JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 7th January 2013, 12:34 PM   #81
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.
Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:
Quote:
One of the first proofs by contradiction is the following gem attributed to Euclid.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 12:38 PM   #82
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by epix View Post
The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science.
Assuming that religion is a method (I don't know of any truth demonstrated by religion) I would say you have created a false dichotomy as you have left out other supernatural methods like astrology, psychic phenomenon, trot cards, etc., etc..

Two methods: Science and superstition.

Originally Posted by Wiki
Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events, such as astrology, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.
Since most if not all religions are belief on supernatural causality let's just put then all into superstition.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 12:40 PM   #83
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,106
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html
No.


Originally Posted by epix View Post
That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.
That's simple maths. Of course it works. Probability says it will work in at least some circumstances just by chance. That is not "working", that's just happenstance.


Originally Posted by epix View Post
Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?
This forum can be as educational as it wants. The lack is your willingness to learn.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 7th January 2013 at 12:42 PM. Reason: Editted for the hard of thinking.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 12:40 PM   #84
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.
What doe you mean "it works"? How does it work?

Quote:
Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?
You won't learn to rely on superstition that's for damn sure.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 12:42 PM   #85
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Really? You will simply put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala"?

For real?

Originally Posted by epix View Post
Well, I think I saw enough in this thread.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 01:10 PM   #86
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html
Maths is prayer? You must belong to a really weird church! This thread should be moved to the comedy forum.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 01:12 PM   #87
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?
It wasn't the ancients who didn't pray that made the advances in human knowledge.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:19 PM   #88
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
What doe you mean "it works"? How does it work?
How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)2 = (G_O)2 + (G_D)2

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:24 PM   #89
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by epix View Post
How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)2 = (G_O)2 + (G_D)2
No no no no no no no. What the hell does that have to do with prayer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not a prayer.

Quote:
Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason...
That's a bald face lie. What I said was:

Originally Posted by RandFan
The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.
Of course the ancients could reason. Prayer was a waste of time but reason wasn't. It was reason that helped the ancients progress.

Quote:
...and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.
What on earth are you talking about? Math isn't prayer.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:36 PM   #90
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post
How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)2 = (G_O)2 + (G_D)2

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.
What!? You just scraped your way through the bottom of the barrel. Nobody said that the ancients could not reason.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:37 PM   #91
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

What on earth are you talking about? Math isn't prayer.
Another epix fail.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:46 PM   #92
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No no no no no no no. What the hell does that have to do with prayer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not a prayer.

That's a bald face lie. What I said was:
Quote:
The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.
I never suspected that you would use inclusive "we." I'm always under impression when visiting here that reason and logic is a trademark of atheism.
Quote:
Of course the ancients could reason. Prayer was a waste of time but reason wasn't. It was reason that helped the ancients progress.
How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients? You were not there; you have absolutely no slightest idea what was going on back then. But there are manuscripts you can get a clue from.
Quote:
Porphyry also emphasizes Pythagoras' divine aspects and may be setting him up as a rival to Jesus (Iamblichus 1991, 14). These three third-century accounts of Pythagoras were in turn based on earlier sources, which are now lost.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their ability to reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?

Last edited by epix; 7th January 2013 at 04:04 PM.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:50 PM   #93
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post
How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients?
Because there are no gods to pray to, therefore they were wasting their time. Archimedes did not spend his time on his knees burbling away to an imaginary being.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:51 PM   #94
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post

Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?
Why don't modern believers in a religion do the same thing? For the same reasons as the ancients. Confirmation bias and the odd coincidence. When you say the ancients, do you include the ancient Greeks and Romans? Are you saying that their gods were real?

Last edited by dafydd; 7th January 2013 at 03:54 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:58 PM   #95
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by epix View Post
How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients? You were not there; you have absolutely no slightest idea what was going on back then. But there are manuscripts you can get a clue from.
Demonstrate that it works?

Quote:
Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their ability to reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?
Why don't you? There is zero evidence that it works.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 04:44 AM   #96
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,291
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html
Huh? You are aware that
a) Euclid's Elements is the first application of the axiomatic method to mathematics;
b) It relies on rigorous application of logic;
c) Mathematics is neither religion nor science.

Originally Posted by epix View Post
Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html
You're probably equally unaware of the literally hundreds of proofs for the Pythagorean theorem. Euclid gave one of them in the Elements.

