Intensive purposes.. lol.. Someone has even used that very saying in this thread.. A post you responded to no less.
The more you say, the less and less I'm able to take you seriously. I mean you kinda started off at a low point with "Scientist are the modern day priest class with school being the tool of indoctrination.".. But you seem intent on digging a deeper hole.
Just for the record, I AM judging you for your ideas/beliefs and not your understanding of the English language and it's idioms. That part just made me giggle. I was already building this view of you before this post.
Yes your biased view. And now I also have a view about you. Your post is typical of someone with no argument, resorting to insults.
I know pushing atheistic agenda is not the answer. What I try to do, as I've concluded the best solution, is simply to get people to think. Just think.
9/10 people in this thread have made up their mind one way or the other; this isn't ffxiah's first foray into religious debate.
But the scenario your putting forth is turning man into God through technology which is transhumanism. I would rather not go through a terminator movie for real.
I have very strong feelings about transhumanism, and what I see to be a certain technological singularity, so you'll have to forgive me.
If that is unacceptable, perhaps another hypothetical that is similar? Imagine time travel was possible (yes this probably isn't any more acceptable) and I brought an iPad, a lighter, and a Violin back with me to somewhere in Europe circa 400 CE. I'm nearly positive I could convince the locals that I was some kind of deity, among other things, and all I've procured was consumer garbage, readily producible fire, and a musical instrument.
What does it take for something to be a miracle? Does the bar not rise every year as we surpass increasingly what was thought to be impossible?
But the scenario your putting forth is turning man into God through technology which is transhumanism. I would rather not go through a terminator movie for real.
I have very strong feelings about transhumanism, and what I see to be a certain technological singularity, so you'll have to forgive me.
If that is unacceptable, perhaps another hypothetical that is similar? Imagine time travel was possible (yes this probably isn't any more acceptable) and I brought an iPad, a lighter, and a Violin back with me to somewhere in Europe circa 400 CE. I'm nearly positive I could convince the locals that I was some kind of deity, among other things, and all I've procured was consumer garbage, readily producible fire, and a musical instrument.
What does it take for something to be a miracle? Does the bar not raise every year as we surpass increasingly what was thought to be impossible?
Yes I suppose one would be able to convince a less advanced people they were gods via time travel if it were possible.
You have great insight and knowledge and I'm almost shocked we're on different sides of the equation. I appreciate your candor none the less.
I love philosophy, science, and religion and any school of thought. I'm impressed of how open your mind is as well and greatly respect it it speaks volumes of what you're able to contemplate.
Something to consider is that what people consider as truth can simply be interpreted as what's better backed up and defended it's harder to defend something you believe is right when there is nothing you can substantiate physically behind it. It's another type of knowledge gained from subjective instinct, split moment decisions, and irrational thought on events and situation and contemplating the aftermath after the dust settles.
It is called wisdom.
The ability to contemplate and measure variables of an event and recreate those events to determine validity of existence to the best of human rationale and perception is called intelligence.
You can't rely on just one you need both wisdom can be flawed by being jaded by the same reactions to the same situations while intelligence can be obscured by the same reactions in the same experiment and comparing them to reality and assuming that there isn't another variable to the equation no matter how minor throws the whole scale off. (rereading this I could be describing the exact same thing...)
If i could rap as well as I could "philosophize".........
You know I typed up a long winded reply 3 damn times and just deleted it every time.. No good would come of it.
I'm not biased, far from it, ask the other forum regulars if you care.. I often stand up for people's right to believe even though, I don't. My son goes to church and Sunday school because he made the choice to, I didn't stand in his way. I don't tell him about all the logical fallacies that plague the bible. I admit freely that I simply can't know what is and isn't true in a book written thousands of years ago... So how am I biased?
Because I call you on your ***? I'm sorry but the idea that science is somehow the new religion is insane. They are so opposing of view points that they are incomparable. Science is fact based, while religion is FAITH based... Faith in no way = fact. Faith is belief in absence of proof.
Just for the record, I've now erased and rewritten this post 5 times... I'm trying very hard to not just start firing off all guns and to remain objective.
