Who'S Religious In Here ?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:15pm |
 Coolness: 57110 | I'll drink water.. in commemoration of all the keen insights and opinions...
I won't speak for anyone else... but generlly the serious topic/posts I write about is well researched stuff... Which I have studied on my own time.. for myself.. to find myself...to answer questions.. I'm not trying to say: how dare you call what I said an opinion. No! I'm just letting you know about me. :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:17pm |
 Coolness: 94010 | unhun...
Ufot-not falling off your chair... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:20pm |
| Coolness: 57110 | hmm... pondered your comment above... I am not sure I understnad what it means.
Please, do tell.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:22pm |
| Coolness: 94010 | well, put on your sarcastic glasses and take another look at what I wrote... perhaps then you'll unlock the ferver with which I abated this ridiculous thread...
Ufot-dictionaries? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:25pm |
| Coolness: 57110 | you have an amazing vocabulary or way with words. Maybe to say that is a little presumptuous.
..not falling off my chair... becasue of drinking water? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 5:51pm |
| Coolness: 94010 | it's ok u can presume anything u want since we've never met, and might never meet at all, and I probably don't even exist...
Ufot-existence./../,,,,,/.... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 6:49pm |
 Coolness: 340575 | Here's a better question than "Who's religious in here?":
"Who think's being religious has any sort of benefit?" Really though, is there a benefit to believing there is some higher power out there? Spending an hour a week sitting on a hard bench listening to some guy with his head in the clouds preaching something he can't even prove..? Other than giving meaning to someone who has no meaning in life, i see no reason to waste time on it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 7:07pm |
| Coolness: 94010 | actually, though Im not religious myself, I believe that it does benefit people, in fact I believe it benefits millions of people arround the world... one should never under estimate the true power of faith... religion brings people together, it gives them values and sometimes even helps with their goals, it's also there in hard times, when people feel overwhelmed by their life problems... oh ya, and it also pre-dates science as a "benefit"...
Ps-u know Neo, u may very well one day urself regret ur own lack of spirituality in this life... .... or maybe not.... Uf0t-seeing urself in limbo |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 8:07pm |
| Coolness: 340575 | if by bringing people together you mean division by grouping, then yes. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» IMDeadAlready replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 8:09pm |
 Coolness: 46535 | [ www.godhatesfags.com ]
Can't argue with them because they're so incredibly biased but then again there are versus in the bible that defend what they're doing. The bible is too ambiguous. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 10:55pm |
 Coolness: 43660 | Religious organizations are pointless, money sucking, brain washing, naive thinking.
Religion is dead. Personal religion, spirituality, is the way to go. You don't have to believe in God, or in trees or have rules. You set your own vision of life. And the more science you know, the more you know about life. So your spirituality grows from your knowledge. Science made people realise that are ancestors are most likely not Adam and Eve, for example. Science destroys illusions and replaces them with whatever fits you. As long as you respect others visions, you can believe in whatever you want. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» darthpapara replied on Thu Feb 10, 2005 @ 11:55pm |
 Coolness: 37250 | i don't think there's a logical argument that can sufficiently prove the existence of god.
God's existence cannot be proven unless He one day shows Himself to all us as being Him. Science cannot prove His Existence because science relies on measurements, theorems that can be tested in a laboratory. For example, one can say that the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom is 1.6735 x 10exp-24 grams, we can also safely state that light travels at a speed of is 299 792 458 meters per second. These things have been proven because there was a way for them to be MEASURED. The reason for this is that atoms and photons ( particle of light ) exist in the PHYSICAL. All sciences are a study of the physical universe. God is Metaphysical meaning that He exists OUT OF time and space. Therefore, God cannot be proven to exist by means of science. You can't measure God. This is where faith comes in. Faith becomes the proof of His Existence. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 12:00am |
| Coolness: 340575 | really?
faith can prove his existance? do tell me more. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 12:12am |
 Coolness: 146110 | here it is for fred and neoform, the three best counter arguments to science, they mostly apply to methodology, but i think we can apply them to the broader context of this discussion.
