Originally posted by Blake
riiight... because you exist in a vacuum, completely independent of causality :rolleyes:
*sigh*
You completely misunderstood that.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
No it's not, it's human nature to seek answers. That is our purpose in life.
If we all had your mindset, we'd never get anywhere.
I can just imagine caveman Egos:
"Who cares what's up in the sky? We'll never know the answer so why try"
/facepalm
:stongue: :stongue:
what does knowing get us though, that we don't already have?
I don't need to know how i got here, i need to enjoy what i have while i AM here :p
it's good people ask questions (that's what i'm doing), but make them relevant to the world :p
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
what does knowing get us though, that we don't already have?
Improvement. For example, I know my deodorant has a nice perfume and blocks body odour quite well. What changes once I see this?
I now have something I didn't have before: enlightenment. On a horse.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Improvement. For example, I know my deodorant has a nice perfume and blocks body odour quite well. What changes once I see this?
I now have something I didn't have before: enlightenment. On a horse.
:stongue:
well played: We need more of this in this thread, and less abbrasive fledz. kthx :p
Renegade
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
and really there's no way to prove the big bang either.
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
For example, the big bang cannot be (dis)proven as far as I know
Yeah, I'm not sure where people are getting this idea from. There is overwhelming empirical evidence to support the big bang (millions of the particles it created are passing through your body every second) and I'm unfamiliar with a single cosmologist who rejects the hypothesis. In fact, here's a picture of the reminants of the big bang:
The big "controversy" concerning the big bang is what conditions preceeded the period of rapid universal inflation (which is what the big bang is, btw: it's not an actual explosion) and how those conditions may have arose. There are decent explanations, but the empirical evidence is obviously still very sketchy. Nonetheless, this has little bearing on the validity of the big bang theory, which really has been proven as fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
I'm talking about the layman 'atheist' who claims there is no god, but has views entirely based on someone else's views... just like religious people claim god is real cause of the bible :l
Comsologists can empirically demonstrate the veracity of what they say with unimaginable precision, and if I was sufficiently skeptical I could study the science, get the relevant qualifications and test the data before my very eyes. I'm lazy, and I think that the Popperian mechanism of falsifiability is strong enough to keep bull speculation at the fringes of science, so I won't ever go to those lengths, but in priciple at least, the findings of cosmology could be replicated before my very eyes.
How does that compare to the claims of theologians? Catholics claim that salvation is acheived through the church, Protestants claim that salvation is acheived through faith alone. Can they offer any justification for these claims beyond their own traditions and a selective reading of 1st - 2nd century Near-Eastern texts? Of course not. It's no exaggeration to say that a 5 year old child knows every bit as much about God and his nature as the theologians do. According to you, it makes just as much sense to base one's world-view on the prognostications of these men as it does to base one's world-view on the prognostications of cosmologists who can make predictions about the behaviour of the universe accurate to the 40th decimal place?
Gimme a break.
Fledz
Renegade is my new favourite poster in the entire world.
Dupz
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, I'm not sure where people are getting this idea from. There is overwhelming empirical evidence to support the big bang (millions of the particles it created are passing through your body every second) and I'm unfamiliar with a single cosmologist who rejects the hypothesis. In fact, here's a picture of the reminants of the big bang:
The big "controversy" concerning the big bang is what conditions preceeded the period of rapid universal inflation (which is what the big bang is, btw: it's not an actual explosion) and how those conditions may have arose. There are decent explanations, but the empirical evidence is obviously still very sketchy. Nonetheless, this has little bearing on the validity of the big bang theory, which really has been proven as fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
Comsologists can empirically demonstrate the veracity of what they say with unimaginable precision, and if I was sufficiently skeptical I could study the science, get the relevant qualifications and test the data before my very eyes. I'm lazy, and I think that the Popperian mechanism of falsifiability is strong enough to keep bull speculation at the fringes of science, so I won't ever go to those lengths, but in priciple at least, the findings of cosmology could be replicated before my very eyes.
How does that compare to the claims of theologians? Catholics claim that salvation is acheived through the church, Protestants claim that salvation is acheived through faith alone. Can they offer any justification for these claims beyond their own traditions and a selective reading of 1st - 2nd century Near-Eastern texts? Of course not. It's no exaggeration to say that a 5 year old child knows every bit as much about God and his nature as the theologians do. According to you, it makes just as much sense to base one's world-view on the prognostications of these men as it does to base one's world-view on the prognostications of cosmologists who can make predictions about the behaviour of the universe accurate to the 40th decimal place?
Gimme a break.
Renegade, wtf is this doing in the CoR? This is too much for the daily CoR peasant to absorb - you will destroy their tiny minds.
By the way, how the fuk do you find the energy for this - I gave up years ago, trying to reason with this endless supply of mental hacks
(not having a go at anyone specifically, but I just find these arguments eventually lead to dead ends..)
edit: All the PDD needs is something like this
Fledz
Organised discussions such as in PDD often lead to little or no change because the masses are completely unaware of the discussions or disinterested.
The way to change things is to make the masses aware, not form a circle jerk of 10 intelligent people who could do so much but always fail to because they can't pass on their wisdom to other parts of society.
Dupz
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
Organised discussions such as in PDD often lead to little or no change because the masses are completely unaware of the discussions or disinterested.
