 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 549 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is based on proof. all scientific facts we know of today arose by a theory that a beleif was in fact false. each time a new theory arises, many claim it is false because there is no proof. then it is proven and thus taken as fact. otherwise it is disproven and thrown out like the garbage it is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
read what i said. i never discredited systematic scientific inquiry. i only pointed out that it is ongoing, and that there is not even remotely speaking a complete scientific model of reality, and that people are as likely to irrationally cling to scientific models for comfort as they are to so called religious models. none of us really "knows" anything at all, and i mean that not in a nihilist sense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
religion says this is how it is, and if not, how it should be. science says this is how it is because we have thoroughly checked that it is, and if we can't explain it we look for an answer instead of making something up and saying that's it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats way to simple, you're mixing things up. a proof is a well defined notion in mathematics, nothing more. science does not know of proof. science is a collection of models which reflect reality. the 'degree of reflection' adds to the quality of science, as well as simplicity for example. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess i'm trying to say religion is made up to keep people in check, and therefore is useful, but not the truth. religion is used to reinforce guilt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is not a fucking statement or an attitude its an process. just as religion is. religion is neither an attitude nor a collection of statements or beliefs or such. (thats the church) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"science is based on proof." without a clear definition of what you mean by "science," and i don't believe we can assume, this statement is meaningless. however, i will say that true "science" means that any theory, or fact, is always subject to potential modification. you want to believe that science presents an objective reality because you're looking for a security blanket as much as those who people call "bible thumpers." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"religion says this is how it is, and if not, how it should be. science says this is how it is because we have thoroughly checked that it is, and if we can't explain it we look for an answer instead of making something up and saying that's it." But in the end, either way, by this model; you believe in something because someone else told you to believe in it (not because of your own experience). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you describe misuse of science or religion. neither of them gives a security blanket - and does not even try to. those who do are the ideologists, from whatever school. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
simply no. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
religion is a lot more complicated than you give it credit. are you talking about gnosticism? orthodoxy? acosmic pantheism? buddhism? shinto? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*brain explosion* science science, you know. any theory which relates to the nature of anything which has officially been investigated beyond reasonable doubt and therefore is how it is. investigation is different to making shit up. and i like new theories, like if you said hot air sinks i'd say prove it and i'll beleive you, but you have to beat my proof and explain to me how you think a hot air balloon works if hot air goes down. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
try testing a religious theory |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Simply yes. English is my 2nd language, so sometimes I don't make myself very clear.... sorry But in the end, either way, by this model; you believe in something because someone else told you to believe in it (not because of your own experience). What I meant was: (by that model) You believe in -something- because you choose to believe in the person/medium who tells you -that something- |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key_secret, you have to give a lot more credit to a lot of things. i can't tell you more about science or religion as i already did since i have no further clue about any. i just see that you are too much focusing on people performing these things (who often are dumbasses) instead of thinking for yourself. i know i sound a little harsh, forgive me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'night |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's probably just me being a genetics student so i have a very limited respect for religion as i know how stuff works now. but as you say, other than chromosomes i have yet to actually see dna in action so i guess i'm just beleiving what im told. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm talking about misuse of science and religion? obviously. good god, man, i'm not talking about what religion or science are giving. i'm talking about what people do with them. again, adherence to the belief that science presents an objective reality is as much an irrational security blanket as orthodox religious faith. i have no criticism for systematic scientific inquiry, nor do i have criticism for faith that is capable of evolving. this nonsense depicting science as the infallible revealer of truth and religion as the cloak of superstitious deception is false. now, i'm out of time. cheers! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"this nonsense depicting science as the infallible revealer of truth and religion as the cloak of superstitious deception is false." no man, that is exactly what i'm saying |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now for a deep moment peace out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i just see that you are too much focusing on people performing these things (who often are dumbasses) instead of thinking for yourself. well science is nothing without humans, I mean it's just theories and technology (but we need to operate it, if you know what I mean). Maybe I should've written that. Discussing 'science' ; it's just to broad I have to discuss a part of it, so what I'm talking about is how it exists in society and our lives. The point of my posts is that we should save ourselves (it's possible) by understand ourselves. We shouldn't count on any external force (god or science; doctors, drugs) to save us. If all people understood that, then I'd be much cooler with science because then peopole wouldn't think of it as they do. But at present nobody cares to make people understand, and I don't think we need to discuss why. