(06-11-2012 02:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In case you were unaware, the scientific method is setup to disprove any premise. It is only accepted as a postulate when it cannot be disproven. But nothing is fact until its mathematical proof is confirmed, and even then a new mathematic discovery could render it all irrelevant...

The religious method is to accept things without proof as fact, and I need a logical reason to accept that. Faith isn't logical IMO...

Bit,

You know I respect you for many things and enjoy your wit and reasoning. On the issue of faith, though, my observation is that you have faith, you simply place your faith in your own reasoning and experiences. Anyway, just an observation from a friend.

By the way, To all posters, you've done a good job keeping the peace in the debate in what is usually an highly flamable topic.

Thanks, I am just expressing my opinion and I respect others opinion.

(06-11-2012 09:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 08:38 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 02:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In case you were unaware, the scientific method is setup to disprove any premise. It is only accepted as a postulate when it cannot be disproven. But nothing is fact until its mathematical proof is confirmed, and even then a new mathematic discovery could render it all irrelevant...

The religious method is to accept things without proof as fact, and I need a logical reason to accept that. Faith isn't logical IMO...

Nevertheless, science makes a huge leap of faith in accepting current particle-waveform behavior theory... since it's wholly incapable of proving either view, or discovering WHY it is that way. They still accept the un-provable as truth, and that is "Faith."

Can agree with this.

Theory = faith if you asked me. Great point

Please please please do not be one of those people who confuse a scientific theory for a hypothesis. A scientific theory undergoes rigorous trials, experiments, research and everything to be promoted to a scientific theory.

What BadWillHunting is referring to is a perfectly viable situation that he describes. Yes, he is correct that in some instances scientists have to take some concepts on a leap of faith. But as bit implied earlier, those concepts are not taken wholeheartedly until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Quantum Physics is a very tricky ordeal, as it almost never has observable effects in a macroscopic sense. That implies relying on what would seem to be a leap of faith, but to those that know the math and the postulates behind the reason, it is merely the reduction to the most likely scenario. To those that are relevant to the research, it's not taken on faith at all, at least to them.

The disparity (and what would make BadWillHunting's argument look like a Red Herring ploy) is that religion, by definition requires faith in order to exist. To question is weakness in your trust of the all mighty, to think is frowned upon; at least that is the way I see it.

If a researcher publishes his findings and his only reasoning is "just trust me on this one", he'll be ignored faster than his employer could fire him.

(06-16-2012 09:31 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 09:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 08:38 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 02:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In case you were unaware, the scientific method is setup to disprove any premise. It is only accepted as a postulate when it cannot be disproven. But nothing is fact until its mathematical proof is confirmed, and even then a new mathematic discovery could render it all irrelevant...

The religious method is to accept things without proof as fact, and I need a logical reason to accept that. Faith isn't logical IMO...

Nevertheless, science makes a huge leap of faith in accepting current particle-waveform behavior theory... since it's wholly incapable of proving either view, or discovering WHY it is that way. They still accept the un-provable as truth, and that is "Faith."

Can agree with this.

Theory = faith if you asked me. Great point

Please please please do not be one of those people who confuse a scientific theory for a hypothesis. A scientific theory undergoes rigorous trials, experiments, research and everything to be promoted to a scientific theory.

What BadWillHunting is referring to is a perfectly viable situation that he describes. Yes, he is correct that in some instances scientists have to take some concepts on a leap of faith. But as bit implied earlier, those concepts are not taken wholeheartedly until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Quantum Physics is a very tricky ordeal, as it almost never has observable effects in a macroscopic sense. That implies relying on what would seem to be a leap of faith, but to those that know the math and the postulates behind the reason, it is merely the reduction to the most likely scenario. To those that are relevant to the research, it's not taken on faith at all, at least to them.

The disparity (and what would make BadWillHunting's argument look like a Red Herring ploy) is that religion, by definition requires faith in order to exist. To question is weakness in your trust of the all mighty, to think is frowned upon; at least that is the way I see it.

If a researcher publishes his findings and his only reasoning is "just trust me on this one", he'll be ignored faster than his employer could fire him.

I would differ in that religion admits faith while "science" denies faith while practicing it. You can pretend all you want about Hypothesis, Theory, and Fact being differing levels of thought and philosophy. However, many scientific theories are disproved by other scientific theories, or simple fact or mathematical calculations yet these same theories are presented as fact to this day, though disproved. At any point, where there lacks absolute proof, you must have faith, whether in God, science, or the tooth fairy, or something else.

We can even pretend that all avenues have been considered and all have been disproved but one, which logically or reasoned is the only solution, but if it cannot be proved absolutely, it is still a leap of faith.

As to your point on religion, each religion presents their own evidence and admittedly faith is a component. This is what scares scientists who want proof, or at least logic/reason to support their claims. Ironically, these same scientists demand that we believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe (I personally believe there is life elsewhere) but there is no evidence to support this and yet these same scientists deny this is a faith.

Science, like religion, is hypocritical, yet offers a lot of good.

