 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)DADONCK ...and 100 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618559 Today 0 Topics 127844 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"science often portrays its theories with as much dogmatism as religion." that's your interpretation. science is about getting the facts. the media and politics and corporate interests are responsible for the tilting of facts. furthermore, sometimes science does prove how things work. for instance, we know why airplanes fly and we know why electricity will light a lightbulb. these are concrete truths. religion, on the other hand, is dependent on sometimes ignoring what you may have learned in life and just plain believing in something. to say that science and religion are similar - that's like saying humans and ice cream are similar because they both exist on earth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know, and I doubt I ever will. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you do not know what a real answer is, how can you justify the statement "none have real answers"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is about getting the facts ..and religion isn't? we don't positively know why airplanes fly.. basically, what I'm saying is that there might as well be some godly force holding the planes up while disguising himself as wind or while what he's doing only can be observed as pressure differences, and that one never should rule out the possibilities... that would just be stupid. religion doesn't depend on ignoring what you've learned in life, it's just another way of seeing things... they are similiar in the way that they both seek answers, they both have answers, and they're both as believeable as each other... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it doesn't take much to see that neither religion nor science have any real answers.. I'm not excluding real answers as a possibility, but neither of those two have them yet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
basically, what I'm saying is that there might as well be some godly force holding the planes up while disguising himself as wind Your troll is showing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You keep using the phrase "real answers" after admitting that you don't know what it means. Botany is bad because it doesn't have answers with zharvll. I don't know what zharvll means but it sure is important. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think I've actually deciphered what the initial post is trying to ask. However, it's not worth answering. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is it about cake? We like cake. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"..and religion isn't?" right, religion is not about getting the facts. it's about believing in a system of ideas. as for your theory about god personally controlling everything that science explains... that's a bizarre stretch of thinking and incredibly convenient for you. which brings me to this point: "and they're both as believeable as each other..." totally disagree. the things you're talking about - the supernatural, the devine... these are things that require extraordinary amounts of proof and there has been no objective proof. science has proven why things happen to an extent and religion has simply made assertions without any trace of rationality. i can invent any fantastical story right now and make it into a religion and people may believe me. that doesn't make a word of it true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God/religion is just metaphors for stuff that humans don't understand.. "lighting = angry god", etc.. Sometimes I wish paradise/hell stuff are true, so that I could commit suicide and then continue living somewhere else ...but in reality it's probably ; being dead = like when you sleep and can't remember dreaming, or time passing ..no time, nothing.. dead... and it does'nt really matter however life was "created" ..it's more depressing to imaging a "God" created life, 'cause then God is a stupid evil bastard responsible for (created) all the bad things in life.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know what the phrase means, I just don't know what the real answers are yet. "real answers" are answers that will hold true 100% of the time, and nothing I've encountered yet does. I'm not saying science hasn't done much good, and I'm not discmissing religion as not having done much good either, though... I'm just saying that the one isn't better than the other. Neither has more or more correct answers, and neither is something I'd bet my life on. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry but those are not concrete truths. Electricity and aerodynamics are descriptive models that fit our observations. There's always a chance, however small, that some future evidence will provide a better picture. That's how we got from Newtonian physics to General Relativity. Science deserves our confidence by not certianty. As for your previous point, yes, it seems obvious that nature is no subsitute for intelligence when trying to explain how certian objects come into existance. I just think it's hypocritical to ignore this when the object is ourselves. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And religion is a descriptive model that doesn't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I used to think a lot about "truth" and all that "meaning" junk; what is "reality?" Is reality outside us, if not then we are all that exists and anything we hold as truth is truth. Kind of childish in a way, if you think about, which I will not. I've forgotten what I was addressing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and by "I used to think" I mean I still do and am currently, thanks a lot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is about facts, religion is about facts. They are about different facts about the same things. Why shouldn't god be behind all laws of physics, and why shouldn't nature be subject to the laws of physics? Tycho Brae, Gallileo Galilei, Pascal, Descartes - they were all outstanding scientists and devoted christians. They sought to prove the existance of god by discovering the sense in nature (the laws of physics). These laws are logical enough to have been "created" instead of having randomly appeared, but neither can be proved, nor disproved, and they're both as believeable. Science has no objective proof... it's just as easy to distrust it as it is to distrust religion. How can you claim that religion has just made assertions without a trace of rationality? It's pretty damned rational to believe that something has created this set of "laws" we all are subject to, imo... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
descriptive models? it's not magic - we understand why these things happen and what they're made of and we can get technology to do what we want. i'm not interested in a discussion on semantics. to the extent anyone can know anything, we do know some things with certainty. random objects do not appear in the air. our descriptions are good enough in terms of thinking about some things. it seems obvious that nature is no subsitute for intelligence when trying to explain how certian objects come into existance. I just think it's hypocritical to ignore this when the object is ourselves. i really don't understand what this means. what is nature versus intelligence? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there's that easy way out again.. just dismissing things you can't understand as fiction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as someone have said today here : we're all gonna die anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"real answers" are answers that will hold true 100% of the time, and nothing I've encountered yet does. Maybe "drunken mastah needs to learn to live with undertainty" is a real answer. And maybe "some answers are oodles more certain than others" is also a real answer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You'll have to be a bit more specific. There are millions of religons making diffrent claims about reality. Are you saying none of them come close? As if science and any religon by definition must disagree? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
religion doesn't fit your observations, but it does fit.. how many religious people are there on this planet? more than 70% at least... it fits their observations. Now, don't give me that "10100100010002 flies eat shit!" thingie, and there's no way you can claim that all religious people are stupid.. that would make the scientists who discovered 90% of the scientific dogmas that have been held for truth the longest into idiots and thus removing any reason to trust them... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
those scientists don't know everything. nobody knows everything. humans are wrong about all sorts of things. you know as well as i do that being an expert in one thing doesn't make you an expert in another. your first point is illogical. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There are millions of religons making diffrent claims about reality. Perhaps if religions were keener on testing their descriptive models they'd find more common ground. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you saying that religion has better descriptive models of electricity and aerodynamics than science does? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I live with uncertainty.. I'm not saying I believe in religion, and I'm not saying I believe in science. they're both equally full of it, and they both have some good answers. Uncertainty is all I've got, and I'll use my conscience (used in the Pierre Bayle-ish way) to tell me what I believe, and while I accept that other people do the same, I really enjoy discussions such as these as long as they don't turn to flaming or "shit-throwing"... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, not better... again: I wouldn't bet my life on either of them... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you think seeing different systems of thought as "full of it" and therefore perfectly interchangeable is a good way to evaluate them? Can you think of a better way to evaluate them? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you do bet your life on them, though. don't you rely on doctors to take care of you? do these doctors study medicine and sciences or do they study the bible professionally? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, not better... again: I wouldn't bet my life on either of them... So if you had a bad case of necrotizing fasciitis, you wouldn't pray or take antibiotics? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, they don't know everything, but they could have been right.. seeing as they are a bit of both worlds, it seems to me they have a higher probability of being right, though... they describe what they observe and attribute the why to god. I'm not saying I do this (at least not all the time), but they have a higher chance of being right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i hate people who use the term "fate". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If the history of this planet were condensed into a book the size of the bible, us humans would appear half way down the last page. We are not important. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd do both. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fate only exists in hindsight. (Imo) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's what most people would do. And when the antibiotics worked they'd thank God for answering their prayers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that was a bit over the top, yes, but they're not 100% "full of it," rahter.. they have some good and some bad, and I'll take the good of both according to my conscience. just to clarify: I'd bet my life on both rather than either. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i believe the concept of god binds man to eternal existence with such facets as the soul and afterlife. i'm personally a very emperical person, without the facts, there is no belief for me. faith is not strong enough to guide me. god has only been a concept since man reached the evolutional turning point of sentience. when one knows the fear of death, man is going to strive for the connection to another form of immortality and hold a higher concept responsible for the things that lay outside of his control. alot of times it seems as if it's man (collectively, not individually) who thinks he cannot die. we physically die, but i believe that mankind feels it must progenate this earth forever and spread it's culture. i think to believe in god is relieving yourself of the responsibility and control of life. there's a difference in living the way you want, which is effectively taking the course of human nature, or you can believe in god when the fear takes over. maybe since birth mankind has known of it's own fragility and has been looking for a solution since. god is a perfect concept; omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful. three things which man desires. god is bourn out of the minds of the primitive people we once were, when there was life, but no culture. that was when life was about how strong you were and how much you knew. unify all the simple-minded sunworshipping (just an example) heathens under a god and you have allegiance. let the heathens do as they may and they'll probably kill each other having no guide but instincts. i'll give pretty much all early religions credit for very much organizing and civilizing mankind, but beyond that, religion is a dead system of organization that was set in motion long ago to try tame our instintual life. in the Jungian sense, god is an archetype i.e. "primordial, structural elements of the human psyche". time is the master clock to which everything in this universe obeys. time is the only god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's bad about science? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd thank both.. who's to say he didn't? I haven't been out of this thread for ages. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the same as with religion: wrong answers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"they have some good and some bad, and I'll take the good of both according to my conscience. " that's another rather convenient way of seeing things. to insist that you can choose the reality of the universe based on concience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the same as with religion: wrong answers. Science: bats are mammals Religion: bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19) Science: the earth is round. Religion: the earth is flat and has four corners (Isaiah 11:12) Science: epilepsy is a neurological disorder Religion: epilepsy is caused by devils (Luke 9:39) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd thank both.. who's to say he didn't? Then logically antibiotics wouldn't work as effectively on atheists, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i read only the last two sentences, but that's interesting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
religion exists as the opposite of science. you have to have a yin and a yang, but science is the only thing based off of actual proofs. meaning more or less, it's real. crazy isn't? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think i tried to write too much with too little space and time. exaph: that's something i think about alot. man may seem to be the smartest with the culture he's built, but just because we've left our mark does not mean we're destined to stand by it. man is the first to have language. language forms culture, culture then lends itself to history. history is meant to be preserved. we're really the only living things to be here and have researched our past and looks to our future and because we understand the concept of mortality, we seem to think we belong here for longer or for better reasons because we think our accomplishments stand above anything else. man has lent himself to busy work for his evolution. hunter gather society is a perfect balance. we have far too many advancments and technologies, which indicate we've wandered much to far from a simple life. we will always be bound to our own cultures and societies. we've made attachments to the unimportant. we don't want to let go of anything, but it's inevitable that eventually, mankind has to die and forfeit all things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
All I'm saying is scientific models are approximations. I don't know why you are finding fault with this. As for the nature vs intelligence, please see the first post in this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