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God has a lot of planets and dimensions to look after, not just this one. We create our own suffering and sometimes busy God lets an earthquake or flood happen when he's not looking. He loves us though, tries his best. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm talking about what people do with them. again, adherence to the belief that science presents an objective reality is as much an irrational security blanket as orthodox religious faith. again, you're better at explaining yourself in english than I am... but that's what I meant by my previous post aswell. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes i do, god is us. we are god. god is just a word used to describe a life force that's higher than our own. we are all one collective concious however, viewing itself in the multiple third person, that is what life is. when the life ends, the individual returns to the group conciousness. some people choose to spend their time on earth deciphering the reality we inhabit. i call them scientists, whether they work in a lab, or just sit at home and do acid and ponder things. the other people think that there is some judgemental force that is viewing our every action and determining our after-death fate based on it. i think this is incredibly ridiculous and stupid. but you're welcome to think i have some insight in the world or am the most misguided fool on the planet. i'll still continue thinking what i do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with you mostly kochlear but i think that your condemnation of these people is a judgment that you are not qualified to make. if you would forgive people their illusions and accept them as valid no matter what you'd be doing yourself and everyone else an enormous favor. indeed, my perspective would be as blasphemous to the orthodox as to the atheist scientific materialist. god is not a person or being as we think of them. better to think of god as a verb, an infinite self transforming and self aware process from which you are inseparable. the person who was waiting on me has given up and left (!) so i have the additional time to assert: the most astonishing transformations of our understanding of reality have yet to occur for each of us. in the meantime we could do no better than to unconditionally accept each other as valid by giving our unconditional love and forgiveness. if you think that's impossible, this is one of the few occasions on which i would say "you are wrong." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Life is beautiful and there are so many beautiful women. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are unaware of the hell the christian extremists in this place made my life all throughout high school. if i even scratched the surface of the shit that they've done, you'd realize i have every right in the world to dislike them. however, being the peaceful pothead i have now become, i really only care about matters that affect me in this here computer chair. which is essentially nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe it isn't too late to learn how to love and forget how to hate |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you also have the right to smash a finger with a hammer. i do understand your feelings, but your resentment is a burden that you've accepted. those so-called christian people acted out of ignorance. who among us has not acted out of ignorance? they are as deserving of your forgiveness as much as anyone. if i falsely claim to represent the police, and abuse you, would you let that abuse reflect on the police? peace is not passive, it is active, and peace is not weak, it is of the greatest power. i don't expect anyone to believe as i believe, or adopt any model i put forth. i don't represent any group or organization. my only intent is to serve to the best of my ability. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jezus christ, read some nietzsche .. sorry ithuoght it was funny |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i have. certainly you're aware that nietzsche was at a relatively young age committed to an insane asylum. do you let nietzsche do your thinking for you? anyway, i'm addressing what kochlear said, not the "petition." can't be funny all the time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
For me personally I think that faith is something that should be tested just as much as any scientific theory. If there were a true religion, which I believe to be so, than their would in fact be a higher science governing the specifics of how these transcendent features of reality operated. Spiritual things would have laws, relating to how spiritual matters related to one another, how they related to the physical world, etc. In fact it would be the same science. For Example: A cat uses principals found in science to catch it's prey. It uses geometry, gravity, etc. to assess how close it's prey is and how far it needs to jump to effectively pounce on it. Now it doesn't understand why this works, and it can't reason anything about it but it does it all the same. It may well be the same thing with humans and morals. We do something that we believe is wrong, and we feel guilty about it. We don't know why, we don't have any scientific proof that morals are anything more than a manmade concept, but we feel it all the same. Perhaps there are laws governing things like that, and we are like the cat. Bound to a science that we do not understand. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My whole point there I guess is that if one chooses not to believe in a God, be it the Christian God or Shiva, fine. But the whole science vs. religion thing isn't really a great argument, is it? In fact it is a little arogant of humans to think they have disproven God by way of believing in science. If the majority of creatures on earth are bound by principals that they do not understand, but we do, it would logically follow that it could continue working this way right on up the pike. One cannot rule out the possibility either that there are principals that exist whether or not we have the ability to test them, the same as a cat does not have the faculties to test the principals it is bound to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hi Glasse... For me personally I think that faith is something that should be tested just as much as any scientific theory. Are you saying that "faith" is a scientific theory? What does it describe, what does it predict, and how can it be tested? We do something that we believe is wrong, and we feel guilty about it. We don't know why, we don't have any scientific proof that morals are anything more than a manmade concept, but we feel it all the same. Unlike the cat we can think about morality. We don't have to "feel" our way through the issues. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed wholeheartedly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
