This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Claim that the speed of light has been broken
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
ElhonnaBF- I like that. I should make him change his user-name- lol.
Edit: Maybe not, now that I think about it. It will make it look like I'm arguing with myself.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
This is me, according to him:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Surely that wouldn't make you look more mad than most of OT? It's a pretty ...what's a nice word for 'bat#$%^ crazy' ... eclectic group.
And yet here you consistently are. <3
Post by
MyTie
I was playing EQ2.You are completely awesome.
On-topic: Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I've never seen any evidence that contradicts the Bible, or God. However, I will say that the people in this thread do defend science, as if it is their religion, while at the same time insisting that science isn't a religion.
The idea that science is the perfect place for the heart and mind, in fact might be a misplaced understanding of life. Science, despite all of its qualities, is incomplete for providing a well rounded life. For instance, you can study people, gather data, and come to conclusions. You can study the psychological effects of death on humans, and even measure the chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. However, none of that will help you empathize and comfort someone who has lost their wife to cancer. None of that will help you find a purposeful meaning in life, or help you face your impending death. People who say differently need to meditate, and do some hard thought on the meaning of life. Is meaning derived from knowledge and the gaining of knowledge? To what end? Can science provide evidence for and define love? What about the meaning of time?
Science, for all its qualities, is lacking in what truly matters. If knowledge is all that matters to you, I do not envy you. Humans need love, life, and meaning just as much as they need air. Science cannot provide these.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Science, for all its qualities, is lacking in what truly matters. If knowledge is all that matters to you, I do not envy you. Humans need love, life, and meaning just as much as they need air. Science cannot provide these.
And you don't need religion to appreciate love, life
or
meaning.
Post by
MyTie
Science, for all its qualities, is lacking in what truly matters. If knowledge is all that matters to you, I do not envy you. Humans need love, life, and meaning just as much as they need air. Science cannot provide these.
And you don't need religion to appreciate love, life
or
meaning.
What is religion?Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.What is love? Isn't it a value? Isn't your understanding of love based on your culture, and your system of beliefs you hold? Isn't all of that taken in context of your worldviews?
I would say love is based very much off of your own views, beliefs, and culture. Did you mean that you don't need
organized
religion to appreciate love, life or meaning? If that be the case, I agree.
Post by
MyTie
What about the meaning of time?
The meaning of time is simple.
Time is what stops everything happening at once.
What is this. I don't even...
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ MyTie
I agree, that Science isn't the be-all and end-all of existence. It's not a life philosophy, implys and enforces no morality, gives no understanding into the intangibles, etc. But I think that, by saying that someone proving a long-standing scientific theory wrong makes the entire field invalid, you're attributing to it some kind of all-knowingness and infallibility that it doesn't have, and does not claim to have. By comparing it to religion, and saying that any one thing proven wrong is a blow to the idea of science in general, the people attacking it are implying that it's some kind of all-encompassing set of rules for life- either all right or all wrong.
I think most people who are defending it aren't saying that it's infallible, or that it's superior to religion. They're saying that the original argument doesn't make sense in the context of what science actually is, and how it's theories and experiments are approached. If people took science on faith, scientists wouldn't be constantly trying to prove each other wrong.
It's like...if I told someone who was religious, that I had found a great financial advisor, who had given me a lot of good information about past market trends, strong investments and what kinds of trends he expects to see in the market over the next 10 years. If the person I'm talking to says that I'm putting my faith in the wrong set of ideas, and that it won't give me the meaning of life or any kind of spiritual fulfillment, I would look at them like they had two heads. Getting good information about a concrete problem or task =/= a spiritual experience, and no one attempting to use said information thinks of it as such.
If, 10 years down the line, that woman comes back to me with an article where the price of gold has dropped a few dollars an ounce, and gloats "See- where's your all-knowing financial analysis now. They said it would never drop, and it did. Are you too proud to admit that the system is a sham, and your advisor doesn't know it all?" I would again look at her like she's crazy, and ask why, if new information causes one of the financial theories to have some conditions under which it isn't true, does that somehow invalidate the rest of the information which has held up fine so far. Also, if financial advisors are constantly looking for the edge on how to make money, aren't they going to be the first people to announce and analyze changes in the market that will affect their investment strategies?
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
95916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
What is religion?Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.What is love? Isn't it a value? Isn't your understanding of love based on your culture, and your system of beliefs you hold? Isn't all of that taken in context of your worldviews?
I would say love is based very much off of your own views, beliefs, and culture.
Unless you are equating love to religion 100%, I don't see how this is anything but a false syllogism. If you
are
equating them, I don't understand how they can run parallel the whole way. I agree that love can be the
basis
for a religion and for religious teaching, but to claim that love
is
religion is a bit ridiculous, no?
He's talking about cultural systems and worldviews that enable humanity to identify with and understand spiritual and moral values.
In which case, since chick flicks are probably technically part of the 'cultural system and worldview,' God help us all, Sarah Jessica Parker is a religious figure.
Post by
MyTie
@ MyTie
I agree, that Science isn't the be-all and end-all of existence. It's not a life philosophy, implys and enforces no morality, gives no understanding into the intangibles, etc. But I think that, by saying that someone proving a long-standing scientific theory wrong makes the entire field invalid, you're attributing to it some kind of all-knowingness and infallibility that it doesn't have, and does not claim to have.
I don't think that is the case at all. Science is very useful, accurate, and necessary. My point isn't that science is useless, or bad, but that it doesn't nullify the need for other forms of knowledge and understanding.I agree that love can be the basis for a religion and for religious teaching, but to claim that love is religion is a bit ridiculous, no?I'm not saying that love IS religion, but that love must be based on a tenant of beliefs, since there is no scientific evidence or definition for it. I'm also saying that a system of beliefs is what a religion is. Both love and religion are based on beliefs. You cannot mock people who place trust and faith in beliefs, and insist science is the end all, and at the same time insist on the nature of love.
@DoctorLore - All you did was mock what I said without providing substance to counter it. Please have some common courtesy and respect, or don't post at all.
Post by
MyTie
In which case, since chick flicks are probably technically part of the 'cultural system and worldview,' God help us all, Sarah Jessica Parker is a religious figure.Add a system of beliefs, and you have a religion. Fortunately, there is not a 'system' of beliefs surrounding chick flicks, so it isn't a religion. If people have made a system of beliefs out of chick flicks... well... I'm not going there.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
In which case, since chick flicks are probably technically part of the 'cultural system and worldview,' God help us all, Sarah Jessica Parker is a religious figure.Add a system of beliefs, and you have a religion. Fortunately, there is not a 'system' of beliefs surrounding chick flicks, so it isn't a religion. If people have made a system of beliefs out of chick flicks... well... I'm not going there.
I think they have, though. For a lot of people, fairy tale princes, 'the one' and Dr. Phil are a more core part of them than their religion.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.