|
December 21st 2012... (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
how is evolutionary theory NOT dogmatic?? |
now we're getting pedantic regarding english. but if you look up "dogma" on dictionary.com, funnily enough it equates dogma with religion :p
| quote: |
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption. |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
and you're spewing some pretty lovely rhetoric in defence of your beliefs, aren't you... |
yes, I might be, but science doesn't. rhetoric is the domain on the humanities, not the sciences.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
just because it doesn't use empirical proof doesn't mean it's not valid! |
rightyo then. so you explain to me what sorts of proofs religion DOES provide. tell me how me sitting on the couch thinking about how the pink elephant on the moon wants me to behave, and then demonstrate how this pattern of thinking is any different to religious doctrine.
religion is invalidated by its contradictions. You could argue that any component of any religion means something other than what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t be wrong. If religious thought can be neither correct nor incorrect, then illustrate how it can be shown to be valid.
there might be one "true" religion intended by god, but it sure as aint being practiced on earth at the minute, so any argument concerning the relative usefulness of religion as a tool for understanding the natural world is worthless.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
that's the entire point about extremism! only an extremist such as yourself would get so rialed up about a friendly conversation-- |
i am forced to be an "extremist" by the loads of non sequitur bollocks i see posted on the web each day by these new agers who's minds are so open their brains have fallen out ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
i never said it wasn't true. i said it was true. i said it wasn't the ONLY true, and that science's truth isn't 100% infallible truth. that was my point. but you're getting so excited because somebody is questioning your religion :p |
science and religion are completely different systems of thought. you can't call science "my religion". its interesting that you say "science's truth isn't 100% infallible truth" as if that's the same weakness as religion not being able to provide ANY demonstrable truths whatsoever.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
science's truth isn't 100% infallible truth
religion answers every question! not scientifically!!!!!!!! |
you would be right in a world where language had no meaning :rolleyes: please, provide these definitive answers for me, and make sure these answers arent contradicted by some other religious belief. good luck.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
my point is that science is more arrogant than religion, |
right, so the fact that relgion professes to know what god wants isnt arrogant? are you being serious?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
those are single events anyways, not science itself. |
what? the tools i mentioned are science personified.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
but it's only open minded to things within it's own structure! as you are displaying. you try and judge religion on sciences terms! LOL if you don't understand that religion and science are DIFERENT, and so cannot be judged by the same values, then you really are a lay-scientist. |
what youre saying makes no sense. either there is religious truth that provides answers that are demonstrably accurate, or you can play faggy wordgames about concepts of truth or existence or whatever. if its the latter youre after than i suggest you go find a philsopher and go masturbate in the corner together.
"science terms" in this context is just another word for "reality". if you want to argue about religion outside the confines of reality, then knock yourself out. but dont come in here saying they are equally valid systems of thought.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
the point I was making is that science isn't the be all and end all of truth. |
then provide me with a list of the truths provided by other belief systems.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
it never even says anything is true, really. |
as i have already said, working technology is working proof of scientific truth.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
you CAN'T measure God (if it exists.) |
of course not, but that statement is completely different to saying a belief in evolution is basically the same as the belief in god. its not.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
and it's people who aren't scientists, who know nothing about science, but claim to BE scientists that are my main point of irritation. people who don't work in any scientific capacity, people who have never studied science beyond a few documentaries, or a quick thumb through the latest New Science, but dare to deny anything except what they're given from the dogmatic rhetoric of people in the field. |
as opposed to all those that believe in god that have what to base their opinions on exactly? again, working technology is proven science. that's enough for me. sure, there might be serious limitations of scientific experimentation, but even the weakest scientific technique is still head & shoulders above anything that religion has to offer in regards to the behaviour of the universe and its inhabitants.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
what batemen said as well: until there has been PROOF that aliens DON't exist, the theory is true, isn't it? :p |
no. the burden of proof is completely different. the onus is on those making the claims to prove them, not the rest of us to disprove. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
what if they were there before the egyptians? |
im almost positive there is a history of which pharoahs had the pyramids built, and how long they took. |
|
|
| gumble |
ok, this thread has gone crazy....
nowhere near enough time to answer, i'll try tonight....