with glasse, that is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and i suppose fleet does have a point, thoguh im not entirely sure what hes getting at. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is religion too... *shimmer dissolves to another universe* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Christian dudes, I don't want to start a flamewar, but Glasse is presenting another . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is also an argument from ignorance... see, the key is to make spirituality and rationality get drunk and have sex with eachother... that's your universe right there... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you are saying that raw unfiltered expoerience is primary then I agree. However there remains the possibility that isn't what you're saying... :: regards deadeight with suspicion ::: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually fleet, you are WAY off target on what glasse is talking about. hes not saying "since you cant prove ghosts dont exist, it means they must" those are words YOU are putting iin his mouth. i think if you re-read what he said, youll see hes actually saying you SHOULD test things and try to find answers, not to just assume something cuz you feel it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you agree that their are different scientific theories in the books at any given time about any given subject, many of which completely contradict each other? For example the origin of the universe, their is the big bang theory, which has several different models, then their is the steady state theory, theories relating to a multi universe (the idea of which would be that our universe could have sprung from a parralel universe on a seperate plane, which may have different laws than ours .. which sounds more like religion that science to me, however you can find in scientific journals.) Anyway, each theory has it's own model, which scientists use to make predictions and test it's accuracy. Let's just say that religion is similar to that. Each different religion presents it theories, the persons, places and things surrounding these theories, and how it relates to us, where we came from and where we are going. Logically, one of them could be right, they all could be wrong, but they cannot all be right. So one could test their claims to determine each ones accuracy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plus many scientific claims are tested on belief in an idea they cannot yet prove. onyl years later are they proven correct, or disproven. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like using ellipsis as much as possible so that people can fill in my thoughts whatever intelligent way they want to like you just did... as for whether that's what i'm saying... well i think i'd need you to elaborate on that a little... but what i know i am doing is equating rationality and spirituality as polar opposites that coexist... i'm no christian but i'm no scientist either... i'm not about to ignore the failure of rationality to explain circles, infinity, or art... nor am i about to ignore some of the glaring truisms of science that fly in opposition to traditional christian dogma... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course as a christian I believe that spiritual matters cannot be objectively tested, which is why one cannot prove God. But anyone who is familiar enough with grace, election, spiritual blindness and other ideas relating to christian doctrine knows what I am talking about .. basically that everyone has a huge bias on all sides of the topic .. however I don't want to limit this discussion to christianity I want to keep it open, and in keeping it open we should say that perhaps one can prove or disprove God objectively, or maybe they cannot. This would be something that would need to be tested the same as the rest. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey your old avatar rocked :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Gentlemen, that is how science works - through observation, testing, conflict, argument in peer reviewed journals, more testing, sweating, twisting guts, overturning or modifying past hypotheses and theories, and so on. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and scientific principles and the technologies based on those principles are testable and usable by all, whether Christian, atheist, Hindu, Muslim or Jew. Let's just say that religion is similar to that. Each different religion presents it theories Um, no. Religion has no theories, if you are using the . Science has revelation, dogma, faith and assertion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do completely agree with you. Another thing that needs to be tested is whether or not a religious dogma really teaches the core fundamentals of that religion, whether it originates from scriptures such as the bible, the koran, the vedas, or whether it is the founders teaching, etc. For example the church at one time believed the Earth to be flat. They got the idea from a scripture where Jesus says that at the end of time He would call His angels from the four corners of the Earth. Well right there it is, the Earth has four corners. Of course science has proven that the Earth is round. I think today, though, most people reading that passage would immediately understand that figurative language was being used. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or if yr trying to disprove christianity, youll pull it out and say "see, its full of crap" but if a poet writes that way, its understandable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