Ironically I wrote a piece earlier today for class on alien life forms. And yes I also believe that there is life outside of earth.

(06-18-2012 02:50 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Ironically I wrote a piece earlier today for class on alien life forms. And yes I also believe that there is life outside of earth.

I'd find it highly unlikely that there's not life on other planets elsewhere in the universe. The universe is way too big not to have other Earth-zone planets where some kind of lifeforms have developed.

(06-21-2012 11:16 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(06-18-2012 02:50 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Ironically I wrote a piece earlier today for class on alien life forms. And yes I also believe that there is life outside of earth.

I'd find it highly unlikely that there's not life on other planets elsewhere in the universe. The universe is way too big not to have other Earth-zone planets where some kind of lifeforms have developed.

That's mostly my thoughts as well. Another thought of mine is, why must life exist in the Earth-zone or an Earth-like planet. There's some thoughts that there could be sea life on Titan, one of Venus's moons. I think there is a lot to learn about the universe in general.

as John Lennon said, Imagine no religion too. Religion is the basis for the majority of what is wrong in our world. We have too many people that believe too many things about God and the origins of the world. So we have people fighting about what they believe and why they believe it.

(06-21-2012 12:40 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 11:16 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(06-18-2012 02:50 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Ironically I wrote a piece earlier today for class on alien life forms. And yes I also believe that there is life outside of earth.

I'd find it highly unlikely that there's not life on other planets elsewhere in the universe. The universe is way too big not to have other Earth-zone planets where some kind of lifeforms have developed.

That's mostly my thoughts as well. Another thought of mine is, why must life exist in the Earth-zone or an Earth-like planet. There's some thoughts that there could be sea life on Titan, one of Venus's moons. I think there is a lot to learn about the universe in general.

My thinking on this is that it's rather arrogant of mankind to think that he is unique in the universe. Of all the billions of galaxies, each holding billions of stars, this can't be the only planet with intelligent life. The odds against it are astronomical...

(07-03-2012 06:16 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  My thinking on this is that it's rather arrogant of mankind to think that he is unique in the universe. Of all the billions of galaxies, each holding billions of stars, this can't be the only planet with intelligent life. The odds against it are astronomical...

isn't it just crazy to think about? i mean that seriously

The key phrase is "Life as we know it". Most people write that phrase off as just a filler phrase, added for emphasis. I know I did. But seriously, think about that phrase... LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

A few years ago biologists reported creating a form of microbe that replaced the essential mineral (for humans and most earth life) phosphorous with the toxic element (again, for humans and earth life as we know it) arsenic.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/1...life-form/

Think about that phrase seriously, again. It's simple meaning is quite amazing.

(06-28-2012 06:00 PM)Vewb1 Wrote:  as John Lennon said, Imagine no religion too. Religion is the basis for the majority of what is wrong in our world. We have too many people that believe too many things about God and the origins of the world. So we have people fighting about what they believe and why they believe it.

Actually, politics is what is wrong. Politics always uses religion for a cover. Religion, to its shame, is too willing to allow politics to use religion for politics' own ends.

Sadly, once you combine politics and religion into one group (both the dems and the reps are trying to do this in their respective ways) you can end up with the theocracies of the middle east.

(07-17-2012 09:04 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 06:00 PM)Vewb1 Wrote:  as John Lennon said, Imagine no religion too. Religion is the basis for the majority of what is wrong in our world. We have too many people that believe too many things about God and the origins of the world. So we have people fighting about what they believe and why they believe it.

Actually, politics is what is wrong. Politics always uses religion for a cover. Religion, to its shame, is too willing to allow politics to use religion for politics' own ends.

Sadly, once you combine politics and religion into one group (both the dems and the reps are trying to do this in their respective ways) you can end up with the theocracies of the middle east.

Agree with this, to an extent. While politics quite readily uses religion to it's own purposes (which should actually be illegal if not for a loophole that surprisingly goes unchanged), it was religion that inherently dedicates itself to controlling people by "putting faith in the almighty (man-made, most likely), and not thinking for yourself" (e.g. Proverbs 3:5)

(07-17-2012 10:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:04 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 06:00 PM)Vewb1 Wrote:  as John Lennon said, Imagine no religion too. Religion is the basis for the majority of what is wrong in our world. We have too many people that believe too many things about God and the origins of the world. So we have people fighting about what they believe and why they believe it.

Actually, politics is what is wrong. Politics always uses religion for a cover. Religion, to its shame, is too willing to allow politics to use religion for politics' own ends.

Sadly, once you combine politics and religion into one group (both the dems and the reps are trying to do this in their respective ways) you can end up with the theocracies of the middle east.

Agree with this, to an extent. While politics quite readily uses religion to it's own purposes (which should actually be illegal if not for a loophole that surprisingly goes unchanged), it was religion that inherently dedicates itself to controlling people by "putting faith in the almighty (man-made, most likely), and not thinking for yourself" (e.g. Proverbs 3:5)

Without looking at the scripture, I would point out that only about 1/6 or 1/7 of the world identifies itself as "Christian". Add in a relatively small number of Jews and that verse still does not apply to most people. I will agree that there are religious leaders that seek political power, history has some excellent examples. We will have to differ on this, but it really is not a significant difference.

