88 replies to this topic

[Taralom]

I don't see why you couldn't.

Let's put it another way. Let's say you are hippie and I'm emo. If one-fifth of the populace was hippie, one half was emo and the rest couldn't care less. If all the emo's start yelling that hippies are stupid because they only live in happiness, while no true happiness can be achieved without misery and demise, how would you feel?
Now let's take it in this situation: Everything is the same, except the emo's have stopped yelling and started systematically proving that the hippies are "stupid and believers in good without evil", how would you feel?

There is a thing called discrimination, which this is starting to resemble. Remember the time the Christians attacked Muslim states? This is the same situation but without the violence and killing.

[Puppeteer]

Beliefs aren't intrinsic or fixed. Beliefs can be made, beliefs can be broken, beliefs can be temporary, beliefs can be everlasting.
Beliefs are open to opinion. Beliefs are open to scrutiny.

[Taralom]

And tomorrow Allah could rise from a never-expected dimension, proving all science wrong. Who knows? As long as Science does not have a fixed answer to everything, everything is possible, until either science or belief is proven wrong.

Until that moment, the anti-faith ambience of this forum needs to change... drastically.

[Puppeteer]

Ah the elicit burden of proof logic (or lack thereof). Have you heard of Russell's teapot?

[Mathijs]

Give it to him Puppet, give it to him.

[Bart]

See also http://tvtropes.org/...hewbaccaDefense (thanks Ash!)

[Pasidon]

You need a strong faith as long as Rosie O'Donnelld still exists.

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 13 October 2009 - 11:36 PM.

[Rattuskid]

However, I do think that you cannot break down someone's beliefs just because you disagree. Shame on you, puppeteer

Spoken like a man who has never met a scientologist...

how would you feel?

Appeal to emotion is irrelevant. If I believed the universe was created by a fart from Tim Russell, I'd be wrong even if I REALLY REALLY strongly felt that way. If a million people felt the same as me, we'd still be wrong. Fact is not a democratic process.

Edited by Rattuskid, 14 October 2009 - 03:15 AM.

[Pasidon]

According to science, we're all stupid monkeys who were the inevitable creations from an explosion that created our ancestral home. Science is my mistress, but she's nuts. Though in all good news, I'd rather believe that then some war with aliens who's resistance leader is Tom Cruise.

[Ash]

Russell's Teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

See also:
Invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster.


And you call that picture reductionist, but let's look at the facts:

The empirical scientific method is open to new information and its ideas and theories can change if contradictory evidence is found. It also requires proof for the ideas' working in the first place before it accepts it.

The religious method completely ignores any contrary evidence. The religion itself does not accommodate; only individual worshippers among the number do. They're usually branded 'heretics' or 'unorthodox'.

Ok, no religion is as fucked up as scientology. In fact I can't even describe it as a religion. More a 'sect' or 'cult'.

According to science, we're all stupid monkeys who were the inevitable creations from an explosion that created our ancestral home. Science is my mistress, but she's nuts. Though in all good news, I'd rather believe that then some war with aliens who's resistance leader is Tom Cruise.

This made me lulz.

[Taralom]

First of all, allow me to make the following clear: I disagree with the ideas of the church, since I refuse to believe in a god that allowed the crimes of the church to take place in his name, read: selling indulgences etc.

Do I know about the experiments you describe, and do I understand the ideas that followed, bringing us ever closer to the origin of the universe and the laws of physics? Well, I do not.
My wisdom lies with the past, the goals of the roman empire, it's demise and the wolrd that was bourn out of the void that it left. I know about the birth of christianity, the religion you now mock, how it took up the books of another faith and used it to prove that it was right. I know about its customs, the way of showing other why they were right. I know about it's drive to expand. I know about its crusades, meant to bring civilization to the so-called "pagans", justified by the chant "God wills it!"

Do you, as the brilliant scientists you pose yourselves as, notice the similarities between the crusades and the things that happen here?
The christians, the people that your forefathers belonged to, have turned into the pagans of the scientific crusade against belief. These crusaders, wise in their knowledge of physics, deny the wisdom of faith, deny the virtues that it strives to forfill, deny religion's true meaning: helping to understand the world around us.
Now we have arrived at the point I've been trying to make, the meaning of what I was trying to make clear. Long ago, at the time of foragers and hunter, before fire was discovered and the wheel was invented, lightning struk a tree, setting it ablaze. Our common forefathers looked at this heavenly miracle and told their children: "Fear not, for that is Zeus, the lord of all gods. You need not worry, his rage needs to be provoked before he strikes you."
These times, we tell our children, too young to understand the meaning of the words we unleash upon them: "When two clouds clash into each other, the friction ionizes the molecules. What you see here before your very own eyes, is the positively ionized molecules being attracted to the negative crust of the sphere we call earth."