You know I typed up a long winded reply 3 damn times and just deleted it every time.. No good would come of it.
I'm not biased, far from it, ask the other forum regulars if you care.. I often stand up for people's right to believe even though, I don't. My son goes to church and Sunday school because he made the choice to, I didn't stand in his way. I don't tell him about all the logical fallacies that plague the bible. I admit freely that I simply can't know what is and isn't true in a book written thousands of years ago... So how am I biased?
Because I call you on your ***? I'm sorry but the idea that science is somehow the new religion is insane. They are so opposing of view points that they are incomparable. Science is fact based, while religion is FAITH based... Faith in no way = fact. Faith is belief in absence of proof.
Just for the record, I've now erased and rewritten this post 5 times... I'm trying very hard to not just start firing off all guns and to remain objective.
Calm down and save the bullets, I'm not trying to win or prove you wrong just having a discussion.
You stated I am not a serious person because I have a contrary view to yours. That is hardly calling me out for my ***. I stand by my assertion that scientist are like a priest class of the modern day. People rely on scientists for explanations of the heavens in secular society. This was the duty of the priest class in other cultures. You state science can not be a religion because its counter to the current religions. This is false, a religion is a system of beliefs on the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So when you give up objectivity and deal in absolutes when you can not prove them to be absolute that is a religion.
I'd like to think that science is nothing more than the effort to reveal the truths and laws of nature
while religion is pretty much the belief in a super natural being or beings that goes against nature.
stand by my assertion that scientist are like a priest class of the modern day. People rely on scientists for explanations of the heavens in secular society.
there are so many things wrong with what you just say no secular society just works just look at denmark has o most no prison inmates and is rank 5th happiest in the world why is it so hard for you to come understanding that people are just as if not more happy with out the magic super book that lies to them about dead. you can lie to your self but you will die and that it so live the lie of regions and pray to air or use the the time you have living for something useful to mankind.
Interesting enough I recently watched a documentary on a lost tribe in the Amazon. The documentarian was able to communicate with them and for the most part they seemed happy. It showed the same tribe after missionaries arrived and they were noticeably apathetic.
Still don't understand how I am wrong. I never said religion would make you happy. I also did not say secularism would cause unhappiness.
This is false, a religion is a system of beliefs on the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So when you give up objectivity and deal in absolutes when you can not prove them to be absolute that is a religion.
First, I can see the comparison between religion and science in that they both seek to answer questions that we lack the vocabulary to explain. I honestly believe that was the first intent of religion, and it's unfortunate that its intent was skewed toward the aim of controlling the masses rather than explaining anything.
This thought has been building but I want to believe you're playing devil's advocate.
I mean, objectivity is the very nature of science. You do not give it up; it is science. Furthermore no scientific law or theory has ever been presented as an absolute. I've never heard a physicist tell me that I have to believe in so or so "or else". I have on the other hand heard pastors tell me such in my childhood, about God and why my questions were best kept out of mind.
That's the difference really. Don't think about it. is pragmatism for any religion, because the moment you do, you start to realize things. And that's absolutely detrimental.
Regarding my previous statement, if you are arguing a stance not of your own I commend you for presenting an argument in what would have been mostly an otherwise argumentless thread. I find too many inconsistencies in it to be believable and since you appear to be knowledgeable, it is hard to take you seriously.
This is false, a religion is a system of beliefs on the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So when you give up objectivity and deal in absolutes when you can not prove them to be absolute that is a religion.
First, I can see the comparison between religion and science in that they both seek to answer questions that we lack the vocabulary to explain. I honestly believe that was the first intent of religion,
kinda like 30,000BC
where a bunch of cavemen were huddled around staying warm in a cave. them wham lightning hit a twig and it caught fire.
This is false, a religion is a system of beliefs on the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So when you give up objectivity and deal in absolutes when you can not prove them to be absolute that is a religion.
First, I can see the comparison between religion and science in that they both seek to answer questions that we lack the vocabulary to explain. I honestly believe that was the first intent of religion, and it's unfortunate that its intent was skewed toward the aim of controlling the masses rather than explaining anything.