Mark 12:17

Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

Romans 15: 4-6 And the Scriptures were written to teach us and encourage us by giving us hope. God is the one who makes us patient and cheerful. I pray that he will help you live at peace with each other, as you follow Christ. Then all of you together will praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(03-13-2012 09:35 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  When I think back on all the bad the Catholic Church is responsible for, the first thing that comes to my mind is the Crusades. The Church subjugated half the known world, killed the other half, and destroyed the accumulated knowledge in the world by burning all the great libraries of the world, because they disputed the word of God (or so they said)...

That threw civilization backward 1000 years, and who knows what knowledge was lost forever. It also gave rise to the Dark Ages, where death and disease ran rampant for 1000 years...

The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind too. Over 700 years of torturing anyone who disagreed with the church tends to remain in the memory of man...

The child molestation cases that started cropping up in the church in the 1970s, when people finally stopped closing their eyes to what the church was doing to their children comes to mind as well. The church's response - moving the guilty priests to a new, unsuspecting parish - was a real Godly move too...

Don't give me any of that about the church being a force for good. The church still has centuries of misery to attone for...

tsk tsk, someone doesn't know their history:

Causing the Dark Ages and burning libraries
The Dark Ages were caused by the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Huns and Germans in the 400's. Nothing religious about that. They burned the libraries and by 500 AD, there were literally no books left in Western Europe outside of Ireland. In fact, it was a handful of Irish monks who singlehandedly reintroduced learning to Western Europe from 600-800 AD. If it weren't for the Irish monks, none of Roman/Greek learning would have survived to the present day. A good read on the topic is How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill.

Crusades
You're going to fault religion for the Crusades? The Arabs/Berbers and the Europeans were at war for over a thousand years, all throughout the Mediterranean basin. The fact that they were different religions had little to do with it other than that it was a convenient rallying point for the soldiers. If you read about it at all, you'll notice that the Crusaders fought against their fellow Christians almost as much as against the Muslims, and after the first Caliphate collapsed the Muslims fought against each other almost as much as they fought the Christians.

Inquisitions
If you think the Christian Church was bad back in the middle ages, you should have seen their competitors for secular power. Ever see the movie Braveheart? Ever hear of Genghis Khan? That stuff was pretty normal throughout the world back then. The fact is that the bulk of the torture in the name of religion was actually kings using religion as an excuse to keep their hold on power.

Child Molestation
People in the 70's and 80's didn't know as much as we know now about how a molestor's mind works. The scientific evidence that showed that these were just f-ed up people with little hope of rehabilitation only started accumulating in the late 1980's. As late as 1993, the medical experts couldn't even agree on a broad definition of a ped0file due to the lack of research on the topic. As evidence accumulated, the Church was slow to act on the new scientific evidence, to be sure. But don't pretend that they knew what was going on for decades or centuries, when the truth is that they were only behind by about 5 years. Luckily the first man within the Church who started raising concerns about the way they handle these sickos has since been elected the Pope.

(07-17-2012 10:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:04 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 06:00 PM)Vewb1 Wrote:  as John Lennon said, Imagine no religion too. Religion is the basis for the majority of what is wrong in our world. We have too many people that believe too many things about God and the origins of the world. So we have people fighting about what they believe and why they believe it.

Actually, politics is what is wrong. Politics always uses religion for a cover. Religion, to its shame, is too willing to allow politics to use religion for politics' own ends.

Sadly, once you combine politics and religion into one group (both the dems and the reps are trying to do this in their respective ways) you can end up with the theocracies of the middle east.

Agree with this, to an extent. While politics quite readily uses religion to it's own purposes (which should actually be illegal if not for a loophole that surprisingly goes unchanged), it was religion that inherently dedicates itself to controlling people by "putting faith in the almighty (man-made, most likely), and not thinking for yourself" (e.g. Proverbs 3:5)

Actually, putting faith in the almighty and not in yourself has nothing to do with letting earthly powers gain control over you. It has to do with not trying to be a control freak. Once you chill out and realize that you don't control everything in your life, you're able to make peace with yourself and with God.

I would think that even a non-religious person would see the benefit in that philosophy.

(03-12-2012 06:04 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I'm going to start this, and I may regret it. What is your stance on it? Topics include:

-Religion as a force for good or bad
-... in politics
-... in world affairs
-... in the lives of everyday people, and how far it should govern them.
-... in response to the receding trends of the newer generations, i.e. Less and less young people associate with any faith and more older generations are claiming lack of any faith

Try to keep it civilized.

-... in politics - BAD
-... in world affairs - BAD
-... in the lives of everyday people, and how far it should govern them. - NEUTRAL
-... in response to the receding trends of the newer generations, i.e. Less and less young people associate with any faith and more older generations are claiming lack of any faith - NEUTRAL

Big Christ fan, but people cherry pick only what suits their own agendas. To me he's more about hearts & minds less about laws & regulations.