|
All Extremism is idiotic (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
So you're being an idiot on purpose? :rolleyes: |
well i'm questioning the validity of the bloody "common belief" which everyone says is based on 'facts' even though people don't know what they are...
It's annoying to me that the media spurns out stuff like "Hawking says god doesn't exist" then puts in a "proof" that makes no sense (out of context), then all the n00bs read the ing thing and go around saying god doesn't exist just cause Hawking said it... :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
People who say things like these really get on my because it's just a gigantic platitude that is accepted as truth and has affected scientific progress negatively for way too long. Why assume that there is such thing as "spiritualism" in the first place that can offer truthful explanations in the first place?
Do you actually believe this or are you just being politically correct? |
why assume that science you don't understand is offering truthful explanations!?!
All you're doing is joining the herd, accepting the generally accepted dogma. How is this really any different than accepting pure spiritualism which tells us how things are, even though we ourselves can't prove it?? |
|
|
| w_ashley |
Two things to add.
1. Maybe hawking is just upset there are no higgs bosons found yet in the LHC.
2. Maybe he is contemplating his existence.... winter is almost in Canada... |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
well i'm questioning the validity of the bloody "common belief" which everyone says is based on 'facts' even though people don't know what they are...
It's annoying to me that the media spurns out stuff like "Hawking says god doesn't exist" then puts in a "proof" that makes no sense (out of context), then all the n00bs read the ing thing and go around saying god doesn't exist just cause Hawking said it... :haha: |
That wasn't what you said on your original post, but whatever. Those sorts of people get on my too. :p
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
why assume that science you don't understand is offering truthful explanations!?! |
It's not an assumption because science has a good track record of offering explanations about the cosmos which is something that cannot be said about mysticism, religion, spiritualism or anything else. My 'trust' in science is based on centuries of accumulated empirical observation, experimentation, and its ability to make future predictions; not on a mere "assumption" that it's true because it feels right.
Also, why assume that I don't understand science? Obviously I am not able to comprehend every single bit of "proof" -mathematical or otherwise- behind every single explanation that science has offered over the course of its existence, but I do have an above than average understanding of science (as well as millions of people with any sort of interest in science, I'm not special).
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
All you're doing is joining the herd, accepting the generally accepted dogma. How is this really any different than accepting pure spiritualism which tells us how things are, even though we ourselves can't prove it?? |
:stongue:
You are beginning to sound like a religious apologist. First of all, there is no "dogma" in science. Nobody has to accept anything because Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein or Hawking said so and Richard Dawkins is not going to burn you at the stake if you challenge his theories (you won't be exempt from ridicule, though). As a matter of fact, it's precisely its lack of dogmatism which has allowed science to succeed at explaining the cosmos as much as it has done so far. Its mechanism of constant inquiry, experimentation, refutation, and correction when necessary are the antithesis of dogma. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
That wasn't what you said on your original post, but whatever. Those sorts of people get on my too. :p
It's not an assumption because science has a good track record of offering explanations about the cosmos which is something that cannot be said about mysticism, religion, spiritualism or anything else. My 'trust' in science is based on centuries of accumulated empirical observation, experimentation, and its ability to make future predictions; not on a mere "assumption" that it's true because it feels right.
Also, why assume that I don't understand science? Obviously I am not able to comprehend every single bit of "proof" -mathematical or otherwise- behind every single explanation that science has offered over the course of its existence, but I do have an above than average understanding of science (as well as millions of people with any sort of interest in science, I'm not special).
:stongue:
You are beginning to sound like a religious apologist. First of all, there is no "dogma" in science. Nobody has to accept anything because Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein or Hawking said so and Richard Dawkins is not going to burn you at the stake if you challenge his theories (you won't be exempt from ridicule, though). As a matter of fact, it's precisely its lack of dogmatism which has allowed science to succeed at explaining the cosmos as much as it has done so far. Its mechanism of constant inquiry, experimentation, refutation, and correction when necessary are the antithesis of dogma. |
That's true, but I said it since then, definitely different direction than the original post :p
It is dogmatised dude, paradigms :)
They change, but they are fundamental belief structures.which.are followed by people..
To claim its not dogmatic is to deny history.
Science is based on centuries of writings, so is religion.. the thing is, studies are rational interpretations of empirical studies, reading about research is not empirical, its rational. That's fine, but admit it.
I don't have a problem with empirical research but unless you did it yourself it is anecdotal evidence at best, sheer belief in most cases.
Believing something you read is true is the same for the reader no matter what is read. You can say it was written in entirely trustworthy ways, but at the end of the day your belief is based on trust. That's not Knowledge, that's belief. |
|
|
| Blake |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Also, it would seem that you failed to comprehend the basic premise of Hawking's book which is that an intelligent creator is not needed to create the universe, not that he has proof that such a being does not exist. You can find some solace in the fact that almost every half-wit assigned to cover the story failed to do so as well. |
^^ This concept is totally viable too. Intelligence is something animals and other living things develop in order to ensure their survival. If God were as eternal / immortal as people seem to think, and as all-encompassing as people say, it would have no need to possess intelligence. Creating universes could simply be a part of such a being's natural state; no special amount of thought or attention required.