This thought has been building but I want to believe you're playing devil's advocate.
I mean, objectivity is the very nature of science. You do not give it up; it is science. Furthermore no scientific law or theory has ever been presented as an absolute. I've never heard a physicist tell me that I have to believe in so or so "or else". I have on the other hand heard pastors tell me such in my childhood, about God and why my questions were best kept out of mind.
That's the difference really. Don't think about it. is pragmatism for any religion, because the moment you do, you start to realize things. And that's absolutely detrimental.
Regarding my previous statement, if you are arguing a stance not of your own I commend you for presenting an argument in what would have been mostly an otherwise argumentless thread. I find too many inconsistencies in it to be believable and since you appear to be knowledgeable, it is hard to take you seriously.
I'm not arguing my exact belief system just the merit of creationism and against the sometimes over the top support of evolution. I realize it sounds silly to say science is a religion. But really in the end it can become just another belief system if your not careful, full of holes and loose strings just like a religion to be defended at all costs. Objectivity is the key. And of course much like religion it wouldn't be out of the question for the science to fit the agenda of the particular ruling oligarchy at the time.
And of course much like religion it wouldn't be out of the question for the science to fit the agenda of the particular ruling oligarchy at the time.
Okay.
Since this is largely now motive related, I have to ask you this: were Newton's three laws somehow politically driven? What I see is a man who saw things and described how they would be expected to react. What do you see? I guess that's what I'm asking. It's very hard for me to imagine a grand fallacy constructed to control people based on observations anyone can make, versus observations only people who may have at one time existed have experienced, and written their exploits into a scripture that has been translated and retranslated so many times that the truth contained within, if any, is indeterminable.
I also feel a need to defend objectivity. Among subjective and objective viewpoints, the subjective ones would be along the lines of "I feel this world is too unfathomable to exist without a creator", whereas an objective viewpoint is "I don't know why this world is but I know the following:"
I'm not arguing my exact belief system just the merit of creationism and against the sometimes over the top support of evolution. I realize it sounds silly to say science is a religion. But really in the end it can become just another belief system if your not careful, full of holes and loose strings just like a religion to be defended at all costs. Objectivity is the key. And of course much like religion it wouldn't be out of the question for the science to fit the agenda of the particular ruling oligarchy at the time.
I suppose science could become like a religion, but that would signal the end of real science and whatever system people were worshiping beyond that absolutely would not be actual science. I'm not sure you understand what a competitive field all of science is. Everyone involved is just dying to prove everyone else wrong, but to do so they have to have proof, and have their proof reviewed by other scientists to *** the new claims. Bizarre as it may seem, scientists love to find out that they were wrong. Being wrong means that there is more to discover, more to learn.
The 'over the top' support of evolution is actually in response to critics who do not understand that evolution has been 'proved' (you can't truly prove anything in science) decades ago and we have more evidence for evolution now than for virtually any other scientific theory. You (much earlier) mentioned that shared ancestry was determined simply by partial skeletons we've found of extinct species. This is a very common misconception. Fossil evidence is nice and all, but it is the least significant of the evidences for evolution. There's also Biogeographical evidence (animal and fossil distribution around the world), embryological evidence (embryos are very fascinating. In many cases it's a bit like watching the entire evolution of a species compressed to the gestation period. Did you know humans briefly develop gils?), morphology, which is somewhat related to paleontology (fossils) but includes currently living species, and of course genetic evidence (similarities in DNA).
All in all there is a ridiculous wealth of evidence for evolution. There are certainly some gaps in knowledge, but that is merely because we have not had time to study every nook and cranny of life just yet. That said, there is virtually no evolutionary question that you could pose to an expert that could not be answered either immediately or after some research.
Testi's idea is convoluted but I don't think he's too far off, because of the convenience of technology and what advantages it can offer people the less of a feeling of an obligation to spend time in worship of a being to compensate for things that they want or don't have. If you can control information that is believable by most people you can pretty much control any sort of society. Religion is an effective control too for sure but there are others; what it boils down to is the average persons ability to resist information that is being provided to them or cross reference it.
