| Forum Index > Closed |
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On October 28 2014 05:03 manniefresh wrote: It's so interesting how much people hate Christianity in all domains of life, even TL forum discussions... Lol. Religious debates are frowned upon because they generally lead to several sides flaming each other nonstop, not because TL is anti-Christian | ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On October 28 2014 04:34 SoSexy wrote: Squat, just a little off topic: + Show Spoiler + The video I posted is not a 'propaganda' (as you would say) video of WLC, but a debate with Sean Carroll, a very prominent atheist astrophysicist. In those 2 hours they discuss basically the same topic of this thread, so it might add some insights to people. Also, I don't know why you call him dishonest or such. Even Krauss, after their debates in Australia, recognised he's an honest man (I can Pm you the link to that). I wanted to add something about philosophy/science. I think that the line that connects philosophy to the beginning of science lies in the modern age, not in the greek world. Soon after Ockham started to dismantle the medieval construction of Theology as 'scientia naturalis', the first 'scientists' started to study the natural world without refering to the Scriptures. Galileo, for example, was never considered a scientist but a 'natural philosopher'. It is after this period that the distinction became clearer and it led to the well-known figure of the scientist. I never said anything about propaganda. I never even used the word. My objection concerned the use of WLC as some kind of credible source. As for Newton, he is pretty much the best example I can think of, perhaps alongside Francis Collins of just how compartmentalized the human mind really is. He more or less invented calculus and the field of optics, and he also believed in alchemy. The more intelligent and erudite the mind, the better it can rationalize the preposterous. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ZerG~LegenD
Sweden1179 Posts
| ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
| ||
|
Jukei
France114 Posts
For anyone like me we no real high-end sciencific knowledge, listen to that lecture from Lawrence Krauss " A universe from nothing" : it doesn't explain everything in detail, but it's quite easy to understand, and that guy has defended the fact that "nothing" really is "something" cause of quantum fluctuations for a long time. I guess he will comment on that discovery soon. As an aside, theologic discussions have nothing to do in here cause whatever's discovered and discussed in physics has no correlation whatsoever with the existence (or not) of God. Physics just doesn't need God, and physicists shouldn't include God in their equations, cause everytime they've done that, they were wrong (Einstein with his cosmologic constant to have a nice non expanding universe; Newton when he couldn't mathematically explain the erratic movements of the planets on their orbits, ...) | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10152 Posts
On October 28 2014 04:41 Teoita wrote: Oh yeah the dude was...special. I heard some people blame it on him experimenting a lot with chemistry stuff and breathing mercury fumes and stuff. He was an alchemist. Mercury intoxication (bread and butter for alchemy) would explain many of his letters and writings, specially borderline paranaioa. Sorry for the little de-rail. The article is interesting, by they say it is not rigorously proven anyways. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On October 28 2014 02:16 Squat wrote: That's not quite true. It is the position of being unconvinced by claims that have not met their burden of proof, not rejecting them as false. It is a position completely devoid of content, and the word itself is more or less worthless as I see it. We don't define ourselves by what we stand in opposition to or simply choose not to give any serious consideration. that's the position i'm challenging. first of all that it's meaningful to speak of a "burden of proof," second that it's possible to "be an atheist" as a neutral position. It's certainly ludicrous to say that religious claims are "positions devoid of content," there is an enormous amount of "content." You certainly do "define ourselves by what you stand against" - just look at the etymological construction of the word 'atheism.' If you didn't, you wouldn't be here arguing about it. On October 28 2014 06:12 ZerG~LegenD wrote: Wouldn't true nothingness be a very unstable condition? If there are no laws of physics, or laws about anything else, then there's no law that prohibits the spontaneous appearance something. but then you have to postulate a general tendency for things to happen unless there are laws preventing things from happening. why? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27126 Posts
If we were to discuss the issue from a blank slate of a starting point, the idea of 'I don't see proof for this, so I will actively disbelieve it' seems pretty neutral to me. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
I should point out, I am also an "atheist" I suppose, but I'm quite opposed to positivist rationalism or scientism which is what most people mean by "atheist." It's just that I believe in being skeptical and atheists tend to be very dogmatic people because they are so self-assured about the obvious truth of everything they think. They are pretty much exactly like fundamentalists in this respect | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On October 28 2014 04:41 Teoita wrote: Oh yeah the dude was...special. I heard some people blame it on him experimenting a lot with chemistry stuff and breathing mercury fumes and stuff. Unless everyone at the time was sniffing the same fumes, highly doubtful and those people are just turning a blind eye to what was a very big part of natural philosophers at the time. Religion, or more specifically God doesn't really disappear from science until the mid 20th century. More than anything, it's because of religion that we have the basis of modern science, if it wasn't for the fanatical search for proof of God in the world then a lot of research probably wouldn't have come as quickly as it had. Just a fun sidetrack to think about. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
On October 28 2014 10:26 ninazerg wrote: If the universe came from nothing, WHERE DID NOTHING COME FROM? Checkmate, atheists. from the universe aka Infinite loop of doom. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On October 28 2014 10:34 aTnClouD wrote: from the universe aka Infinite loop of doom. the ouroboros snake? | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
I mean, already people like Nietzsche and Gadamer lamented that philosophy was being reduced to epistemology, essentially beholden to science. That society overall, seeing the enormous success with which the scientific method was brought to bear against virtually every problem facing it simply had moved on from philosophy. Maybe they had a point, maybe there yet remain questions worth asking that are not fundamentally scientific in nature. Personally I'm not convinced - or to paraphrase futurama: "Reality be a harsh mistress". | ||
| ||
|
|
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