A notion like this is probably most offensive to anyone whom believes in God in the more traditional, fairy tale sense, and feels that their existence serves some special purpose or grand underlying meaning in God's grand design (i.e. most people) :crazy: .
As for the OP, Hawking aside, I respect science because it openly states that we don't know what God is / existence is, and then works to attempt to figure it out instead of being lazy and just believing in (:whip: mad lazy yo!). And as for the big bang, if you look at the universe w/an infrared telescope, you'll see that the entire thing is lit up with the infrared radiation from a massive explosion that leads right to the center of the universe. I didn't think this was even argued about anymore. It's irrelevant though. No one can %100 prove that the big bang actually happened in the same way that no one can %100 prove that you or I exist *shrugs* :o no big deal. Though it's nice to believe we exist in theory :stongue: :wtf: |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blake
I respect science because it openly states that we don't know what God is / existence is, and then works to attempt to figure it out instead of being lazy and just believing in (:whip: mad lazy yo!).
It's irrelevant though. No one can %100 prove that the big bang actually happened in the same way that no one can %100 prove that you or I exist *shrugs* :o no big deal. Though it's nice to believe we exist in theory :stongue: :wtf: |
hehe, this is pretty much what i was trying to say, but in an intelligible manner: Kudos to you sir!
First i was just randomly firing off, to be Xtreme, and create hilarious ironic paradoxes, but this is pretty much what i think, BUT i think the people who call themselves atheists, but AREN'T are copping out in the same way the creationists are, BECAUSE they are that lazy as to just say "yeah big bang" while knowing nothing at all about it.
I think admitting ignorance is better than feigning intelligence, just like i was saying in the opening post: Laying claim to know something unknowable is essentially at the roots of religion, and at the roots of the lay-scientists faux-knowledge... both of these things piss me off. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| quote: | Originally posted by couch-potato
 |
Those comics are pure evil
:nervous: :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
why assume that science you don't understand is offering truthful explanations!?! |
weird crazy science i don't understand is responsible for things like the transitor. CPU. satellites. explorer craft squillions of miles across the galaxy.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
It is dogmatised dude, paradigms
They change, but they are fundamental belief structures.which.are followed by people..
To claim its not dogmatic is to deny history.
Science is based on centuries of writings, so is religion.. the thing is, studies are rational interpretations of empirical studies, reading about research is not empirical, its rational. That's fine, but admit it.
I don't have a problem with empirical research but unless you did it yourself it is anecdotal evidence at best, sheer belief in most cases.
Believing something you read is true is the same for the reader no matter what is read. You can say it was written in entirely trustworthy ways, but at the end of the day your belief is based on trust. That's not Knowledge, that's belief. |
my name is pkc and this post is bollocks!! :toothless |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
I really don't get the scientific extremists. They're exactly the same as the religious extremists.
''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.''
Stephen Hawking.
sorry, but this makes no sense. If you want to prove you have siginificantly greater knowledge than your opponent ADMIT that it's UNKNOWN. We don't have to know everything ffs. |
. since when do scientists say they know everything?
Also just because we average folks dont understand quantum physics doesnt mean others dont
| quote: | | and really there's no way to prove the big bang either. |
Cosmic background radiation and redshift |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
weird crazy science i don't understand is responsible for things like the transitor. CPU. satellites. explorer craft squillions of miles across the galaxy.
my name is pkc and this post is bollocks!! :toothless |
Ha yeah I'm talking about the really theoretical stuff that some people are fixated on... what's proving big bang gonna do for us? :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Believing something you read is true is the same for the reader no matter what is read. You can say it was written in entirely trustworthy ways, but at the end of the day your belief is based on trust. That's not Knowledge, that's belief. |
"Belief in something somebody told you" is not the crux of the matter, as that happens everywhere, as you note. "Why do you believe that guy rather than this other guy over here?" is the important question.
At some point everyone trusts institutions that claim to produce or hold some sort of knowledge -- both religious and scientific bodies fall into this category -- so the question then becomes what features of the institutions and their methodologies make them more or less trustworthy relative to one another. What you really need to argue, if you want to claim that belief in scientific assertions and belief in religious ones are on the same epistemological footing, is not just "Everybody believes stuff second-hand!", but that people have just as much as reason to trust religious institutions and their methodologies as they do scientific ones. I think that would be a difficult argument to make, but perhaps you do not. |
|
|
| Fledz |
What kind of ty news source are you getting your info from? Every single news channel I watched made it a point to also include Hawkins view that it is at the end of a day all a theory and he, like most other scientists, cannot ever say that he's 100% right and the possibility of a higher power still technically exists.
Christ on a bike, you just did what extremists do by quoting something out of context, then raving about it to suit your own agenda.
Pro Tip - Watch more SBS, less 7/9/10. |
|
|
|
|
