|
On July 14 2008 12:06 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote:
I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any. Well, to take belief in ghosts for example, it used to be that people only reported sightings of traditional sorts of ghosts. But that superstition has evolved. Now people are starting to report sightings of ghosts which were invented especially for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, such as allips and liches.
If you ask me this is just silly. To a reasonable person the obvious explanation would be something in the lines of mind tricks. Basically you're tired, drugged or whatever and you probably see it from a distance in the dark (which as you might know, for some reason most ghost sightings are at night?). So basically you see something that you can't make out what it is. And you misinterpret it as a ghost of something you have imagined beforehand.
I fail to see the ghosts place in our discussion about science.
|
On July 14 2008 12:09 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 11:49 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 11:34 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course. What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods. Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence. So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us. anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc.. btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact" Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact". I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any. religion being more loose on the texts(yeah but by 7days we mean 1 day= xxxx year) , religious rock band, religious documentary, see they try to attract new crowd to not die out. they cant update the bible but what they do is say these text are vague , hidden meaning so in fact they update the meanings in a dynamic way whenever they see fit.
If you ask me, and I believe any reasonable person. Choosing and picking in for instance the Bible is directly contradictory to what it stands for. The word of God who is all-knowing and of course perfect, so it astonishes me that people actually do this and keep calling themselves Christians.
And this is what terrifies me. If you truly believe in the Bible, you are supposed to kill all Gays. You are supposed to kill women who aren't virgin when they marry. You are supposed to kill people who don't believe in Jesus. And so on.
On July 14 2008 12:11 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 12:05 Bozali wrote:
I feel that there is only LuckyOne over here who challenging the way of science. We have no other none-science and/or pro-religous people to step up? All tho I am going to bed soon hmmmm im pro science and not religious funny how i get thrown in the other "camp" lol
Hehe I merely stated that you're currently the only one challenging science. Not necessarily that you're in one of those camps I presented, all thought it did seem like it  .
Edit: I'm off to bed now and won't check this thread for probably 10 or so hours. Please don't expect a fast answer from me!
|
On July 14 2008 12:03 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote:
method (plural methods)
1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
doesnt say it has to be a scientific way What are the main reasons for creating a process? 1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments. 1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result. What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach?? Processes are by nature Scientific.
it says a way of doing something=process.
so the way a cat catch a mouse is scientific?
the way you try to get in a girls pant?
|
On July 14 2008 12:16 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 12:03 Integra wrote:On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote:
method (plural methods)
1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
doesnt say it has to be a scientific way What are the main reasons for creating a process? 1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments. 1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result. What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach?? Processes are by nature Scientific. it says a way of doing something=process. so the way a cat catch a mouse is scientific? the way you try to get in a girls pant?
One last post for LuckyOne before I go to bed. Stop asking questions like "What is Science?" and go read for yourself at, for intsance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science and determine the answers yourself. It's not that hard.
|
He's right though, not all processes have to be scientific. There are lots of loony processes that people use, e.g. to pick lottery numbers. It's a pretty banal statement, I don't see why there's controversy over that.
|
On July 14 2008 10:59 Integra wrote:Travis, if neuroscience and psychology is not the science of self then what is it? 
I didn't say anything about the "science of the self" but I would say that I believe buddhism is more rigorous scientifically than psychology, thats for sure. So that is a partial answer to your question I guess. But I don't get where the question came from.
On July 14 2008 11:00 Integra wrote:
Actually they do explain why things happends, Mostly cause and effect. B happend because A happned and affected B in this way etc.
I believe that is "how".
I think "why" concerns motive.
Perhaps there is a linguist on the board who would know.
On July 14 2008 11:05 HamerD wrote:
not only does religion not answer how, it doesnt answer why either. It proposes ideas but not answers.
yeah well that's the problem with the whole argument. whatever reason could there be other than "because".
so I guess it comes down to whatever method gives you the best description.
On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote:It depends on your sense of 'why'. "Why is the sky blue", for instance, is a question that science can answer. Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview.
I do not disagree with your point, though I think that the drawing of those conclusions is the realm of "philosophy", and science is just providing more material to work with.
|
You are talking about things that happends random. That is just events. Processes are Structured and follows certain rules. if the process isnt structured and doesn't have rules then it is not an process. It is only a event or an happenings. I'm walking down the street and i trip on my shoelace, I just triped om my shoelae, that is what I did. That doesn't mean it's a process. It's just an event or an happening.
|
Travis, I included a WHY in there, maybe you missed it.
|
On July 14 2008 12:27 Integra wrote:
You are talking about things that happends random. That is just events. Processes are Structured and follows certain rules. if the process isnt structured and doesn't have rules then it is not an process. It is only a event or an happenings. I'm walking down the street and i trip on my shoelace, I just triped om my shoelae, that is what I did. That doesn't mean it's a process. It's just an event or an happening.
no that is definitely a process by at least some definitions of the word
|
On July 14 2008 12:30 Integra wrote:
Travis, I included a WHY in there, maybe you missed it.
yes and I am saying that you are using the word "why" when the word "how" should be used.
|
I told myself I'd read the entire thread before posting but I came across this at about page 7 and decided to reply.
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
To be qualified enough to be able to write sentences such as this is, in your beliefs, impossible, since you quite vigorously disbelieve in any sort of religious or spiritual enlightenment. A more logical and acceptable way to word this statement would be to prefix it with "Atleast, in my attempts and experiences,"
Of course, you will close your eyes and ears anyway, and instead of adopting a more sensitive and logical attitude, you will continue to conduct yourself in such an arrogant way, because you have science to justify your insensitivity. Why be socially understanding if you are in the social majority, and have the boundless word of "science" to protect you.
