - the different clock rates - is to be true.
They’re fundamentally related, other parts have been correct, so you are right to have high confidence that this last part will be correct, too.
The First Step…
Now, the philosophical points we discussed earlier are similar - the basis of those were that qualia exists, and that physical reality exists, but is entirely second to qualia. If you accept that, it is not reasonable to think that physical reality should end qualia, since it is entirely secondary. As I said, it is to think the audience dies when the movie ends, since the two are entirely different and even somewhat unrelated things - different sets of physical experiences correspond to different “Realities” - dreams, drug trips, what have you, while the qualia holds constant. Throughout all the different realities, qualia has held constant, so I (having only had dreams, but many), feel safe to assume that it will hold constant. Reality is more cohesive and sequitor than dreams, but it is, nonetheless, merely one of many “states” my qualia passes through, and objectively speaking, there’s nothing really special about its cohesiveness or sequitor-ness. To assign special values to those things is a bias based on traditional views of “this is reality and that isn’t”.
But, you would be right to say that that says nothing about what reality would come after this, any more than it predicts what dream I will have tonight (or rather, today!).
To get there, we go to the taboo topic of religion.
If you compare these paragraphs, I’ve structured them identically to the paragraphs on relativity to make a point:
Mormonism
What is a belief? You know I’m a Mormon, so I’ll use that set of theology since I know it well. It can effectively be boiled down to a few key concepts, yet it is many different interrelated ideas. You become more sure in a belief by testing it. You say; “When I do this, this should be the result. If reality does the same, this must describe reality.”
So you go and test it. The religion makes certain statements about sin, repentence, morality, and happiness. You follow what it says, and find yourself happier (subjective, yes, but a start nonetheless). It explains, satisfactorily, why evil and good exist as they do - no small feat. It says if you pray and ask for help with faith, it can miraculously arrive. You test it, and it does, many times. Your confidence in the belief builds.
Now you’ve got another test coming up; you are inevitably going to die.
Can you “Know” what will happen when you die? Well, sort of. You can have a high degree of confidence, because the belief has been right in the past, and these concepts it taught - Justice and Mercy in repentance, and impossible events you would never believe had they not happened to yourself as a result of your application/testing of these beliefs - they are all closely related in such a way that the more others are true, the more likely this last one - the nature of eternity - is to be true.
They’re fundamentally related, other parts have been correct, so you are right to have high confidence that this last part will be correct, too.
The differences
Now, the big difference with religion is this; you cannot distinguist null results from positive ones as easily as you can in the lab.
You see, that’s the important thing. If the two aren’t different, you can’t make scientific conclusions. You can take a lab, and empty it out of all interference, or take metal balls and roll them down inclines - or whatever. But you can’t control life in the same way you can control basic kinematics, and you can’t predict life in the same way that you can predict Newtonian gravity. The fact that you cannot know what would happen otherwise makes it so someone who isn’t inclined to believe can always call it “coincidence” no matter how extreme the events are, and contrawise, there are always events you can attribute to the “supernatural” that would’ve happened anyways.
I put “supernatural” in quotation marks, though, because I don’t honestly believe any of it is supernatural. There is only nature - anything that seems beyond it, is merely nature that is beyond our current understanding. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, if you will. Any nature far beyond our current understanding, is indistinguishable from the supernatural.
And yes, many atheists have noticed…
Something I’m noticing is that religion seems to make a lot of simplifying observations - unification of principles. You see, science isn’t just about explaining, as much as explaining well enough to predict.
Religion offers some basic structure to life, but not a precise prediction, though it does offer principles with which you can explain.
Funnily enough, though, string theory is an example of a theory that offers absolutely incredible explanatory power, yet its predictions are extremely hard to predict (ie, it’s hard to actually use the tools to make predictions with it, and the predictions it makes that we do know are hard to test), and it’s near-impossible to disprove, leading some scientists to actually insult it on the basis of some supposed similarity to religion, since the modern scientific community is largely fedora-tipping atheist.
Funny thing, really.
// - Addendum, in a C____ - style comment; It’s 7 am and I should not be awake right now. In fact, I’m somewhat furious that I’ve been up this long and haven’t gone to sleep yet. So there may be some typos or whatever.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!