|
On February 19 2009 14:25 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not? No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things.
so what skews your certainty then?
|
On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me
so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith.
|
On February 19 2009 14:25 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet. Also, science conflicts alot not just with pre-big bang, but also with many religious denominations' interpretations of how life exists, why the Earth is where it is, evolution, etc. Science has evidence for all of these, religion only has faith. (Plus, Christian schools used to teach that the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars were all on a sphere of crystalline perfection rotating around us. Churches had many of Galileo's followers 'disappear' just for challenging this model) The real difference between science and religion is that science does not conjure theories from anything other than evidence. The problem with this is that you're lumping all Christians together. Just because a certain group used to teach that doesn't mean we're all incorrect in our beliefs.
Sorry for that parenthetical section, actually, it was pretty irrelevant and didn't bring anything to the table.
|
On February 19 2009 14:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:25 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not? No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things. so what skews your certainty then?
In what?
|
On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
|
On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith.
does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no)
so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well.
|
On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever. Show nested quote +
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point? Show nested quote +
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
|
On February 19 2009 14:31 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:29 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:25 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not? No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things. so what skews your certainty then? In what?
I took your posts to mean that you see more evidence for a self-made "purely coincidental" universe than one with a creator/god/greater scheme. Was I incorrect?
|
On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well.
yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory"
no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable.
|
On February 19 2009 14:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me. Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
|
On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable.
As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part).
But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing.
How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning?
|
On February 19 2009 14:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me. Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.' I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i'm not saying we understand existence THAT much more, but every refinement of a theory through an experiment or observation is a definite step closer. newton's laws were not built in a night, they were built in maybe 200 years, starting with copernicus's publications. if everybody had disregarded copernicus's first cracks at the truth, we still might think today that objects like to fall towards the ground because it's the center of the universe, then go to rest.
also, i never mentioned any postulates. but on that note, all of special relativity is based on two postulates, all of general relativity is based on one.
|
On February 19 2009 14:42 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:31 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:29 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:25 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not? No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things. so what skews your certainty then? In what? I took your posts to mean that you see more evidence for a self-made "purely coincidental" universe than one with a creator/god/greater scheme. Was I incorrect?
Denigrating any possible natural explanations as "purely coincidental"? Get that Ken Ham shit out of here.
I see no evidence for a god and natural explanations have a pretty good track record when compared to their supernatural counterparts. So, yeah, were such a wager possible, I would bet that there is a natural explanation. Am I 100% dogmatically certain? no, I suppose certain types of deities are possible, but again there is no evidence to support the existence of one.
|
On February 19 2009 14:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me. Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.' I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
|
On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable.
I absolutely agree.
Religion does not work like science. We definitely agree on this.
Religion is not about objectivity. Religion is about you, subjectively, and the experiences that you have during your life. This tends to be a problem for scientific minds.
Personally, though, I would take my subjective conclusions over objective analysis any day. This is my life. I experience my life. What happens to me is all that I know.
|
On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning?
The Bible is deep in guidelines, but "meaning" is subjective. Multiple consistent buddhist texts claim to be just as deep, what makes them less right than the Bible?
|
On February 19 2009 14:53 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:42 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:31 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:29 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:25 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not? No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things. so what skews your certainty then? In what? I took your posts to mean that you see more evidence for a self-made "purely coincidental" universe than one with a creator/god/greater scheme. Was I incorrect? Denigrating any possible natural explanations as "purely coincidental"? Get that Ken Ham shit out of here.
how could it not be purely coincidental?
I see no evidence for a god and natural explanations have a pretty good track record when compared to their supernatural counterparts.
supernatural counterparts? that's beside the topic. I don't care about superstition, anyone can just make stuff up.
belief in afterlife and belief that a creator set things in motion is not at all the same as disbelief in any scientific theory.
|
On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 00:02 IdrA wrote:On February 18 2009 21:09 IdrA wrote:
non-christians asked their deity and got just as clear an answer
whats up with that?
that is a valid, honest question as well. all deeply religious people of all denominations share your faith, what makes you right? and you cant rely on 'knowing your god' because everyone else can claim the same thing. Hi Idra, What makes my faith right more right than other religions is your question, correct? Let me begin by saying that the conflict that most people have in their minds is the admirable quality of tolerance for different viewpoints, particularly religious ones, and the position that all views have equal validity. We can be tolerant by respecting the rights of others to hold alternative viewpoints without degenerating into verbal harassment (see above posts), yet still be firmly committed to believing that one point is true. irrelevant, i asked why yours is correct. whether you tolerate others or not has no bearing on that.
