|
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
|
On July 14 2008 15:29 Nintu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 14:53 Bozali wrote:
Since I had no response yet I would like to add a personal question if I may to Nintu. You say yourself that God is unprovable and that you believe in a faith based God. What convinced you to believe in him in the first place? Edit: I decided to Spoiler it for those who don't want to read it. + Show Spoiler +
I was raised Catholic. I was taught a strict code of ethics and rules. I grew up thinking that this is just "the way it is."
When I hit 13 I questioned my beliefs. I never made any decisions about what I believe for myself and it frustrated me. I had no reason to believe in God, so I decided that I would figure out what I believe for myself.
My family separated and my entire family stopped practicing catholicism and stopped going to Church. I felt liberated at first. I didn't feel guilty for questioning what I believed anymore. No more obligation.
I was about 15 or so and you know how Teenage years are...
I had issues with Anxiety disorders and Depression all my life, and my mom's side of the family is deeply impacted with mental disorders like those. After some years of frustration and a lack of understanding from peers and family, I became quite depressed and angry. I became suicidal and angry at my mother for having kids when she knew she'd pass on these issues with Anxiety and Depression. As I decided to kill myself I reached a final plea with myself. I gave myself a week to try and find God, as that would be a reason to live and I had nothing to lose. After 6 and a half days of exploration, I tried everything. Doctrine, passages, etc.. didn't help. The final thing I read was a teaching on faith. Without faith, Christianity is nothing. It's all just words. Faith is being pushed to the edge, and then pushed some more. When the world gives you every reason to disbelieve in God, and yet bringing yourself to him anyway. So I was pushed to my limits, and finally when I was pushed even further, I prayed. I took faith when God gave me every reason to let go.
What followed was a religious experience that I won't detail because I will probably just be mocked, but it was something more powerful than anything I could every articulate. It was too powerful to ignore or push aside. It was too powerful to explain or try and argue... So I took it, and I walked away.
Religious teachings now mean something, when before they were just words. Being born and raised Catholic didn't give me anything, and in the end, I had to find it for myself for it to be what it was meant to be.
In the end, what does this mean to you? Very little, and I realize that. But I want you to know, that my faith will never cause me to hurt someone else. And my prayers make me happy, and have no ill effect. I promise =P
Well I'm with you nintu. You have every right to this one unshakeable faith, and damn anyone who tries to force their agenda on you; when you are hurting no one.
|
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
|
On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu?
Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question:
What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
|
On July 14 2008 17:41 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged. Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling? Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions. If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
|
On July 14 2008 17:41 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged. Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling? Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions. If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
|
On July 14 2008 17:49 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:41 Klive5ive wrote:On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged. Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling? Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions. If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included. Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong. Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
There are many reasons, other than religious or moral reasons to act civil to one another. To be taken seriously, to stimulate creative thought, etc.. All require yourself to conduct yourself respectfully and courteously. Most of our everyday actions are based on instinct, habit and pattern. People who were raised to be courteous are more likely to maintain that sort of lifestyle.
|
On July 14 2008 17:47 Nintu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:41 Klive5ive wrote:On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged. Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling? Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions. If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included. I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic.
In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself.
You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing.
You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
|
On July 14 2008 18:01 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 17:47 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:41 Klive5ive wrote:On July 14 2008 17:32 Nintu wrote:On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian. Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged. Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling? Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions. If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included. I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
This is pretty lame tbh. Logical people are afraid of dangerous things. Nintu does not seem dangerous. Plus, why is he illogical? You can't possibly know how serious his experience with 'God' was. If you were like basically approached in your dreams by a character that, for example, said 'your mum is going to die in three days' time of a stroke, your brother will be run over by a car, your father will be crushed by a falling stone; I am sorry but they will be happy with me in the afterlife; now go and spread the word that I exist- I will bless everyone you enlighten' and then all that shit happened, surely you would trust that more than you would anything else?
Surely there is a limit we can all reach a point at which a personal experience just overthrows any actual scientific empirical repeatable evidence we have- logically.
|
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic.
In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself.
You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing.
You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
It's okay to have faith in something that is inherently unable to be explained by logic. As long as you do not force your beliefs on others and are understanding and respectful, then yes, it is not harmful to have faith in something. You may draw an analogy of someone believing in a floating pink elephant if you like as well. It's their right to.
