TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- December 21st 2012...
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »

was gonna just leave this thread on the tip where it belongs, but i'm pretty bored, so hey, why not come back in here, and say things i've probly said 1 million times previously, but u don't get..

to re-itterate: i don't believe in religion, i think the concepts outlined in the bible are fine, if that's a persons choice: i think science isn't all there is, and there are other truths out there that science can't explain- that's all i was saying.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not sure you're understanding the nature of this discussion. i'm not talking about metaphysical questions. they are irrelevant to the topic. science has never, and will never, attempt to answer those questions. they are questions for philosophers, and they'll never be definitively answered. who and where are these scientists that predict science could answer these questions?

are you kidding me!? that's the point! the point is that science can't answer everything! that's an example of something it can't! i think YOU are misunderstanding the discussion.

quote:

that pre-disposition has absolutely nothing to do with using one's rational mind to pretend god doesn't exist for the point of answering a simple question. which you STILL haven't answered by the way. everyone aboard the irrelevant train!! toot toot. its not my fault you have a sincere lack of understanding concerning the argument and the points that i am making. it is getting really quite difficult to argue with you because you seem unable to grasp the nature of the debate. it is your poor logic that leads you to err that religion created "morality" (whatever the fuck that means) not my lack of historical knowledge or common sense.

i think we must be speaking cross-purposes. you're getting pretty upset about this religious information: i was merely using it as an example of a relevant opposition to science. that's why i've changed it to being a rational-based truth, rather than empirical. i was merely saying there can be a truth that doesn't involve the tangible world.

note the first and last points you made in the quote above. i think people made 'morality', it's NOT a disposition: it's something that's put into us by society, laws, and parents. when all 3 of those are steeped in religious dogma (as our culture has and still is, though far more subtley these days) then it seems pretty obvious that our 'morality' comes from religion. by morality i mean simply a concept of right and wrong. if you knew the history of the christian church in and around europe, then i think you wouldn't be able to deny that there is a connection between christianity (catholic/protestant &c.) and our current morality.
i don't mean legal rules alone, i mean social laws. all of those you listed are STILL social negatives! things have deffinitely changed since they were overtly taught to us, but they deffinitly still exist.
you also might note the point i made ages ago that biblical laws are most likely just ways that people DID choose, and made them religious dogma just because it makes people's lives easier (i.e: you don't want people killing each other, so u make it a 'sin' in the days when religion was all that held people with no state-structures in existence (like the jews in the roman empire, and during the dark-and middle-ages...)
so i guess i'm agreeing with you, but for different reasons: i think the religious laws were made by man, but the laws that exist now (legal, or social) do come from the bible, and are KEPT because they're rational. the fact is, the bible has survived a long time: the laws have always been there: the less popular/rational (for us) ones have been left behind but it'd be hard to prove that it has had NO effect on the creation or continuation of laws.

quote:

yes, religion has had a wonderful experience influencing laws and the way it can subjugate the citizenry. besides that fact, are you really telling me that you think human societies had no concept of right and wrong before established state religion?

no. i think that right & wrong/ morality, are creations of the people's beliefs. people make the government and it's laws: if people believe religion, as they have for the past 2000-odd years, in most european states, then it makes sense. i'm not saying i like it, but it's true, if you connect the dots.


[/QUOTE] surely you're not saying that something like murder was not considered wrong, or against the law before the bible was written? [/QUOTE]

how can you explain murder? chaos? if we considered it naturally wrong it would NEVER happen, the truth is violence is natural, and is altered by our social & developmental upbringing & training.

quote:

how do you like those apples? how do you argue that religion has been a benefit to law when its almost always the opposite?

not sure that's true mate. i think historically, the fact that most laws don't conflict with the bible's laws are far more than coincidence:
don't think i said it was a benefit either: i think you're being quite un-scientific, adding values to a statement that i claimed was true, not good or bad.

quote:

this guy is hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac

hehe, that is good: i can imagine how much shit he must get-- fucking hahahahaa

quote:

Originally posted by Philby hey! i even have a lab coat and safety glasses that i pinched from csiro somewhere. not to mention published journal article

Really? Link me!

Oh and there, you just failed the test. None of us wear safety goggles. That's just what we put in the lab manuals to scare first years

shit I don't even wear a lab coat.











And I'm the OHWS rep

quote:

Originally posted by Philby i think you've mentioned this a few times. and each time i have to come back and say you are wrong. so until next time...

ok, what did you say about the pyramids?
i believe you said it hasn't been explained YET, clearly suggesting it can be explained by science. everything on the earth is explainable by science, don't you think?
examples of anything science admits it can't answer? i mentioned that it literally can't answer the question of god/s, but i think many 'scientists' would think they can...

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII that it literally can't answer the question of god/s, but i think many 'scientists' would think they can...

that's such a fucking retarded thing to say.

describe to me the system of thought that CAN answer the question of god/s.

you don't think science can answer questions that are unanswerable? well thanks captain obvious!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's such a fucking retarded thing to say. describe to me the system of thought that CAN answer the question of god/s. you don't think science can answer questions that are unanswerable? well thanks captain obvious!

i think many people, including you before this thread think/thought that science proves god's non-existence.