Next, simply put, - my God claims to be God. Now you (the audience in general) might be sitting there thinking, that's a retarded, self-validating statement. But, when you look into the other faiths of the world, you come to find that Jesus is the only one who made such claims. Now if Jesus claims to be God, then there must be things about his life that back that up, otherwise, he's just a liar, or a crazy guy. Aside from the many miracles that he performed (eg. healing the blind/deaf/mute/terminally ill/raising the dead), the greatest testament to his divinity, is in his resurrection. Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim + Show Spoiler +(Just in case anyone decides to make a comment about suicide bombers, just... lol, two very different things.), when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.
proof he performed miracles or rose from the dead? the bible is not proof.
without anything supernatural its far more likely hes a liar or crazy than god. it is not that different from the suicide bombers, people have martyred themselves over less than 70 virgins. it is quite possible he genuinly believed his message and wanted to promote it in the best way possible. claiming to be the son of god and allowing yourself to be killed is a pretty good draw, certainly seemed to work well. does not mean he was god, or even that he believed in god, to allow himself to die for a cause.
he could also actually believe he was god, without being god. you dont have to be batshit insane to believe something thats not true. you can be an otherwise fully functional, rational human being while holding an incorrect belief. in fact genuine belief that he was the son of god would encourage him to rational and loving behavior.
now both of these explain the existing evidence without having to postulate a divine entity. why is your solution better?
Idra, I hope that has answered your question, feel free to disagree with it, let me know what you think. I have a couple of questions for you myself, pardon me if you've answered them in previous posts that I have not read, please repost it if you have.
You said in previous posts that you are an agnostic, but for all intents and purpose, an atheist.
I will address you as coming from the atheist perspective if that's ok then?
I would like to know what your take is on this classic teleological argument for a creator?
-Complexity implies a designer.
-The universe is highly complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
tuna responded to this in depth so i dont really need to, but what about complexity necessitates a designer? evolution via natural selection is the obvious counterpoint. creation aside, evolution cant really be argued with. we can directly observe evolution, in real time, as with the development of drug resistant bacteria. even just observing the process of reproduction from a genetic standpoint, we can see the processes that lead to evolution. extrapolated over time this shows that more complex organisms arose from less complex ones through purely natural processes, not guided by any conciousness.
but as i said, read tuna's posts for a direct address to the 'design of the universe' argument
|
On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:
As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part).
But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing.
You needn't read the whole thing, just read the first two chapters.
:|
|
On February 19 2009 14:55 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. I absolutely agree. Religion does not work like science. We definitely agree on this. Religion is not about objectivity. Religion is about you, subjectively, and the experiences that you have during your life. This tends to be a problem for scientific minds. Personally, though, I would take my subjective conclusions over objective analysis any day. This is my life. I experience my life. What happens to me is all that I know.
I aim to make these "objective analy[ses]" myself, so in a way, I aim to experience life as well. Following the guidelines of science really isn't that binding. Plus, if I do happen to have a spiritual experience, I won't disregard it, because you're right, faith is different. I just haven't.
THOUGH. I have had 3 dreams in succession, completely consistent with each other, all about the same thing, but different experiences. I am being completely serious when I say this, this happened in 7th grade over three consecutive nights. I was in an amusement park called Pickle World, which consisted of a large castle behind a renaissance fair style market place, with a train going around the whole thing. The castle had suction tubes for transportation, and it was really cool. I stole pickle credits from the market place and was chased by the pickle police through these consecutive dreams, until I escaped into the castle. However, once I had reached the castle, I woke up, and stopped having these dreams, much to my dismay.
<less serious part>I don't really know what this means, but hopefully it's a glimpse into the spirituality of my future. Science hardly provides meaning to a life, so hopefully Pickle World will. </less serious part>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