Both of these explanations are ways to understand the diverse world around us. But can either one of them be said to be superior? Is it a matter of words being superior above others? I think not. It is a matter of what you think is correct.
Therefore, my conclusion is the following:

Science is Faith

I feel no more need to show you where you behave wrongly, for if you are the scientists you make yourselves out to be, you'd know what I'm trying to say after this. There is a reason why the unknown tribe in the dense Amazon forest is left to itself, without contact with the outer world.

Edited by Taralom, 14 October 2009 - 11:40 AM.

[Ash]

I disagree strongly with a lot of your post. I don't believe science denies religion, so much as disproves it. But if science is faith (which I don't think for a second it is), then I would sooner place my faith in something I have evidence for than in something for which there is no evidence.

That said, science and faith are as clear-cut opposites. Faith is an unwavering trust and devotion in something despite all evidence to the contrary. Science is acceptance of a concept, which may or may not survive the test of...well, testing it, and so is malleable.

Beyond that, good post even if, as I said, I disagree with 80% of it. Religion and faith do indeed have a mutually inclusive goal of trying to explain and make sense of the world around. The difference is that science doesn't kill or persecute those who disagree with that view, or work people up into a fervour for its own gain. It doesn't impose or force everyone to conform to the same view of everything, and it doesn't resist evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, its interpretation by people is every bit as subjective as that of religious instruction. That is perhaps the only other thing science and religiosity have in common. So, in the individual, science has its permutations every bit as much as religion does.

[Taralom]

and just because you have evidence of what you believe, you have the right to utterly crush religion, without anyone here able to pose any opposition?

It's not that I feel your arguments are wrong, but that everyone here lacks respect for the aspect that has dominated the European and American culture for nearly 400 years. That is what I find shocking. Even if you're saying that I'm a noob and should be banned for opposing the 'almighty' Puppeteer, who seems to have more power here than God in Christianity*, I still think that the way you treat this important aspect of histroy wrongly.

*evidence #1:

Give it to him Puppet, give it to him.

Appeal to emotion is irrelevant. If I believed the universe was created by a fart from Tim Russell, I'd be wrong even if I REALLY REALLY strongly felt that way. If a million people felt the same as me, we'd still be wrong. Fact is not a democratic process.

As you said, I have never met a scientologist, and do not feel the need to. I'm at a christian school, just because the level of education is higher than at non-christian schools. I will skip the long explanation of our system.
Yet, thanks to emotion, the 'need' to describe the world and to know what is happening, started science and belief in the beginning. And you say it is irrelevant? Live without emotion for just one day. Just try to. You'll see it is impossible.


edit: added 'And America' to the first part

Edited by Taralom, 14 October 2009 - 12:18 PM.

[Ash]

and just because you have evidence of what you believe, you have the right to utterly crush religion, without anyone here able to pose any opposition?

Let's use a courtroom analogy. You sit on a jury at a murder trial. The defence has only one line: "I didn't do it." which is repeated vehemently and with the greatest (pardon the pun) conviction you have ever heard. The defendant claims he was somewhere else at the time, however nobody can corroborate this story. A written testimony from a guy (who didn't know and has never seen the defendant) says that a friend of his knew the defendant and saw him elsewhere. This 'friend' is not contactable, as he was shipped off to fight in Afghanistan before the defendant was arrested, and ended up killed by the Taliban, and the stranger who wrote the testimony refuses to give evidence before the court.

The prosecution, however, has the murder weapon complete with the defendant's fingerprints, samples of the defendant's hair and skin recovered from the victim's body, and two witnesses who both testify that they saw the murder, and that it was the defendant who did the murdering.

You, the jury, must decide, on the basis of the evidence put before you and the testimonies given by all parties, whether, beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

What is your verdict?

It's not that I feel your arguments are wrong, but that everyone here lacks respect for the aspect that has dominated the European and American culture for nearly 400 years. That is what I find shocking. Even if you're saying that I'm a noob and should be banned for opposing the 'almighty' Puppeteer, who seems to have more power here than God in Christianity*, I still think that the way you treat this important aspect of histroy wrongly.

I don't see how. What automatic right does tradition have to take precedence? Just because it is four hundred years old does not give it an automatic right to be revered or granted any more credence. Particularly when that particular institution isn't known for its respect for things older than it. I think various other religions and denominations can attest for that.

Yes, Christianity is an important factor in history, however that shouldn't give it any immunity from scrutiny.