:) |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
now we're getting pedantic regarding english. but if you look up "dogma" on dictionary.com, funnily enough it equates dogma with religion :p |
i said a number of times science is the new religion. (based on a truth-system, seeking the truth, practically worshipped etc)
| quote: | | rhetoric is the domain on the humanities, not the sciences. |
i'm talking about how you talk about it tho-- what people hear about science isn't scientists on tv explaining everything in detail, it's the lay people who go out on their soap-boxes, like the religious fanatics and preach at you about something that neither of them really gets. even if scientific articles aren't rhetoric, what norms hear about them are.
| quote: | | rightyo then. so you explain to me what sorts of proofs religion DOES provide. tell me how me sitting on the couch thinking about how the pink elephant on the moon wants me to behave, and then demonstrate how this pattern of thinking is any different to religious doctrine. |
you clearly don't believe that God created everything, he put us here to live our lives as best we can, and then after-life, but that is the religious truth. it's not proven with anything except personal belief and faith. that's not scientific. doesn't mean it's not true- i believe people can believe whatever they want, as long as theirs good reason behind it, and i think that that belief is ing awesome! i wish it rang true for me :) and it's different because the guide-lines are defined in the biblical texts of each religion, claimed to be passed from god. i don't think it's that hard to see, even if you don't agree with it..
| quote: | | religion is invalidated by its contradictions. You could argue that any component of any religion means something other than what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t be wrong. If religious thought can be neither correct nor incorrect, then illustrate how it can be shown to be valid. |
i do agree with you here, and it's deffinitly a good point. i think religion remains valid because it's a personal interpretation of the texts. it's not about the dogmatic system of each seperate faction of christianity (for example) which has over 100 sects i think.. the sects aren't THAT different tho. they differ over small things (mostly HOW to worship), not the BIG guide-line points. these are the important points if you're going to be religious. and again, those problems are created not by the text, or the concept of the faith, but by human formulations of them. the churches are what religion up, not the belief itself.
| quote: | | there might be one "true" religion intended by god, but it sure as aint being practiced on earth at the minute, so any argument concerning the relative usefulness of religion as a tool for understanding the natural world is worthless. |
just as with science, i'm talking about the structures that create belief & knowledge, not the practice itself: i think the religions, the creations of man to praise god, are pretty ed. i'm merely defending the idea of something External- an existence that isn't present in our sphere, and isn't measurable there either.
| quote: | | i am forced to be an "extremist" by the loads of non sequitur bollocks i see posted on the web each day by these new agers who's minds are so open their brains have fallen out ;) |
that's what Al Qaeda say :p keeping a level head makes it way easier to get your point across anyways
| quote: | | science and religion are completely different systems of thought. you can't call science "my religion". its interesting that you say "science's truth isn't 100% infallible truth" as if that's the same weakness as religion not being able to provide ANY demonstrable truths whatsoever. |
i think truth, in infallible form can be reached rationally: it's not an empirical pass-time: science is both empirical and rational, that's why it tickles me a bit: science pretty much denies anything except what's tangible, and i struggle with that just because EVERYTHING goes thru the tangled web of our minds...
| quote: | | right, so the fact that relgion professes to know what god wants isnt arrogant? are you being serious? |
i meant the people who praise the belief-- science followers claim to know everything (even if it's not proven yet)-- religious people just say god did it :p
| quote: | | either there is religious truth that provides answers that are demonstrably accurate, or you can play faggy wordgames about concepts of truth or existence or whatever. if its the latter youre after than i suggest you go find a philsopher and go masturbate in the corner together. |
i'm talking about the relevance of science as a way of life. saying it's not all there is, so i guess i'll go wank in the corner.