Originally Posted by epix View Post
That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.
Yeah, it works because mathematics works.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 05:30 AM   #97
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?
The Pythagorean link is interesting, and I see it mentions that the Pythagoreans had prayers, but I could find no reference to a prayer that any specific theorem be true, nor any reference to this being a well known prayer nor any reference to translation, literal or not. I'm very tired and dizzy today, so perhaps I missed something in the text. But it sure looks as if you're making something up.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 08:51 AM   #98
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
The Pythagorean link is interesting, and I see it mentions that the Pythagoreans had prayers, but I could find no reference to a prayer that any specific theorem be true, nor any reference to this being a well known prayer nor any reference to translation, literal or not. I'm very tired and dizzy today, so perhaps I missed something in the text. But it sure looks as if you're making something up.
The last portions of this thread have been attacked by the trolls and heavily edited, so it's better to see it walk into the waste basket. It should have been be tossed in there just by the virtue of its title that compares faith with science. Some folks, like the author of the OP, are not aware of the fact that faith is not a scientific method. But someone interpreted the title "Faith vs. Science" as "Faith in Science," meaning that faith contributes to scientific research, and that became the new topic.

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

In modern times, public acknowledgement of such belief is very rare. For example, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinisava Ramanujan credited his analytic abilities to a deity.
Quote:
He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God.
Src: Wikipedia

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

Last edited by epix; 8th January 2013 at 08:54 AM.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 09:04 AM   #99
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post

you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods.
Names please. And you cannot make discoveries in philosophy. Maths yes, but no gods were needed, only intelligence.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 09:09 AM   #100
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.
Do you know what the word ''autodidact'' means? Ramanujan thought up the equations, whether he attributed them to an imaginary being or not is neither here nor there. Asking you pertinent questions that you dodge is not trolling, by the way.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 09:11 AM   #101
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post


The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.
Name a period in history when everyone in the world believed in a god. There have always been atheists around. Also tell us more about these ancient forms of prayer.

Last edited by dafydd; 8th January 2013 at 09:23 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 09:15 AM   #102
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,666
Originally Posted by epix View Post
I never suspected that you would use inclusive "we."
You're surprised at the use of "we" to describe the human race.

Which planet are you from, then?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 05:57 PM   #103
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by epix View Post
The last portions of this thread have been attacked by the trolls and heavily edited, so it's better to see it walk into the waste basket. It should have been be tossed in there just by the virtue of its title that compares faith with science. Some folks, like the author of the OP, are not aware of the fact that faith is not a scientific method. But someone interpreted the title "Faith vs. Science" as "Faith in Science," meaning that faith contributes to scientific research, and that became the new topic.

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

In modern times, public acknowledgement of such belief is very rare. For example, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinisava Ramanujan credited his analytic abilities to a deity.

Src: Wikipedia

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.
It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 07:40 PM   #104
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math.
I didn't say that Ramanujan didn't do the math. Your interpretation of what I said is misconstrued, also because I didn't put the statement into the proper context. I would stick with a view of Ramanujan's mentor mathematician H.G. Hardy rather than yours.
Quote:
Freeman Dyson called Hardy not just an ordinary atheist (who does not believe in God) but a passionate atheist (one who considers God to be their personal enemy).
http://philosopedia.org/index.php/G._H._Hardy

Quote:
Ramanujan’s method of working even intrigued his Cambridge mentor, Dr Hardy, because the former used to highlight the spiritual factor in his discoveries that the latter, an atheist, could neither accept nor completely reject as pure ‘nonsense’. Dr Hardy, instead, quite happily let that aspect of the discoveries slip into the history of ‘unexplained’.

There were times, however, even Dr Hardy was forced to turn inwards when Ramanujan once famously said, “an equation has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.” Before coming to England, Ramanujan used to tell his Indian friends that goddess Namagiri, his family goddess, used to whisper the mathematical secrets into his ears even during his childhood, when asked to explain his brilliance at dealing with numbers.

Dr Hardy was convinced that Ramanujan was using a faculty other than human intelligence in producing wonders in the field of mathematics.
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/201...limpses-heaven

Quote:
As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did.
I said that the ancients didn't pray the way Christians do. I never used any comparative like more or less. Some historians of mathematics speculated on the subject of religion in ancient mathematics, and so I adopted some of their views.
Ramanujan obviously didn't pray for a particular knowledge. If he did, he surely wondered about why Namagiri held back the Last Fermat Theorem. LOL.

Last edited by epix; 8th January 2013 at 07:42 PM.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 10:10 PM   #105
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God
No, he's right. It does 'kind of' make sense.

Here's how:-

1. It makes sense that everything that happens has a cause.

2. Ramanujan didn't receive formal training in mathematics, but something must have helped him gain that ability.

3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!