As you said, I have never met a scientologist, and do not feel the need to. I'm at a christian school, just because the level of education is higher than at non-christian schools. I will skip the long explanation of our system.
Yet, thanks to emotion, the 'need' to describe the world and to know what is happening, started science and belief in the beginning. And you say it is irrelevant? Live without emotion for just one day. Just try to. You'll see it is impossible.

I don't personally see what relevance or pertinence emotion has to this discussion, beyond the fact that no matter how fervently you believe something to be right, if you're wrong, you're wrong. That's the point Rattus was trying to make. I don't think emotion has any real part to play in the need to describe and investigate the world, though.

[Rattuskid]

Yet, thanks to emotion, the 'need' to describe the world and to know what is happening, started science and belief in the beginning.

Science answers 'how'.

Beliefs answer 'why'.

Different beasts.

Both can be wrong, but the chances of something nobody can agree on being right are far less than something a select group of the educated can basically agree on and empirically test.

That's science versus personal beliefs though. I think beliefs should be just that, personal. Religion is a fucking crime against individuality perpetrated by the ancient world. I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm just saying sitting 30 people down in a room, explaining you understand that which by definition is unknowable and then telling them exactly how things are is fucking wrong. It's an institution for power and control, and for every one person the institutions help from charity there are five who commit violence in the name of their religion. I don't think anything is farther from the grace of a perfect being than the groupthink of religion.

[Bart]

Beliefs answer 'why'.

Explain that, because I don't see it. Science does that just as well.

Why can we see? Because of light bouncing off stuff and hitting our eyes.
Why do apples fall? Because of gravity.

In fact, rather often how and why are totally unseperable.

How does a car move? Because the fuel is exploded and this movement is transfered to wheels.
Why does a car move? Because the fuel is exploded and this movement is transfered to wheels.

[Mathijs]

Not really. Why does a car move? Because we need to get to places.

[Pasidon]

Or perhaps the car is asking, "Why do humans get inside of us".

Science is Faith

I think that was Pavlov's dieing words.

[Bart]

Not really. Why does a car move? Because we need to get to places.

Actually there isn't one real answer. Things are not caused by one event, but by a chain.

Why does a car move? Because it's wheels move it forward
Why do the wheels do that? They are powered, through a bunch of mechanics, by an explosion of fuel inside the engine.
Why does the fuel explode? Because it is fed into the engine and compressed.
Why is the fuel fed into the engine? Because the gas pedal is pressed which allows the fuel to flow in.
Why is the gas pedel pressed? Because a human applies force to it with his foot.
Why does the human do that? Because he needs to get to places.

(If you're really into the details you can add stuff in about molecules affecting eachother and stuff, but let's not)

So we're both right. You just interpret the word "why" on a higher level, in this case

[Vortigern]

Unusually for me, I'm going to make a point on the side of religion here:

Science is acceptance of a concept, which may or may not survive the test of...well, testing it, and so is malleable.

That's exactly what religion is. It's a concept which may or may not survive being tested. Maybe we just haven't found the right test yet, and maybe that's because nobody's been looking. Modern scientists all assume that there is no God, so don't bother searching for one. Until they do, how can they hope to find proof of a higher being? It's not just going to fall into their laps. It's quite possible that proving the existence of God requires a higher form of science than any we have yet encountered, so don't discount it just yet. To sum this up, the fact that we can't prove it doesn't mean it can't be proven.

For science to make sense, we have to accept a few things that also cannot be proven. The Big Bang, for one. We have no proof of this whatsoever. All we have to go on is the fact that the universe is expanding, which could quite easily be caused by God continuing to build and stretch the universe, if you work by a different assumption.

Besides, on a whole different point, faith is important. Faith is what makes us human, and it is something we all share. Some have faith in themselves, some have faith in a god, some in their legal system, others in whatever makes sense to them. It's what convinces us to get up in the morning and carry on with an otherwise meaningless existence. For myself, I do not believe in the existence of a god, but I have a great deal of faith in the world around me. I believe that everyone has, for want of a better term, a soul mate, somewhere in the world. I believe that ultimately the world has a pervading karmic justice, though sometimes it fails on an individual scale. I believe that there is a reason for life to exist, but that we have no idea what it is and probably never will. I believe that if we ever do figure out the meaning of life that'll be an end to it right there; when you've solved the big question of life, the universe and everything, what else is there? These are the things that keep me going, that help me make sense of the world, and I question them daily. Blind acceptance is a slow death of the mind, but so is complete unwillingness to accept anything. I wish you all luck in finding a healthy balance.