was also saying religion shouldn't need to be demonstratably accurate: it's taking 100 times, but you must try and understand that the problem is that you're seeing EVERYTHING thru science: religion is NOT science-- it cannot be proven accurate, or not like that. it's concepts are true. you don't have to believe them if they're not detailed enough, but if they were more detailed it would not be religion. the ambiguity of religion is how it is: you remove it, or you lose the whole of religion's basis (faith).
turning to HHGTTG again: if you proved God existed, it would STOP existing: because with god deffinitly existing there is no faith based on the lack of knowledge, and without faith god would cease to be.
| quote: | | "science terms" in this context is just another word for "reality". if you want to argue about religion outside the confines of reality, then knock yourself out. but dont come in here saying they are equally valid systems of thought. |
science is a fairly recent phenomenah- i can't really speak to you, if you can't see a difference between empirical and rational knowledge, and about subjective and relative truths. science explains 'scientific reality'. not UNIVERSAL reality. they are equally valid, they're just different. where's your scientific open-mindedness if you can't understand anythign that science doesn't admit??
| quote: | | working technology is proven science. that's enough for me. sure, there might be serious limitations of scientific experimentation, but even the weakest scientific technique is still head & shoulders above anything that religion has to offer in regards to the behaviour of the universe and its inhabitants. |
fine, that's your opinion. i happen to agree with you, but i don't think religion is written out. mainly because it's not TRYING to answer those questions! it already has answered all it needs to- it's upto you if it's not enough. they're not mutually exclusive anyway- the bible is pretty chilled-- we're not here for a purpose- there's no reason not to believe science- it explains the way the world works: that's great: it gets us nice cars: awesome. does it give meaning to anything?
that is what religion is for. science explains how things work, religion gives a purpose to action. you may not like it, but that's the point of it.
edit: i get points for longest post :D |
|
|
| batemanscott |
pkc another point to consider is this:
Look at architure, there is a clear path that things follow, almost an evolution itself if you like, that shows gradual change in the way things are constructed.
You start with something really basic, learn a bit, apply it, things improve for the next one and repeat over and over.
I think you'd agree with this so far?
Consider just how much mystery there is to the pyramids because of all the things we know about the way they are made yet dont know about how they were made.. where are the buildings they slowly 'came from'. where are the buildings that stage by stage the builders learnt from so that they could apply their learnings to the pyramids.
There aren't any that are anything like them.
It's as if they went from stone age nonsense to one of the most incredible structures ever created over night. |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im almost positive there is a history of which pharoahs had the pyramids built, and how long they took. |
there is, but there is also new evidence to suggest they were made approx 10,000 bc which i'll have to try and find again for you :) |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
dude - the pyramids are built based on pi - not the cirles lol. |
well mr OMFG THEY USED PI
the value of pi is related to a circle. you can work out pi by drawing circles in freaking sand
you can even work out pi by literally just throwing an object randomly 100's/1000's of time, or counting something that occurs randomly on the ground. rocks perhaps? (the greater the sample size, the more accurate the end result. and it does work. had to simulate it back in the days of uni)
http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/n...CarloPiMod.html
it might all sound crude but it does work.
we didn't make the leap from nothing to calculators in an instant. sticks and rope could easily have been the tools of a mathematician from once upon a time. |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
religion answers every question! not scientifically!!!!!!!! my point is that science is more arrogant than religion, and that makes people who pretend to know everyting, whereas in religion, at least people just go "God made it so".. lol
|
when is science more arrogant?
| quote: |
works of far smarter people than you or I. These are creations of individuals that build a certain society. I think they're awesome: doesn't mean i understand how they're done, so how can i praise that? those are single events anyways, not science itself.th
|
what the hell does that even mean? he just gave you an example of how scientific truths impact on you everyday and you...i dont even know what you are doing
| quote: |
the point I was making is that science isn't the be all and end all of truth.
|
when has it claimed to be? its a search for understanding and explanation and experiments, finding out what happens if you add x to y. trying to find out how and why things are.
| quote: |
all i said, is there is more, and there are things science doesn't answer, but science does NOT admit that.
|
huh? science admits that all the time! then the scientists who admit it go and do more science to try and find e answer.