It 'kind of makes sense' that God is responsible for anything we don't have a rational explanation for, because the alternative - that we just don't know - is unacceptable.

Make sense? Kind of...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2013, 10:14 AM   #106
Cat Tale
Thinker
 
Cat Tale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 222
Geez, and all I wanted to know is who discovered one plus one is two! In math I never stood a prayer of a chance. Just wanted to say, great thread!
Cat Tale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2013, 10:20 AM   #107
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!
See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2013, 11:03 AM   #108
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.
There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2013, 11:27 AM   #109
BenjaminTR
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Library
Posts: 525
Originally Posted by epix View Post
From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.
Pythagoras was not primarily a mathematician or scientist, he was primarily known for his religious ideas. Though his name is attached to the famous theorem,
Quote:
There is evidence that he valued relationships between numbers such as those embodied in the so-called Pythagorean theorem, though it is not likely that he proved the theorem.
(From the very source you cite.). You can find fragments of quotes and teachings attributed to him, like a prohibition against eating beans, assigning random numbers to stuff (I think justice was 4), and other ideas about cosmology.

In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.
BenjaminTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2013, 04:01 PM   #110
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?
Quick writing but I sort of thought the conjunction of the phrase "idiotic craze" with "religious truth" might have sufficed in conveying my meaning of "their notion of religious truth."
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 07:05 AM   #111
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.
Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 07:26 AM   #112
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,164
Originally Posted by epix View Post
How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)2 = (G_O)2 + (G_D)2

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.
What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 08:19 AM   #113
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,448
If you take things on faith, you're not doing science.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 08:44 AM   #114
Craig4
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,387
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriqu...t_species.html

The presenter puts forward some interesting ideas about the "sexy nerd" and evolution here. I don't buy all his points right now but it seems that the ability to do math in a world run by technology is a selective pressure.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 10:03 AM   #115
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.
Malform is a verb, not a noun. There is no such thing as a malform. I don't hate religion but do hate the horrid things that have been done in the name of religion. The world would be a saner place without this primitive superstition.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 10:04 AM   #116
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?
Having no education in maths and history?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 05:45 AM   #117
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 850
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No it hasn't been answered. What did Brigham Young mean by "black skin" and a "flat nose"? What about all of the scriptures that reference "black skin", why do they do that if it has nothing to do with skin color.

This is a skeptics site not get preached to by a Mormon site. If you want to express your views without critical scrutiny then you've come to the wrong place.

You are NOT answering questions in any meaningful way.
Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 05:58 AM   #118
Empress
Piggish
 
Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Blandings Castle
Posts: 2,128
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.
Who here is claiming that scientists are infallible? That's the great thing about the scientific method. As knowledge increases old ideas that are proven to be non-factual are tossed aside and our understanding of the natural world improves. I've never heard anyone say that evolution is correct, for example because Darwin says so. Evolution is correct because it's an established fact, proven over multiple scientific disciplines.

Contrast that with your church, which claims a direct line to god, and was only brought forth into the world b/c all the other churches were wrong. Why can't your church get it right if you're personally led by a perfect god? Sounds like you know your god is a moron, but want to excuse him and his fallible prophets for not being perfect. If your god isn't perfect--and being a racist ******* certainly qualifies as imperfect--then why follow him?
__________________
One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse
Empress is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 06:02 AM   #119
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,291
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.
So you agree that your church was wrong then but you think it's right now.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 06:12 AM   #120
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.
To characterize Young's proclamations as unfortunate is, well, unfortunate.

Quote:
You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing.
It is good for the Church to recognizes its faults and moves to correct them. I am not sure who is this "we" of which you speak, though. Janadele clearly does not agree with you. For that matter, where has the Church said explicitly that Brigham Young, for example, was wrong?

Quote:
If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.
False analogy much? This is absolute rubbish on so many levels. None of those individuals were ever anointed as the official spokesperson for an inerrant God. None were deemed to speak in holy scripture of Science. Moreover, Science is well understood to be fallible. It makes mistakes, readily admits them, corrects them, and moves on. Science doesn't come with its own Articles of Faith that deny the very position you are claiming for the Church, above.

Quote:
I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.
The dwelling on the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, is because upstanding Mormons the likes of Janadele accept them as divinely inspired doctrine.

If the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, in his role as Prophet aren't to be taken as divinely inspired doctrine, that doesn't leave much for the Church's foundation.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

By the way, the Nominate button is to your right left, sort of..

Last edited by jsfisher; 26th January 2013 at 06:16 AM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.