taken from 'Invitation to Philosophy' edited by Honer/Hunt/Okholm published by wadsworth press 1991 1)The scientific method arbitrarily limits what we can know to thosw things that can be studied by the tools and techniques of science. If a chemist employs the postulate and techniques of her special discipline, she can learn only about those things that can be framed in chemical terms. To claim that science is the only way of knowing would be to maintain that the world is only as large and and as significant as this one method by which it is known 2) The sciences permit many interpretation to be made about a thing or an event. Each interpretation may be true as far as it goes. Various hypotheses may be proposed that have equal validity in explaining a given set of facts even though each hypothesis may use a different language or a different system of classification. The unity and consistency of scientific knowledge are not as obvious as many people think they are. (my favorite) 3)Science describes the mechanisms of nature 'how' things are causally related, but it never tells us 'what' things are, much less 'why' they are the way they are. Scientific verification is basically pragmatic, it is indeed usful to know 'if X, then Y,' but wea also want to know what reality 'is' and 'means' the 'reason' for things. on these points science remains silent. **** "I'm slightly confused here, are you saying that beliefs have something to do with morality or 'right/wrong' ? Last i checked i can have the same morals as someone who's a devout bible thumper.." what i meant was that your not going to be able to prove to me through science (ie scientific methods) that 'to lie is wrong' or 'charity is good', what kind of experiment would you do to prove that Don't you see the truth (or falsehood) of moral/political statements are beyond the reach of science. They are neither analytic (eg, all triagles have three sides) to be judged on the basis of relational definition, nor are they synthetic (it's raining outside) to be judged empirically on the basis of sense data. Being neither one of these types of statement they cannot be judged by either criteria, which makes them by some accounts stricly meaningless as statements. you guys really need to step out of you white western male syndrome and realize there is more to religion than christianity, religion does not equal christianity, although christianity is a religion it's not the only one guys you guys are too traped up in western mentalities of thinking that faith and reason can't be in harmony, how ridiculous, in the east people realized long ago that theses two things faith and reason, need not be in conflict. you guys have been raised on a religion which is about suffering and forgivness and guilt etc so you can't even imagine religion/spirituality thats based on something else like peace or balance. perhaps Bertrand Russell says it best 'philosophy is the no mans land between religion and science, exposed on both sides to attack." you guys need to ask yourself 'is it about winning arguments with people, or is it about really trying to know and understand the truth of things" let's be honest here, neither one of you is, or is anywhere near being a card carrying scientist, so what do you guys care in the end, how much do you guys really know about science, have either of you ever even read a book on the scientific revolution or taken a university level science class. i don't want to sound like i'm telling you how to think, but you got to remember there are people out their who spend years and years of their life studying this stuff, it's not cool for you guys to just come along and be like ' i know as much as them even if i have't done all the work they have. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 9:46am |
| Coolness: 43660 | 'is it about winning arguments with people, or is it about really trying to know and understand the truth of things"
It's a mix of both. You learn from arguing with people, arguments is one way to discover what you know and mostly what you don't. Some use it for intellectual superiority, even scientists... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 10:01am |
| Coolness: 340575 | You can very much explain morals, good/bad, right/wrong with science, i dunno why you'd think otherwise..
Don't kill: Why? Because we as a society would go to shit if we killed everyone. Don't Steal: Why? Because taking other people's things would lead to killing (very simplistic view, but you get the idea). Don't Rape.. don't lie.. every moral rule you've got in your head can be logically reasoned.. and if it can't, well you'd better start thinking about why you're living by that rule. Science, the "observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" absolutely applies to how we as humans come to our own, or group conclusions as to what is right and wrong. Anybody who simply says "that's wrong.. just because" IS WRONG, sorry to say it, but without a reason for believing something.. you have no reason to be believing it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» thehemeraproject replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 1:37pm |
| Coolness: 43660 | Could science explain that killing, stealing and raping is still common in the world then ? It is one to thing to know, it is another thing to actually live by it. This is where the Western civilization has failed in it's evolution. We say stealing is wrong, yet some might argue that we're stealing ressources from other countries every miute. The definition of "stealing" is relative.