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Look at the pyramids - every single scientific theory as to how 'we' did it has been proven impossible yet there they are.
|
this is where people like you fall down but manage to cause so much trouble in the process. "science can't explain it so therefore there is another reason". maybe science can't explain it RIGHT NOW, but that doesn't mean science won't be able to explain it in the future!!!
[/quote]
I think scepticism is healthy and to a large degree neccessary but surely even a tasmanian like you gets to a point where you stop raping small boys and think that just maybe there is something pretty big at work here :) [/QUOTE]
pkc is not tasmanian. he just lives there. i'm suprised he hasn't snapped over this already...
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Rate of sinkage, aligment to true north, aligment to the orion belt, 'tuned' stones, lack of heiroglyphical documentation of them building it, built with the knowledge of pi to 15 decimal points, magnetism produced by the stones etc etc etc the list is endless as to why it wasn't us that could of done it.
|
scott, if you go outside at night and look up, you will find this thing called 'the sky' :D alignment to north and the orion belt should be no problem for you and should not really be a significant point in anything.
maybe some of the rocks have some iron in them? that could explain magnetism.
| quote: |
We have proved we could move rocks that size - we failed to prove we could build these things based on all we know about them. |
well then maybe we don't know all about them!!
if this happened 5000 years ago, in a desert, there could be all sorts of stuff missing or lost cause of erosion or that just hasn't been found to explain something. or maybe there just are no detailed records and we have to figure it out later.
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
So you're seriously telling me 'random erros' in meiosos are responsible for the vast and extremely vital changes species go through over time to give them a better chance at survival?
farking LOL. i find religion easier to believe than that and i truly dont believe in religion. |
why is that hard to believe? thats mutations are. maybe something slipped or was the wrong angle and it changed something? why is it so hard to believe?
| quote: | Originally posted by sunrise3500
If the egyptians really did have alien help, then surely the aliens would have been seen as gods and there'd be drawings of them all over the place to honor them... why not some statues for them too? No, they were all of themselves. Hail to the king baby!
Myth, BUSTED. |
:D |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
| and if it was frekaing aliens, why did it take decades to build the damn things? why not just do a beam me up SCOTTY and magically teleport all the crack rocks into their right position or levitate them. cos old fashioned man power had to be used.. awwwww no |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by sunrise3500
sticks and rope could easily have been the tools of a mathematician from once upon a time. |
indeed. the ancient greeks (i think it was the greeks) worked out the circumference of the planet (to within 20km) using just a couple of sticks and the sun.
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
pkc another point to consider is this:
Look at architure, there is a clear path that things follow, almost an evolution itself if you like, that shows gradual change in the way things are constructed.
You start with something really basic, learn a bit, apply it, things improve for the next one and repeat over and over.
I think you'd agree with this so far?
Consider just how much mystery there is to the pyramids because of all the things we know about the way they are made yet dont know about how they were made.. where are the buildings they slowly 'came from'. where are the buildings that stage by stage the builders learnt from so that they could apply their learnings to the pyramids.
There aren't any that are anything like them.
It's as if they went from stone age nonsense to one of the most incredible structures ever created over night. |
that's a nice little point there scotty, but it doesn't equate to finding huge alien fingerprints at the scene of the crime :p |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the ancient greeks (i think it was the greeks) worked out the circumference of the planet (to within 20km) using just a couple of sticks and the sun. |
no they didn't
it was aliens, there's no way they could have done it
want proof?
the earth now has a magnetic field.. explain that! (it's the aliens..from when they measured the earth)
hahahahaha
ok sorry :( |
|
|
| EgosXII |
all i'm trying to say, and getting mega-sidelined in doing it is:
i don't think science is all encompassing
i think there's things that are beyond science's grasp
science admits neither of these things
and i hate lay-scientists who have made science into a virtual religion, that they use instead of religion to create something all humans love to have: belief and faith. |
|
|
|
|
