God - The Bear and Badger

Rev

LittleFranklin wrote:

God put all that science stuff here to test us. EDIT: Wait are you calling science a religion?

Yes. It has many people that believe in it. It is strong and has more facets that most organised religion.Â
It doesn't follow the practice of having an overall 'supreme being'. It relies on faith as much as any religion. Its as fully as an many theories and stories as any text from a religious book.Â

People need to believe. Whether there is proof there doesn't matter.

Facewon

revelthedog wrote:

Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense.Â Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in.

Â

huh? Science as a "religion" is a lazy trope and if your only reason for calling it a "religion" is that you think lots of people have too much "faith" in it then try harder.
(forgive bold, editing is giving me some grief here)

The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are theÂ atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.

Again, you're being lazy with the words there. Is atheism now a religion? Are we seriously going to have this discussion? If their "religion" is based around well justified belief then yeah, I reckon reason is pretty powerful.

(Awesome, I can mix up words and make slightly ambiguous points too.)

(1)Religion was formed to bring people together. In essence it was way to bring about simple laws in society.

Its about a sense of community. But as I say, I do believe.Â (2)Once you understand who the first people were to write down the bible story, the rest of it becomes very simple to explain.

1. By violently segregating believers from non believers?

2. I suspect we're reading that sentence in very different lights.

it was never meant to be a set text, it was meant to be a spoken message that evolved as its people did.

Says who?
Forgive formatting of this post. multi quoting learner on this forum.

Anyhoo, that may read quite harshly, sorry. But, as nice as it all sounds - and I have no doubt you're a sound chap, revel, and of a religious slant that's pretty darn tolerant and lets people get on with their lives and all - the constant mention of religion being about god/bringing people together/love and the pseudo history where it was all nice and pure and then got corrupted doesn't actually make sense in light of the facts, and seems, from where I'm sitting, to be just a post hoc rationalisation because it makes you feel better. And that "you" can be a general one, because I don't want to pick on you here, and I don't think you're the first to have made some of the above points.

Must sleep.

MattyJ

Science is not a religion. It does not rely on faith. It doesn't have 'stories'. Proof matters.

Facewon

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't.

That's precisely what it DOESN'T do.

ffs.

Rev

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense.Â Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in. Â

huh? Science as a "religion" is a lazy trope and if your only reason for calling it a "religion" is that you think lots of people have too much "faith" in it then try harder. (forgive bold, editing is giving me some grief here)

The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are theÂ atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.

Again, you're being lazy with the words there. Is atheism now a religion? Are we seriously going to have this discussion? If their "religion" is based around well justified belief then yeah, I reckon reason is pretty powerful. (Awesome, I can mix up words and make slightly ambiguous points too.)

(1)Religion was formed to bring people together. In essence it was way to bring about simple laws in society. Its about a sense of community. But as I say, I do believe.Â (2)Once you understand who the first people were to write down the bible story, the rest of it becomes very simple to explain.

1. By violently segregating believers from non believers? 2. I suspect we're reading that sentence in very different lights.

it was never meant to be a set text, it was meant to be a spoken message that evolved as its people did.

Says who? Forgive formatting of this post. multi quoting learner on this forum. Anyhoo, that may read quite harshly, sorry. But, as nice as it all sounds - and I have no doubt you're a sound chap, revel, and of a religious slant that's pretty darn tolerant and lets people get on with their lives and all - the constant mention of religion being about god/bringing people together/love and the pseudo history where it was all nice and pure and then got corrupted doesn't actually make sense in light of the facts, and seems, from where I'm sitting, to be just a post hoc rationalisation because it makes you feel better. And that "you" can be a general one, because I don't want to pick on you here, and I don't think you're the first to have made some of the above points. Must sleep.

Goodnight.

Rev

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.

It does. It relies on theories.

Skerret

Face, get Some_Guy on the TruthPhone. Â Nananananananana SomeGuy!

monkey

I saw something in New Scientist a while ago that was on about the God-shaped hole in most people. Iirc, a basic need for a set of core values that most a lot of people fill with religion. Devout atheists do the same stuff and fill the hole with scientific dogma. Like religion, science is a human construct reflecting / explaining what are supposed to be universal, transhuman phenomena.Â

Although there's really two elements to science there. The continually refined intellectual endeavour to understand the universe which is separate from the point I'm making. Then its implications for what this process means for humans and their historic view of their place in the universe which is what gets poured into the hole. They're not really related. If I was stuck on a desert island, Lost-style, I'd rather have an engineer there than a priest. But a theoretical physicist and an archbishop are likely to be just as useless at building a hut as each other.Â

It's all part of the same desperate fumbling for meaning and purpose as we slip towards the grave. Â

I've mixed the article up there with my own editorialising. I haven't been able to find a link.

edit: Just to clarify, the above waffle can be pruned down into: -
"The continually refined intellectual endeavour to understand the universe is separate from its implications for what this process means for humans and their historic view of their place in the universe. When comparing science and religion there's only any point of comparison between the latter aspect. Religion has NOTHING to say on the subject matter of science proper."