As in lying and killing, they are still common things in the Western world. Yet we know that it is wrong. Science can tell us what is right or wrong, but what's the point if we cannot apply it ? Is pollution wrong ? According to science, yes. According to economists, it's not that of a big deal. Science is made of scientists, and scientists contradicts themselves. Do you read the National Post ? I've read tons of articles about the global warming, about how "false" it is, and that global warming is natural and has totally nothing to do with humans behavior. Yet, the actualy consensus is that global warming was caused, completely or partly, by human activity. It is a major contradiction, on a major issue. Science is also ruled by money, and what is true or not is sometimes hard to tell. Psychoanalysis prove that there's a difference between speculations (because science is full of speculations and theories) and reality. You might discover how our brain and subcounscious works, but it might not be usefull. Maybe we shouldn't learn about that stuff, maybe we should avoid going in that direction. Science and progress are responsible for pollution, acid rains... And what about those nuclear bombs ? Science is one thing. How humans use it is a different story. Don't kill, but build huge bombs in case others wants to kill. And then they do the same. Basicaly, science and knowledge could save us and could destroy us. And what is right or wrong remains relative of the context. Killing is wrong, killing someone who's going to kill is right ? Is death penalty wrong ? Only sciences like sociology or psychology could answer such question, and those sciences are mostly speculations and are enterely relative depending on the point of view. You cannot build a society determined by science. It never happened, and most probably never will. People know what is right and wrong, there is no need for science to know that, but somehow they often do the contrary. The problem is not science, or religion, the problem is how weak and retarted we are compared to the great evolution step we took in science and knowledge. Our knowledge as a specie grew bigger and bigger, while our brain remained the same. Common sense (like don't kill and don't hate) and emotions don't fit well together, and that is why we baffle simple rule like "do not steal" every day. Our lives got insanely complex for no reason, and what is right or wrong got messed up. Another good example : Hitler had a scientific explanation for the jewish people...eugénisme (forgot the english word), which is basically a way to "improve" the humans genes. It made perfect sense from a rational, scientific point of view (if you see it Hitler's way). Obviously it didn't worked. But I do not see |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Fri Feb 11, 2005 @ 2:34pm |
 Coolness: 69885 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
You can very much explain morals, good/bad, right/wrong with science, i dunno why you'd think otherwise.. Don't kill: Why? [...] Don't Steal: Why? [...] Don't Rape.. don't lie..[...] Science, the "observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" absolutely applies to how we as humans come to our own, or group conclusions as to what is right and wrong. I didn't see one use of science to prove those things right or wrong, or moral or immoral. There is no scientific evidence to show that killing is wrong. I would actually say there is more scientific evidence saying that killing is right. Overpopulation for one. For all those science "nuts" out there that believe in Survival of the Fittest, why doesn't that apply to humans? Science says it should. Why do we try to save that kid that was born with no arms or legs? We shouldn't! You don't bring many good points to the table there Ian. You're just saying that religion is wrong.. just because
Don't confuse logic and science. Logic applies very much to science, but just as every square is a rectangle, not every rectangle is a square. Science doesn't apply well to logic. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cinderella_soul replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 10:07am |
| Coolness: 57110 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
You can very much explain morals, good/bad, right/wrong with science, i dunno why you'd think otherwise..
Don't kill: Why? [...] Don't Steal: Why? [...] Don't Rape.. don't lie..[...] . Your reasoning above is, I think, philosophical reasoning. The natural sciences (physics, chemistry,) are generally purely physical sciences and do not generally touch on morailty. Neoform, your reasoning reminds me of Immanuel Kant ( well-reputed philosopher): philisophical. I |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Feb 12, 2005 @ 10:21am |
| Coolness: 340575 | Who knows why Jew's can't eat pork..? |
Who'S Religious In Here ?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