You do not understand the "set of beliefs" in my mind, so no, you cannot intelligently make that claim. If you understood my "set of beliefs" you'd have a better understanding and sensitivity towards other belief systems that do not harm or endanger anyone.
You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students.
People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes.
"You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this."
If I spoke with this level of arrogance but in a reverse context, you'd rip me apart. This level of bigotry is indeed the reason we need to have discussions such as this. What I'm trying to say is.. From your last sentence... You scare me too.
|
Klive5ive, I am still waiting for your answer. You have yet to tell me the basis for the moral structure of our society. If you can't explain that basis to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
I am waiting.
|
A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists.
Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge.
There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins?
Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him?
One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
|
On July 14 2008 18:15 Nintu wrote:
You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students.
Yes, but the problem here is the criminal himself, not that he's either atheist or not. There are numerous non-religious causes for a person to become a murderer.
And Religion has done far more crime than anything else on Earth anyway, so it's really stupid to think atheists could be "theoretically more dangerous".
Why do we now have islamist terrorists, or other more or less dangerous religious fundamentalists? Because they take everything in their religion or "holy writings" 100% seriously. In the case of Islam this means they think theirs is the true religion and all others are worthless (yes, that is in the Quran). Combine this with a generally bleak outlook on life, unhappiness about something, anger about something, and the result may be one fanatical terrorist.
Now take the religious things aside, but keep the unhappiness and anger, and the result may be a murderer or amok runner or similar.
|
On July 14 2008 18:36 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 18:15 Nintu wrote:
You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students. Yes, but the problem here is the criminal himself, not that he's either atheist or not. There are numerous non-religious causes for a person to become a murderer. And Religion has done far more crime than anything else on Earth anyway, so it's really stupid to think atheists could be "theoretically more dangerous". Why do we now have islamist terrorists, or other more or less dangerous religious fundamentalists? Because they take everything in their religion or "holy writings" 100% seriously. In the case of Islam this means they think theirs is the true religion and all others are worthless (yes, that is in the Quran). Combine this with a generally bleak outlook on life, unhappiness about something, anger about something, and the result may be one fanatical terrorist. Now take the religious things aside, but keep the unhappiness and anger, and the result may be a murderer or amok runner or similar.
I never said that ATheists are theoretically more dangerous. I never said anything even remotely like that. I clearly stated that Religion is the most powerful force in the world, and therefore, also has the greatest potential to be mis-used. Please read my posts.
That statement I made was in response to someone making the same claim about terrorism. My point is, it's the human beings themselves, as you said. As long as there are murderous human beings, there will be murders.
When most the world is religious, then most of the world's murders will be by religious people. Especially when there is so much power and emotion invested in religion.
I've clearly said this atleast 3 times.
|
It's pretty laughable that some argue that atheists are more dangerous than theists. seriously..wat? that's like saying people who don't believe in santa claus are more dangerous than those who do? Sorry if we want to ground our beliefs with reality, it's not like we get to pick and choose how the universe works--Men of science just try to understand it the best we can. And the argument that there is no morality outside religion is even more laughable and not even worthy of examination D:~
|
Oh haha I somehow overlooked that paragraph:
People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes.
Yeah I guess my post was redundant then. I just felt that paragraph needed more clarification.
|
On July 14 2008 18:49 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Oh haha I somehow overlooked that paragraph: Show nested quote +People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes. Yeah I guess my post was redundant then. I just felt that paragraph needed more clarification.
No worries. =)
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:16 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 12:58 MyLostTemple wrote: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 think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science Show nested quote +
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.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense. nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge. also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now) what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives. also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote:
Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
magic? what?
take an intro to psychology course. it's when you attribute results that have nothing to do with the medicine/practice you preformed. for instance lets imagine i take a sugar pill but i'm told it's a new drug developed that will improve my mood over the week. i may very well end up convincing myself that i'm feeling better because i know i'm taking that pill which is supposed to work. yet in fact it's not doing anything chemically at all. a lot of people argue that prayer is the same thing.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote:
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
well i agree that morality and science are not the same. but philosophically it seems pretty easy to explain why people should have freedom of thought and expression without needing religion to back that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