The Media for example have the most pull of any organization because they're a service that the populace feeds off of daily and make first impressions and judgements about truncated snippets and summarized reports. It's a dangerous thing they aren't completely objective either in how they present information; one thing I've personally learned from being in the military and my dad taught me is that you never look at news the same way again.
Some things to also consider is mob mentality and how IQ decreases in a group, most people aren't going to care to fully know or understand what they are being led by but rather what they get out of it.
I wish everyone would stop talking about religion :/ People would just forget about it.
I don't believe. My life is going good.
Other people believe. Their life is full of sh*t. What's the matter in praying then? God won't answer them. Millions of people pray. If 5 of them suddenly have some joy in their life then it is not god. It is coincidence. The other millions of people still have a life full of sh*t.
No point in praying then. Why believe in god then? You won't get anything from it. I don't need god to know that I shouldn't kill/steal etc.
What would happen if everyone suddenly stopped talking about religion? I wonder. Will god send us another Jesus? Would love to see that.
And of course much like religion it wouldn't be out of the question for the science to fit the agenda of the particular ruling oligarchy at the time.
Okay.
Since this is largely now motive related, I have to ask you this: were Newton's three laws somehow politically driven? What I see is a man who saw things and described how they would be expected to react. What do you see? I guess that's what I'm asking. It's very hard for me to imagine a grand fallacy constructed to control people based on observations anyone can make, versus observations only people who may have at one time existed have experienced, and written their exploits into a scripture that has been translated and retranslated so many times that the truth contained within, if any, is indeterminable.
I also feel a need to defend objectivity. Among subjective and objective viewpoints, the subjective ones would be along the lines of "I feel this world is too unfathomable to exist without a creator", whereas an objective viewpoint is "I don't know why this world is but I know the following:"
It's certainly possible politics came in to play with Isaac Newton. He practiced Alchemy which used the principles of Hermeticism and were Pagans.
This is going to be pretty loaded, so I'll preface that I mean no offense to anyone or their beliefs. I'm just looking for viewpoints on the matter from people with a variety of backgrounds. Also keep that in mind with responses.. I'd rather this be an exchange of ideas than a heated debate.
I was already thinking it before I spotted the blog on CNN and have thought it countless times before, most notably after the 2004 tsunami. I guess I'm going to have to define "God" before I get started with this as the word has perhaps as many interpretations as there are people. This concerns mostly the Abrahamic version of God, literally or ideologically: a personal God who invests himself in the interests of mankind.
Christopher Nolan's statement on the shooting gets me every time I read it, and paints the scene so painfully accurate that I can't help but cry:
Quote:
Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.
These weren't people going to work, or school, or a political rally. They were people who wanted to see Batman, and suspend their belief if only for a moment that reality isn't everything and there is a world were Magic is possible.
Of all the places and times for a person to kill another person, this is perhaps the most unforgivable, detestable scenario I can possibly imagine. What's worse is that I know one day someone will show me where my imagination has failed.
Where's God? Was this his will? Did he allow this to happen? Did he want this to happen? Is it all really "mysterious ways"? Is that not just a cop-out excuse for defending a god that is indifferent, illogical, and downright malevolent? Why believe in such an entity? The notion of spending all of eternity with such a being just sickens me. I honestly find it repulsive. I'd rather spend my eternity in hell if it means I don't have to be around this thing that willingly makes innocent people suffer needlessly.
So that's my position. For those believers among us, I want you to defend God, since he's obviously not here to defend himself. For those non-believers, I apologize for telling you what you already know. And for the fence-sitters, does an act like this sway you at all?
I know I've left out an impersonal god, by definition who cares as little about the troubles of mankind as he does a tree, rock, or gigantic hydrogen/helium fusion reactor. Maybe there is a Spinoza's god out there who created everything and subsequently left the building. To those with belief or lack of certainty about such a god: why? There's a great deal of uncertainty in life; I mean, I don't know for sure that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, yet I feel completely comfortable in making the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" as an assertion and not an opinion or belief.
To everyone else, if by chance I skipped someone by categorization, my apologies for this rambling. Actually, my apologies to everyone in advance.