Yea who cares anymore anyway. I think we can all agree that VB, Corona and apparently Fosters are shit beers...

PKC vs Egos

Where's my doob, chips an dips!

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII i think many people, including you before this thread think/thought that science proves god's non-existence.

i think you're well-meaning but completely and utterly misled.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think you're well-meaning but completely and utterly misled.

i've not been lead anywhere by anything.. just an opinion. don't forget that my main point was not against the scientific community, but faux-scientists- those who think they're in the know, but aren't.

ok, no more, i will listen to deeman, for he is all-knowing, and i praise his brown skin, by staring at him in weird ways whenever i see him.
mad.

Id love to see Scientists explain REAL miracles & apparations....oh wait they cant!

quote:

Originally posted by MiSSyM Id love to see Scientists explain REAL miracles & apparations....oh wait they cant!

gullible fools transfixed in a form of selective reality?

quote:

Originally posted by MiSSyM Id love to see Scientists explain REAL miracles & apparations....oh wait they cant!

Such as?

Who says we could explain them anyway? That's not the point. Apparently you haven't read a single post in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Such as? Who says we could explain them anyway? That's not the point. Apparently you haven't read a single post in this thread.

Ever heard of Lourdes? Fatima? Medjugorje?
The list goes on & on.

AND ofcourse not every Scientist believes that.......just many dismiss miracles/apparations as hoaxes (which some maybe are as some have been found to be false-with people just wanting attention) HOWEVER there are real cases, I believe anyways!

quote:

Originally posted by MiSSyM Ever heard of Lourdes? Fatima? Medjugorje? The list goes on & on. AND ofcourse not every Scientist believes that.......just many dismiss miracles/apparations as hoaxes (which some maybe are as some have been found to be false-with people just wanting attention) HOWEVER there are real cases, I believe anyways!

quote:

The apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes began on 11 February 1858, when Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year old peasant girl from Lourdes admitted, when questioned by her mother, that she had seen a "lady" in the cave of Massabielle, about a mile from the town, while she was gathering firewood with her sister and a friend.[1] Similar appearances of the "lady" took place on seventeen further occasions that year. Catholics consider Bernadette Soubirous a saint, and many Catholics believe her visions to have been of the Virgin Mary. The first appearance of the "Lady" reported by Bernadette was on 11 February. The others were on February 14, 18-21, 23-25, 27, 28, March 1-4, 25, April 7, and July 16.

huh. and then as soon as technology reached a stage to capture actual proof of said lady, she strangely decided to stop visiting.

gee, that's a shame. how'm i gonna sell all my lady of lourdes mugs and tshirts now??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN gullible fools transfixed in a form of selective reality?

far from gullible.

But thats your opinion.

quote:

huh. and then as soon as technology reached a stage to capture actual proof of said lady, she strangely decided to stop visiting.

I dont need captured actual proof, because I KNOW SHE IS REAL & EXISTS.

Everyone has their own personal beliefs, as do I.

explain stigmatics pkc

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic explain stigmatics pkc

Hoaxes? mutilation?

There is also little more than anecdotal evidence to support stigmata actually occurring.

you wouldnt know because you were never witness to one mate

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic you wouldnt know because you were never witness to one mate

very true, and i would greatly appreciate the opportunity to view something like that with my own eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by MiSSyM I dont need captured actual proof, because I KNOW SHE IS REAL & EXISTS. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, as do I.

Missy - I dont mean to offend you (or anyone else for that matter) but if you are catholic and you read and believe the catholic bible you will see that the bible says when people die they stay dead, this includes Mary and all the 'saints'.

Many catholics don't realise this as it contradicts many aspects of the religion but it is all in there for you to read.

The dead are only raised upon judgement day.

Therefor none of those things could be true unless it is the 'devil'.

You guys use way too many words and philosophy for a bunch of crunked EDM fans.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Really? Link me! Oh and there, you just failed the test. None of us wear safety goggles. That's just what we put in the lab manuals to scare first years

http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...bstract/70/1/51

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII ok, what did you say about the pyramids? i believe you said it hasn't been explained YET, clearly suggesting it can be explained by science. everything on the earth is explainable by science, don't you think? examples of anything science admits it can't answer? i mentioned that it literally can't answer the question of god/s, but i think many 'scientists' would think they can...

you said that scientists never admit that they can't explain certain things. i said that is wrong as they do all the time and keep looking for answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Philby http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...bstract/70/1/51 you said that scientists never admit that they can't explain certain things. i said that is wrong as they do all the time and keep looking for answers.

they wouldn't keep looking for answers if they admitted they couldn't answer it. that's my point. not that they admit they don't understand it, but that they say they WILL understand it in the future: nothing that can't be understood in the scientific context.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII they wouldn't keep looking for answers if they admitted they couldn't answer it. that's my point. not that they admit they don't understand it, but that they say they WILL understand it in the future: nothing that can't be understood in the scientific context.

so, which questions in particular are they trying to answer that you believe are outside the scope of science?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.