The way to change things is to make the masses aware, not form a circle jerk of 10 intelligent people who could do so much but always fail to because they can't pass on their wisdom to other parts of society.
point taken
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, I'm not sure where people are getting this idea from. There is overwhelming empirical evidence to support the big bang (millions of the particles it created are passing through your body every second) and I'm unfamiliar with a single cosmologist who rejects the hypothesis. In fact, here's a picture of the reminants of the big bang:
The big "controversy" concerning the big bang is what conditions preceeded the period of rapid universal inflation (which is what the big bang is, btw: it's not an actual explosion) and how those conditions may have arose. There are decent explanations, but the empirical evidence is obviously still very sketchy. Nonetheless, this has little bearing on the validity of the big bang theory, which really has been proven as fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
Comsologists can empirically demonstrate the veracity of what they say with unimaginable precision, and if I was sufficiently skeptical I could study the science, get the relevant qualifications and test the data before my very eyes. I'm lazy, and I think that the Popperian mechanism of falsifiability is strong enough to keep bull speculation at the fringes of science, so I won't ever go to those lengths, but in priciple at least, the findings of cosmology could be replicated before my very eyes.
How does that compare to the claims of theologians? Catholics claim that salvation is acheived through the church, Protestants claim that salvation is acheived through faith alone. Can they offer any justification for these claims beyond their own traditions and a selective reading of 1st - 2nd century Near-Eastern texts? Of course not. It's no exaggeration to say that a 5 year old child knows every bit as much about God and his nature as the theologians do. According to you, it makes just as much sense to base one's world-view on the prognostications of these men as it does to base one's world-view on the prognostications of cosmologists who can make predictions about the behaviour of the universe accurate to the 40th decimal place?
Gimme a break.
great post! :)
Obviously you can't compare faith to empirical study...?? Faith is entirely based on the lack of proof. As Douglass Adams so brilliantly put it: Man discovering god's existence would disprove him/her.
I was never trying to say they were similar types of knowledge, or found in a similar way, i was saying the way (lay) people digest scientific information is the same as the way people digest religious belief.
They believe the studies they read, as religious people believe the bible.
They themselves believe that X person is capable of dictating their world, as the religious person believes X god dictates their world.
i wasn't actually questioning science, nor was i questioning religion, both are fine... I just don't like the followers :p
Case in point, you have given the first reasonable justification for the big bang which you claim is universally acknowledged as the cause of our existence and given 'proof' for it, even though heaps of people have been calling me dumb for daring to question a theory they can't explain just because our society believes in it :p
I never said i don't believe in it, but i also have never claimed to know it, because i don't. I therefore admit that i don't BELIEVE in it, because i can admit to my own ignorance: Do it all the time :stongue:
I didn't say it wasn't true, i just said i don't know. And this was the point of me posting this thread: 1: to make lulz, 2: To say, you don't have to claim to know something (god doesn't exist) just because it might possibly be true, according to someone else.
find out for yourself, figure out what works for you. Reality is whatever you know it is, not whatever you're told.
*Waits for Fledz to hate on me, and PKC to leash Atheistic hell upon earth*
*Hopes for more lulz from Lira*
Fledz
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
great post! :)
Obviously you can't compare faith to empirical study...?? Faith is entirely based on the lack of proof. As Douglass Adams so brilliantly put it: Man discovering god's existence would disprove him/her.
The problem is that a lot of those people don't see it that way. They faith is their proof and they won't have a bar of anyone who dares to use science to attempt to prove anything.
The greatest problem is the total lack of reason with many theologists. I'm not talking about scholars, I'm talking about your average, day to day religious person.
I had debates like this at university where we were all doing science for Gods sake and two of my friends refused to believe in evolution.
Even though an hour before we were in a molecular biology lab looking and viruses and bacteria replicate, the simplest form of evolution that there is.
As soon as they would get to a point where it's clear I'm winning the argument by a country mile, they would start harping on about the most random bull and the most inane questions that even a simple google search could answer. Then I would just laugh, though in no small part because of how much I was dying inside from the stupidity.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
The problem is that a lot of those people don't see it that way. They faith is their proof and they won't have a bar of anyone who dares to use science to attempt to prove anything.
The greatest problem is the total lack of reason with many theologists. I'm not talking about scholars, I'm talking about your average, day to day religious person.
I had debates like this at university where we were all doing science for Gods sake and two of my friends refused to believe in evolution.
Even though an hour before we were in a molecular biology lab looking and viruses and bacteria replicate, the simplest form of evolution that there is.
As soon as they would get to a point where it's clear I'm winning the argument by a country mile, they would start harping on about the most random bull and the most inane questions that even a simple google search could answer. Then I would just laugh, though in no small part because of how much I was dying inside from the stupidity.
yeah don't get me wrong man, i really hate most religious people, especially RETARDS who have the ing bible and still have no ing idea what faith is all about...
The most annoying thing is any 'religious' person who denies any scientific claim, BECAUSE of what i just said about faith before. 1: god-lovers are lucky because the cop-out "god made it that way" is pretty much unbeatable, but claiming god DIDN"T do something is purely retarded, ESPECIALLY for anything like evolution!!
I do, however, enjoy comparing the blind idiocy of most religious people with what i consider to be the blind idiocy of most religious lay-people, cause it usually REALLY pisses them off (and because i really do think the parallel is there) :stongue:
I by no means think science is an invalid methodology, but i think it IS if there IS no methodology, and only beliefs, which is what science is for most people...
Similarly i think religion is fine, if your into that kind of thing, BUT hate anyone who has no idea what the they're talking about, and have no rational basis for their beliefs. (and i mean rational not empirical :p )
honestly, both of these types of people have no arguments for their beliefs, and have no real reason to believe in it, Except they don't like the alternatives (atheism, or religion)... they don't actually know anything about their belief, they just have it, and end up getting into shouting matches, or denial with anyone who questions them.