Hulka T

I duno, photosynthesis is a pretty good story.

djchump

revelthedog wrote:

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.

It does. It relies on theories.

You need to invest in a dictionary, so you can learn the meanings of the words you are (ab)using.

Skerret

Where's that Michael Jackson in the cinema gif...

Hulka T

revelthedog wrote:

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.

It does. It relies on theories.

I think you may be confusing 'theory' with 'scientific theory', as opposed to hypothesis

Rev

@facewon. You aren't really reading what I have written.Â

I haven't said anything against Science. I didn't say people had too much faith in it. I'm saying people have a lot of belief in it.

I'm just saying that you put a Religious Guy and an Atheist in a room together you wouldn't be able to tell them apart because they believe very strongly in their belief. Â

1. Yup - those that did tow the line were got rid off because the powers that be didn't wantÂ dissension in the ranks. Â I never said I agreed with Religion. I said Â I believed in God. Some people used it as a system to control the masses.Â Â

2. Ill get back to that.Â

Â the constant mention of religion being about god/bringing people together/love and the pseudo history where it was all nice and pure and then got corrupted doesn't actually make sense in light of the facts, and seems, from where I'm sitting, to be just a post hoc rationalisation because it makes you feel better.Â

I didn't say that either. Â I'm not a big church fan. Depending on the church. Â I'm a scientist as well. So I look at things from other points of view as well..

Rev

Hulka T wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.

It does. It relies on theories.

I think you may be confusing 'theory' with 'scientific theory', as opposed to hypothesis

Yeah, that's fair enough. Â I hope that Face isn't annoyed that he doesn't sleep properly.

Rev

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

It relies on faith as much as any religion.

No it doesn't. That's precisely what it DOESN'T do. ffs.

It does. It relies on theories.

You need to invest in a dictionary, so you can learn the meanings of the words you are (ab)using.

Really. And what's your take on the situation please.Â
Scientific Theories is better I guess, like Hulka suggested.

Skerret

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

Rev

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â
Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

djchump

revelthedog wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.

Rev

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.

like what?

Mod74

revelthedog wrote:

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.

like what?

You've used the common or garden definition of theory when the scientific one is quite different. Don't feel bad, most people confuse them (that's not meant to be patronising)

Dark Soldier

I don't understand this thread.

Rev

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.

If you are here to give an opinion then please step up. Its quite clear to see what I was meaning.

Rev

Mod74 wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Did you ever see the old god thread? Â He'll sleep like a baby.

He really gets a bit - passionate about these things. Â Though I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Well no, if you use words incorrectly, that makes you wrong. There's no perspectivism there.

like what?

You've used the common or garden definition of theory when the scientific one is quite different. Don't feel bad, most people confuse them (that's not meant to be patronising)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryÂ Okay. thank you. I'm not taking it as patronising. Â

I guess then that I mean hypothesis.

Dark Soldier

I believe in Gonzo.

There, have that in your twatty face you all powerful God thing I think.

Rev

Dark Soldier wrote:

I don't understand this thread.

I don't understand either. I'm trying to make sense of it though.

Mod74

Also, science relies just as much on faith in hypotheses that haven't yet been proved just as much as any religion does.

The difference being scientists are usually (but not always) willing to accept a new evidence if it's proved (though often go back and try to prove the original hypotheses all over again and spend their time arguing just as much as zealots do.)

God doesn't exist because I can't prove he does? Neither does the Higgs Boson then, stop wasting your time looking for it. Believing in something someone imagined was there but can't prove? Sheesh. What is the world coming to.

Brooks

I think it's not tricky for a lot of laypeople to take a given bunch of simplifications re: scientific knowledge and discovery on faith.

I do it all the fucking time, I'm sure.

Brooks

In other news I'd really like some cool graphene products right now please.

Brooks

Yar I mean it's hard to consider rationality much beyond an ideal at this point. People are demonstrably fucking nuts.

Brooks

Where that gets scary is in its centrality to crucial bodies of research and policy determination e.g. economics.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories