|
|
Post by goz on Oct 26, 2020 20:21:35 GMT
Congratulations. You have a new record for fitting so many non-sequiturs into six sentences and make even less than your usual sense. Thinking outside the box. If you mean disconnected insubstantial illogical unfounded nonsense...
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 27, 2020 1:45:01 GMT
Sorry, I don't have a favorite narcissistic pessimist or group of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 27, 2020 10:52:43 GMT
Thinking outside the box. If you mean disconnected insubstantial illogical unfounded nonsense... That's definitely happening, but definitely not my fault. Silly question perhaps, do favor one United States' political party?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Nov 11, 2020 3:06:10 GMT
I'm talking more about how science itself can quickly turn into something like a religion if you're not careful. I'm afraid I cannot agree with you there. Science is nothing like a religion, just as religion is nothing like a science; since for one thing (as I mentioned at the start) not all beliefs and theories are the same; while it is a truism that the standard definition of a religion is one which includes veneration of the supernatural. Science is also characterised by self revision and the working through of empiricism. Unfortunately science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and the dictator is evidence. It is also not science's place to see or place subjective value in things. Any brief survey of the universe reveals that it is indeed mostly cold dark and 'empty', where things happens due to certain physical laws and relationships which can usually be discovered and not at all (for science) the guiding hand of providence. I think by this you imply "... anything which is meaningful", to which I would agree. However 'meaning', where it is discerned outside of the empirical at least, is very often subjective. But then what 'meaning' would one give to a supernova, childhood cancers or the working of the quantum? And to what, or whom ought they to mean anything? I think 'metaphysical conclusions' are not down to science but to psychology. ================================================================ I haven't read any posts after this yet so apologies if any of this is repetitive. IMO there are differences but also more similarities than most folks may realize. Yes science evolves over time. Religions "self revise" over time also. OT ---> NT is the easy example but I would guess virtually every religion has changed over time to reflect cultural and other goings on. Science is definitely not democratic, but dogma or at least wishful thinking (edit italicized) does creep into it all the same. I do think it's important to differentiate between cold hard scientific experiments done properly in a lab, and the more generalized scientific theories of much wider scope that people (both scientists and laymen) believe in, like say evolutionary theory, atomic theory, etc. I don't dispute that the former is way more rigid and factual than any religion could be. I'm talking strictly about the latter with this point I've been making. Another example would deal with your claim about how the universe is mostly cold dark and empty. Per current unified field theory that's not true at all. There is no such thing as a vacuum anywhere in space as even in an area with no matter or energy, you still have any number of underlying fields vibrating (or whatever the correct word is for what fields do) in that region. What I meant was, metaphysically, we have no clue about what exists. We don't know. At one point they/we thought it was atoms, then subatomic particles, then smaller subatomic particles. Now, it's an open question as to whether "things" exist at all, or whether what exist would be more accurately referred to as functions or events. This plays directly into my point about science and religion being more similar than we realize. Edit: Continuing in the realm of physics theories, you could also compare a religious preacher to a scientist who publishes a book tying theories together. Yes the book is probably based on double blind experiments done repeatedly in a lab but today's advanced physics theories are firmly in the realm of metaphysics and are impossible to disprove at current time with current equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 11, 2020 12:36:56 GMT
I haven't read any posts after this yet so apologies if any of this is repetitive. IMO there are differences but also more similarities than most folks may realize. Yes science evolves over time. Religions "self revise" over time also. OT ---> NT is the easy example but I would guess virtually every religion has changed over time to reflect cultural and other goings on. Even if we accept the notion that the NT 'revises' the OT (as Jesus came not to destroy the old laws but to fulfil them etc) then that would make the last change of any significance in that religion over 2,000 years old. I would certainly accept that religions do change in small ways, just as you suggest, to reflect cultural practices, right up to the ongoing debates over same-sex marriages or women priests. But there is no paradigm shift such as we find in the sciences, from classical physics to Einstein for instance, or the Copernican Revolution, or Darwin's insights and so on, while any attempts to do so - as we have seen from the current discussion on this board on the Arian controversy - is condemned as 'heresy'. Moreover those changes within science have been speeding up, for instance the advances in cosmology and genetics of the last 100 years alone. That is why I always say 'cold dark and 'empty'' since I am aware of what you say. But that still does not change the fact that one is hard pushed to see a moral force out there, let alone the working hands of any divine intelligence - or a reality largely hospitable to life. I think it a bit of stretch to say we have 'no idea' of what exists. Most of what you describe is just a refinement, and growing sophistication, of looking at things following further discoveries and theorising. Of course this is not say that science can or will ever know everything. I would not agree with you that metaphysics and advanced physics theories are the same, and there has always been things in science impossible to disprove at that present time. But with religious metaphysics and beliefs about reality we are usually faced with things that it is impossible to disprove at any time. It is always possible to make such comparisons of course and draw some overall insights as to the nature of knowledge. But there is peril in convenient over-simplification.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Nov 11, 2020 15:14:04 GMT
I haven't read any posts after this yet so apologies if any of this is repetitive. IMO there are differences but also more similarities than most folks may realize. Yes science evolves over time. Religions "self revise" over time also. OT ---> NT is the easy example but I would guess virtually every religion has changed over time to reflect cultural and other goings on. Even if we accept the notion that the NT 'revises' the OT (as Jesus came not to destroy the old laws but to fulfil them etc) then that would make the last change of any significance in that religion over 2,000 years old. I would certainly accept that religions do change in small ways, just as you suggest, to reflect cultural practices, right up to the ongoing debates over same-sex marriages or women priests. But there is no paradigm shift such as we find in the sciences, from classical physics to Einstein for instance, or the Copernican Revolution, or Darwin's insights and so on, while any attempts to do so - as we have seen from the current discussion on this board on the Arian controversy - is condemned as 'heresy'. Moreover those changes within science have been speeding up, for instance the advances in cosmology and genetics of the last 100 years alone. That is why I always say 'cold dark and 'empty'' since I am aware of what you say. But that still does not change the fact that one is hard pushed to see a moral force out there, let alone the working hands of any divine intelligence - or a reality largely hospitable to life. I think it a bit of stretch to say we have 'no idea' of what exists. Most of what you describe is just a refinement, and growing sophistication, of looking at things following further discoveries and theorising. Of course this is not say that science can or will ever know everything. I would not agree with you that metaphysics and advanced physics theories are the same, and there has always been things in science impossible to disprove at that present time. But with religious metaphysics and beliefs about reality we are usually faced with things that it is impossible to disprove at any time. It is always possible to make such comparisons of course and draw some overall insights as to the nature of knowledge. But there is peril in convenient over-simplification. Paradigm shifts. Like how Jesus said works are what get you into heaven in Matthew yet it's considered infallible doctrine today that the opposite is true. Or how Jesus was champion of the poor and downtrodden yet today rich bible-belters bow down to Jesus all the while persecuting the poor and vulnerable. There are at least dozens more examples of how certain parts of scripture have been omitted from the belief system and all but forgotten in some or all sects of Christianity over the last few thousand years. I suspect there are even more powerful examples of this that I just don't know about. I meant what exists at the base level. The Republican and Democratic parties certainly do exist, but they are not fundamental blocks. Political parties pop in and out of existence e.g., almost like certain subatomic particles. We have no real idea what makes up the ontology of the universe, which is odd considering how advanced we think we are. Well, I'm touching on the similarities and you're touching on the differences. Both do exist. I think you could say science is to the logical part of the brain what religion/spirituality is to the emotional part. And we appear to need both.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 11, 2020 18:59:37 GMT
Paradigm shifts. Like how Jesus said works are what get you into heaven in Matthew yet it's considered infallible doctrine today that the opposite is true. The New Testament uses the word justification to refer to one of the things that God does for us by his grace. Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement about what justification involves, whether it is through faith, or faith and works. It is certainly true, if a simplification, to say that Protestants more believe in faith alone, while Catholics more so in faith and works. It is not for me as an atheist to point to one or another but the debate is not uniformly settled and may never be (and I have seen passages from the Bible arguing for either). But on the whole we are are talking division, rather than a revision, of the faith. A brief study of history will reveal that religious hypocrisy has always been with us, right back to those justifying the slave trade through scripture and beyond. It is a bit of reach though seeing this as a 'revision', any more than we say of this of scientists who invent their results. I am sure this may be true but 'forgetting or omitting' is not the process one typically means when one talks of the progress of science, which is often more through falsification and new theories replacing the old in the light of fresh empirical evidence. Never the less as we go along we have a more sophisticated and nuanced view of the way things are, knowledge which has especially grown over the last two or three centuries. You are of course entitled to a pessimistic assessment as to what is possible, and I fully agree that we may never know everything. The current rising debate in physics for instance, arguing against Big Bang theory, hints at a possible ontological revolution the scope of which that religion never approaches. However saying just how advanced we are depends on, well, how advanced we think we are; I am sure after a two or three more Einsteins we will be even further ahead in our own estimation.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Nov 11, 2020 20:19:55 GMT
Paradigm shifts. Like how Jesus said works are what get you into heaven in Matthew yet it's considered infallible doctrine today that the opposite is true. The New Testament uses the word justification to refer to one of the things that God does for us by his grace. Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement about what justification involves, whether it is through faith, or faith and works. It is certainly true, if a simplification, to say that Protestants more believe in faith alone, while Catholics more so in faith and works. It is not for me as an atheist to point to one or another but the debate is not uniformly settled and may never be (and I have seen passages from the Bible arguing for either). But on the whole we are are talking division, rather than a revision, of the faith. A brief study of history will reveal that religious hypocrisy has always been with us, right back to those justifying the slave trade through scripture and beyond. It is a bit of reach though seeing this as a 'revision', any more than we say of this of scientists who invent their results. I am sure this may be true but 'forgetting or omitting' is not the process one typically means when one talks of the progress of science, which is often more through falsification and new theories replacing the old in the light of fresh empirical evidence. Never the less as we go along we have a more sophisticated and nuanced view of the way things are, knowledge which has especially grown over the last two or three centuries. You are of course entitled to a pessimistic assessment as to what is possible, and I fully agree that we may never know everything. The current rising debate in physics for instance, arguing against Big Bang theory, hints at a possible ontological revolution the scope of which that religion never approaches. However saying just how advanced we are depends on, well, how advanced we think we are; I am sure after a two or three more Einsteins we will be even further ahead in our own estimation. Good points.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 11, 2020 23:04:54 GMT
The New Testament uses the word justification to refer to one of the things that God does for us by his grace. Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement about what justification involves, whether it is through faith, or faith and works. It is certainly true, if a simplification, to say that Protestants more believe in faith alone, while Catholics more so in faith and works. It is not for me as an atheist to point to one or another but the debate is not uniformly settled and may never be (and I have seen passages from the Bible arguing for either). But on the whole we are are talking division, rather than a revision, of the faith. A brief study of history will reveal that religious hypocrisy has always been with us, right back to those justifying the slave trade through scripture and beyond. It is a bit of reach though seeing this as a 'revision', any more than we say of this of scientists who invent their results. I am sure this may be true but 'forgetting or omitting' is not the process one typically means when one talks of the progress of science, which is often more through falsification and new theories replacing the old in the light of fresh empirical evidence. Never the less as we go along we have a more sophisticated and nuanced view of the way things are, knowledge which has especially grown over the last two or three centuries. You are of course entitled to a pessimistic assessment as to what is possible, and I fully agree that we may never know everything. The current rising debate in physics for instance, arguing against Big Bang theory, hints at a possible ontological revolution the scope of which that religion never approaches. However saying just how advanced we are depends on, well, how advanced we think we are; I am sure after a two or three more Einsteins we will be even further ahead in our own estimation. Good points. Thank you for a fair and friendly discussion - rare on this board..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 12, 2020 3:02:27 GMT
If you would read what he wrote and understand it, you would see that he didn't say science was like a religion. He was talking about how people can turn science into a religion. And if you bothered to think about it, a science 'turned into a religion' ends up ... like a religion. Unless the meaning is that science is turned into a religion but then is not really one. In which case it is not really a religion. I can’t think of a science like biology, physics, geology, maths, etc, that has been turned into a religion in the modern era. I do think a lot of the anti-science folks confuse social science with science. Social science only uses the word to denote they take a methodical, empirical evidence, though more subjective, approach to studying social issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 12, 2020 23:10:13 GMT
The only type of club I would want to be a part of is a movie club.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 12, 2020 23:16:43 GMT
Are you kidding? Since the OP already accounts for that (the forgiveness for sins passage) your answer barely qualifies as an attempt. So if you're a Christian (I don't know), it only bolsters my contention. Why don't your kind ever single out the Muslims? Or the Jews? Likely because Christianity is the most prominent religion if you live in the U.S. and Europe. Most people who we encounter and are trying to pass laws and are in power are Christians. Most of us were raised in Christian culture and are from Christian backgrounds. Many of us probably don't know enough about the other religions to comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 12, 2020 23:22:25 GMT
Because, for a typical atheist, this life is all there is. See? Simple. I explained it. Not really, but if you regard mortal life as the only life there is, shouldn't you have some respect for others who believe differently? Is that too much of a minus? Believing this life is the only life their is doesn't mean anything. There are atheists who are nihilists and misanthropes as well as their are atheists who are humanists. I have respect for people's right to have different opinions, but I don't have respect for all people who believe differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 12, 2020 23:22:52 GMT
Why don't your kind ever single out the Muslims? Or the Jews? Likely because Christianity is the most prominent religion if you live in the U.S. and Europe. Most people who we encounter and are trying to pass laws and are in power are Christians. Most of us were raised in Christian culture and are from Christian backgrounds. Many of us probably don't know enough about the other religions to comment. Okay, but after Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth, the ones who are complaining so loudly now might have to realize that they were better off before.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 12, 2020 23:53:29 GMT
Likely because Christianity is the most prominent religion if you live in the U.S. and Europe. Most people who we encounter and are trying to pass laws and are in power are Christians. Most of us were raised in Christian culture and are from Christian backgrounds. Many of us probably don't know enough about the other religions to comment. Okay, but after Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth, the ones who are complaining so loudly now might have to realize that they were better off before. Eh, that is if we assume we will never get through to the rest. There isn't much we can do about the others at the moment. Unfortunately in many Muslim countries speaking out is extremely dangerous. There are atheists in those countries too though, speaking out where they can. I generally only talk about this stuff here and there. It isn't a very big part of my life. I am not the type of in your face atheist and will only talk about it with people who want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2020 0:00:10 GMT
Likely because Christianity is the most prominent religion if you live in the U.S. and Europe. Most people who we encounter and are trying to pass laws and are in power are Christians. Most of us were raised in Christian culture and are from Christian backgrounds. Many of us probably don't know enough about the other religions to comment. Okay, but after Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth, the ones who are complaining so loudly now might have to realize that they were better off before. One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 13, 2020 0:05:02 GMT
Okay, but after Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth, the ones who are complaining so loudly now might have to realize that they were better off before. One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. Yeah, the pushy types mostly succeed in pushing people away.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 13, 2020 0:06:47 GMT
One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. Bingo. In fact, it can cause people to go even further in the direction you are trying to steer them away from. Hence why some "atheists" are atheists for emotional reasons and not for valid reasons. I have heard of the angry atheist phase and that does no good for anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 13, 2020 19:09:41 GMT
Nope. I stay clear of "groups" and "leaders".
They can kiss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 13, 2020 22:11:55 GMT
Nope. I stay clear of "groups" and "leaders".
They can kiss it.
IMDB is a group. R, F & S is a more specific group. I'm sorry I can't help you with the kissing though. I guess you meant atheist groups.
|
|
