Another thread on religion should be met with ...

S.I.A.L.



Here's an interesting read on a "God"
http://imryanw.tumblr.com/post/36211...g-by-andy-weir

BTW, I'm agnostic

 

You stick what up your **** JPL

 

Anyone interested in John's comment would do well to google 'neurotheology'.

 

lol, oh well, I'm not clever enough to give reasons for things to counter balence your comments or anyone elses...... only got a grade C in GCSE RE at skool..... but it has been fun trying lol



when someones got the answers to everything can you PM me please

 

Think I've got it Glesga!

Anyway, on with the believer/non believer bashing!

 

wat

 

Grade C is a pass though. I did O level's so am showing my age LOL

 

Have you seen any I know I haven't + there's been none in the news recently or indeed ever to my knowledge ...

TX.

 

If Jesus were alive today I guess he'd get on TV ... innit.

TX.

 

Not his style at all, he is a joker and likes to end up on edible items..



Think that is the right pic?

 

...and Hawking is a spastic and many scientists are Aspies. So what?

...and science is somehow not a construct? I see scientific elites making money, careers etc getting power out of science, just like religious elites of old.

 

Bang out of order

 

Science is a methodology. You propose a theory to explain a phenomena. Devise way to test theory. Use theory to predict results. Do experiment, check with predictions. See what happened. Modify theory to closer match experiments, or discard as appropriate. Repeat until theory and experiment match.

Faith just is, 'cos a really old book said so. It is a deliberate absensce of any evidence or reasoning.

Please could people stop confusing the two, it makes you look stupid

 

+1

mb

 

Because suffering from muscular dystrophy or aspergers does not predispose one to heightened religious or spritual experience in the same as if one suffers from a condition like temporal lobe epilepsy. Do your research on neorotheology to get John's point and to avoid making yourself sound ignorant.

 

You miss the point totally.

Don't attack ideas based on the medical condition of the person.

 

BUT, and there is a BIG BUT, science is only based on a series of references that are entirely constructed on mans imagination. The experiments are self-referencing. Scientists observe what they think is already true based on a series of leaps of imagination of previous scientists.

Remember the Victorian scientists said there was nothing more to be discovered. They had a universe that was totally self-referencing. Then Einstein stirred things up a bit but now he has proven to be not quite right.

Watson and Crick unravelled the mystery of DNA and solved inheritance. Oh, but now the shocking fashion is that that does not explain everything so we have invented a theory of non-genetic inheritance.

And so it goes on. Science is not as empirical as we believe - and it is that. It is a complex set of beliefs. We have 'faith' in the atom in exactly the same way the Greeks had total, provable, undeniable faith in Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. And we now think that is ridiculous!

 

Yes it is built on certain assumptions. It's a method but also a world-view.

 

Religion is acceptance of what was written in a book, granted there are differences in the way by which some interpret what was written, but on the whole what is written is taken as the "truth" and that is that, no questions asked, end of story. Science on the other hand starts off with one or a number of hypotheses, goes under repeated tests/experimentation/calculations and is summerised by a scientific theory. However theories are only valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it and there are always someone out there to either support or dispute the theories. This is what drives humankind forward, the search for truths rather than blind acceptance of what is the best selling story book in the world. We have scientific proof that the world is round, that dinosaurs existed, cures for many diseases, that there are planets, solar systems, galaxies other than our own, split the atom, created atoms of anti-matter and, ironically, we are on our way to discovering the "god particle".etc. Were it not for these scientific discoveries, the world would be flat and we would all be walking around in sandals and togas living in "fear" of the Church.

 

(St) Paul's visions which lead to his conversion were comparable to those visions and sensations described by people having an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy. Was it God or an increase of N, N-Dimethyltryptamine levels in the pineal gland? I understand that this reductionism potentially invalidates a subectively spiritual experience, however, it does not constitute an attack of an idea based on somebody's medical condition. Now, just feckin' accept it as I'm on an iPhone.

 

Is art made whilst under the influence of drugs invalid?

 

Hands up if you don't believe in Dinosaurs.

 

I'm on an iPhone. hand bags ready you muppet.

Dinosaurs?jack we still have them in the zoo

 

Religion can't prove any of it's stories/Beliefs.

Science will never discover everything.

 

Scientia has discovered more than you know Frosticles.

FACT

 

LOL. That is for sure. BUT, It is impossible for science to discover everything within the Universe.

 

LOL - not quite as many assumptions as a religious view. And there is more evidence for the scientific one.

This straw man argument of science not explaining everything and past scientific theories being overturned and hence cant be trusted is fallacious. As I have said before, science is a process of learning, and in that process old ideas naturally get refined or discarded.

As experiments become more sophisticated we learn new things such as quantum mechanics. It is the process of inquisitive investigation that allows us to discover these things. This is an anathma to a religious person who "knows" that God created everything. What an ignorant point of view.

 

You call faith 'ignorant'? That is breathtakingly arrogent.

Greater minds that you or I have wrote much about the nature of faith.

How does science 'know' that empirical investigation can lead to absolute, objective truth?

 

Couldn't agree more with this - you will never change a 'believers' point of view because it's based on a deep-seated need to believe despite the absurdity of it all. The progress in science has shown that we are not the centre of the universe, that the stars and planets do not gravitate around an earth filled with beings created in Gods image as we were once led to believe.
You don't have to be a scientist to look at all we have learned about the workings of nature, compare and contrast it with what the bible says, and come to the conclusion that one of them must be wrong. But the believers mind will shy away away from the logical conclusion and cling to what they refer to as their 'faith' - kind of like the proverbial three wise monkeys.

 

Would one like to explain to me ?