Debriefing > Off-Topic Lounge
God and the universe...
Rodney 1.666:
--- Quote from: WatchMyTrace on August 24, 2009, 04:20:46 am ---There is only one true religion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
--- End quote ---
Win.
--- Quote from: JessEH [The Beatles pwn j00!] on August 24, 2009, 09:14:23 pm ---But if you feel that this thread should be locked, by all means lock it. I understand.
--- End quote ---
As long as no one builds us a trollercoaster, I see nothing wrong with "discussion."
However, those who are thinking to themselves that they may be swaying others should keep in mind that these topics never, ever reach any sort of conclusion, and can waste a lot of one's time as nothing anyone says will ever persuade anyone else.
jjmusicnotes:
Tru dat, most of the time it's hard enough just to get people to not threaten to beat eachother up.
--- Quote from: Konrad Beerbaum on August 25, 2009, 01:36:58 am ---I'm not sure what you mean by 'beef'.
--- End quote ---
Haha, sorry, slang term I guess. :P Yes, I meant "have a problem with."
--- Quote from: Konrad Beerbaum on August 25, 2009, 01:36:58 am ---However to me there is a difference between religious belief and believing in the scientific process. The scientific process is completely transparent and peer reviewed. In school we learn how the scientific process works, and experience it on a small scale. Scientific theories are rigorously tested with the best possible information at the time, are peer reviewed by thousands of people, and theories are thrown out or changed based on new information. So I have faith in scientific theories because even though I haven't studied a specific theory myself, thousands of other people have and came up with the best possible answer they could, and so I can be reasonably certain it is good information. The same process does not apply to religious doctrine, and so it must be taken on BLIND faith, which is the key word. It is the difference between an educated guess and wild speculation.
--- End quote ---
I think I get what you're saying - that you find it much more logical and reasonable to trust / believe things backed by empirical data; something which is tangible.
I also think that there are some aspects of religious faith that MUST be taken blindly. I mean, after all, that's part of the reason why it's called faith, and not stuff that we already know.
That being said, I think it's also important not to disallow the fact that there have been / are scholars that are continously analyzing church doctrine, the holy books, and researching to work out the most correct interpretation to the best of their knowledge.
They may not have numbers and tangible instruments for measuring data, but they do have criteria for a certain standard of morality.
One could make the argument I suppose that mechanical instruments are impartial and not subject to perceptual bias.
One could also reply that there is a reason why we don't use those instruments when we share our feelings with one another, where the squishiness of our consciousness cannot be measured in Mg or kJ.
**side note**
Okay, so technically, our thoughts have a mass that can be measured. But I think you get my point.
**end side note**
I think that that is one of the reasons why religion / faith / God is such a gray area for everyone - in that it's all conceptual, yet it seems to demand so much from our tangible world.
Sole Signal [Audix]:
I'm a Christian young earth creationist. There's too many problems with the evolutionary camp (constantly changing their dates and theories-- apparently the appendix isn't a vestigial organ anymore) and it requires much more faith to believe IMO.
I find these debates fascinating, as long as they don't degenerate into a "what's wrong with you" flamefest. Everything one believes about the origins of the earth is framed by an initial mindset. Try the creationist view just for kicks and you'll see that it makes a good deal of sense.
VC:
The holy trinity is a Mathematician, a Physicist, and an Engineer.
The Mathematician set the rules for the universe. The Physicist determined the materials that would be availiable. The Engineer figured out how to make that material turn itself into stars, beer, and paper airplanes.
It's really that simple. Anything else is antrhopocentric idealism and crowd control measures.
WatchMyTrace:
--- Quote from: Audix on August 28, 2009, 04:07:27 pm ---I'm a Christian young earth creationist. There's too many problems with the evolutionary camp (constantly changing their dates and theories-- apparently the appendix isn't a vestigial organ anymore) and it requires much more faith to believe IMO.
--- End quote ---
So what your saying is that when a new discovery is made and a textbook is changed that makes the entire science invalid? That's what science is, it's new discoveries and progression into our understanding of the world around us.
Evolution is based on science which is constantly being updated as new discoveries are made. For example the age of the universe was largly based on theory until the hubble telescope was made which can now see objects as far back as 13 billion light years: see Hubble Ultra Deep Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field The farthest image ever taken.
Once a new and better telescope is made the date could get pushed back farther by witnessing what is known as the dark age (a time shortly after the big bang when no stars existed and thus no light existed) This would absolutely confirm the age of the universe.
Now you tell me which takes more faith, If i all i look at is a old text book that says there is no cure for polio should i never look at a newer one and just keep believing that none exists?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version