"Atheism is not the majority!" I already hear you saying. But it is. It is in this thread. Majority is wherever you hear such arrogant insensitivity. On both sides.
As I was reading through this thread, I noticed a great lacking of intelligent theistic opinion. I've seen many posters blame it on the fact that there are very few intelligent Theists out there to begin with which is just ludicrous. It's clear that not many Theists want to speak up because it would be so easily for them to be attacked or ridiculed for their beliefs. I just read through 7 pages of people, for the most part, describing their absolute disrespect for religious institution and belief. Along with the self-admitted barbarous remarks from a known religious critic.
A lot of the lack of respect that many of you Atheists have spoken of in this thread, of the religious intolerance of atheism, your complaints of narrow-minded fanatical zealots like Pat Robertson or a figure in your life growing up, can be seen in your own attitude towards "opposing" thought. The arrogant, "we know the answer, dumbass!" attitude.
One of my favorite hypocrisies is the generalizations that both groups tend to use. Just because there's an Atheist out there who knows shit-all about science, trying to prove logical explanations to life's finest mysteries, doesn't mean that there is an illegitimacy to scientific method. Just like if there is a religious advocate in this thread, in your house, or in the Q&A video with Dawkins, that cannot appropriately word his sentences, or bring reason enough for sensitivity and social understanding, doesn't mean that there is an implied illegitimacy to spiritual exploration.
I, as a Christian, have never claimed authority over the explanations of scientific study. Atheists always challenge me to a "burden of proof' claim, saying I have to prove to them the existence of God. Well, my answer is:
No I fucking don't.
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
What surprises me is the general lack of sensitivity from both sides. Well, I shouldn't say it surprises me. Rather, it impresses me. It's really an intense hypocrisy that should be fully enjoyed an appreciated.
This should hopefully clarify a(singular) Christian perspective, since I saw a few dozen posts ask for a Christian perspective. I'm fully aware of the responses I will receive, also the fact that my view is not shared with every Christian, every Theist, etc.. I also haven't read the entire thread yet, I'm on like.. page 7.. so I'm off to do that.
|
I find his arguments quite interesting. Not that I agree with his theories on science (I think now most scientists agree that evolution is in punctuated equilibrium rather than slow gradual change) but that his attack on organized religion makes sense. The illogical aspect of religion which seeks to explain the unexplainable is what is so tempting I guess.
|
On July 14 2008 12:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 12:30 Integra wrote:
Travis, I included a WHY in there, maybe you missed it. yes and I am saying that you are using the word "why" when the word "how" should be used.
Processes usually are usually extreme complex. That's why you need it to be a process in the first place. It woulnd't make sense otherwise... falling over your own shoelace.... isnt that complex to measure or to repeat
Problem with motives is this: There are an endless numbers of them on various spectrums.
on the personal side people have different reasons as why they exist. Some people their reason is that they were created by god and they should be good bla bla.
Others believe if they arent good they will go to hell bla bla bla.
Others believe they exist to fullfill their own dreams etc etc.
Anything you can think of from being an angel to running around killing people are reasons as to why.
To top it all off they change their reasons as to why serveal times during their lifetime.
on another spectrum we have socities. they also have an endless of reasons of "why" some socities Simply want to evolve since they are in a very good period of growth, other societies are in war and simply try to surive. Other socities just consist of witch doctors and shamans and all they think about is to please the gods and what sacrifies to be made next summer to prevent the cold weather to come... again...
Also as the societies change with time so does their why or reason to be.
Then we have other spectrums. Like evolution, movement, energy, we have the micro comso the macro comso and so fortf. Science could map all the various reasons for as motives for things. problem is that it wouldn't lead anywhere. Specially if you start talking about things that are not humans. their reasons for being can be conceived by mathematics and physics but not by our emotions which is how we percieve the world. And certaintly not by god.
|
On July 14 2008 11:34 Bozali wrote:
You are assuming that life has to have a meaning and based on this assumption you conclude that God has to exist. The fault is in the assumption.
I think you leapt a little too quickly to this conclusion. You make a meaning for yourself. I was saying that science informs the meaning that you decide to make for yourself.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc..
because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages.
Where science was seen as something foolish.
No, it's not the same thing because here we're killing astrology by showing WHY astrology is stupid (watch the documentary for instance), not by putting all the astrologers under house arrest.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 10:23 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards. it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama) there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
plz keep the debate civil everyone.
to respond to nitu. obviously there are christian factions which are faith based. there are also many which are not. creationists are an example of this. dawkins is more interested in the fact that religion is imposed on young children before they have a right to chose for themselves. also that religion is not revisable in the same way science is. while he obviously feels that they are all wrong on some level his area of concern seems to be when religion/superstitious concepts are applied instead of science to real world issues.
|
MyLostTemple, Since I am on "WHY" WHY on earth did you start this topic?? I mean it's great to have an discussion and all but this is just the same as starting a discussion if Santa exists or not.
|
On July 14 2008 12:58 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 10:23 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards. it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama) there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet.. well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes? science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
I agree that for these reasons, Science should be the mechanism for our reasoning. But not for our Spiritual exploration. To question the legitimacy of something which is inherently unquestionable by scientific reasoning, using scientific reasoning, can feel offensive to those who believe and explore a world that isn't relevant to human scientific understanding. Much like science is offended when religious dynamics are applied to a world bound by Science. For instance, Intelligent design.
I agree the thread should be kept civil, and I respect and enjoy the philosophical insight. =)
|
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
|
I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
