If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Ponden]

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You all should read a book called "The First Three Seconds" - expand yo minds bitches.

You mean "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg?

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Originally Posted by Ponden [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You mean "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg?

yeah, sry, three minutes. its been awhile. And the first 3 seconds are more what people are referring to (intentionally or not) when they say that "time as we understand it vis-a-vis physics operates differently under certain circumstances" ITT. Im tired, that sentence is not so well crafted, but you know what i mean.

[chtulu]

Gorilla biped. News at 11.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qD-erppkCjY" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[azxten]

I find it fascinating the way people use science as a replacement for God and continue the same fallacies they fault religious people for.

Faith in GOD?!? YOU ARE STUPIIDDDD!!!!

I have faith that atoms are little balls that spin around.. Oh wait, no that model is wrong now.. I have faith that tiny strings of ener.. oh wait, that's wrong too now..

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL INJUSTICE AND SUFFERING!111!!1

*BP ruins an entire ecosystem using quite literally the most advanced technology and scientific knowledge available to mankind*

Derrrrrppp....

You're all idiots.

[Azazel]

I find it fascinating the way people use science as a replacement for God and continue the same fallacies they fault religious people for.

Faith in GOD?!? YOU ARE STUPIIDDDD!!!!

I have faith that atoms are little balls that spin around.. Oh wait, no that model is wrong now.. I have faith that tiny strings of ener.. oh wait, that's wrong too now..

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL INJUSTICE AND SUFFERING!111!!1

*BP ruins an entire ecosystem using quite literally the most advanced technology and scientific knowledge available to mankind*

Derrrrrppp....

You're all idiots.

I don't get it. Are you trolling or being intentionally ignorant?

All scientific knowledge is gained though observation of phenomena and the postulation of hypotheses. The hypothesis that best explains the phenomena is used until a better one is found. Science therefore goes through continual self examination, ideas are held up to be criticized and this is the scientific methods great strength.

There is no 'faith' in this method of obtaining knowledge.

Religions on the other hand are rigidly defined belief systems based upon faith.

[azxten]

Originally Posted by Azazel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All scientific knowledge is gained though observation of phenomena and the postulation of hypotheses. The hypothesis that best explains the phenomena is used until a better one is found. Science therefore goes through continual self examination, ideas are held up to be criticized and this is the scientific methods great strength.

There is no 'faith' in this method of obtaining knowledge.

Religions on the other hand are rigidly defined belief systems based upon faith.

The problem is that people do have "faith" in the method itself as savior of humanity. Sure, there's no faith in a given piece of knowledge but there is a LOT of faith in the form of "we have to push onward because science will fix everything in the end" while ignoring the problems it creates.

In my opinion the "science crazed" portion of society has forgotten that science and technology are supposed to exist to serve humanity. Instead we're entering an era where humanity is serving science and the end goals aren't very clear. The same risk exists with our business and financial institutions. Do the banks and corporations exist to serve and uplift humanity or does humanity now exist to serve and uplift the banks and corporations? These institutions are entities in and of themselves just like you are composed of the living cells in your body.

Religion reinvents itself all the time as well even within specific religions. To use your quote it "goes through continual self examination, ideas are held up to be criticized." Even within religions like Catholicism and Christianity within the last few hundred years the mindset has shifted dramatically in terms of the intent of religious teachings, their true translations, and so on. In light of new evidence and theories there are new religions and theologies created. It evolves exactly the same as science and just as fast.

There is a saying you're probably familiar with regarding, "How can you be moral without God?" Many atheists will spout something about how they don't believe in God and are completely moral people. It's hard to separate your ideals of morality though when society as a whole has been guided since the start by religion and spirituality. Is it really that you're moral without God or it just that your morality stems from society which is always influence by God more than any other factor? Where might humanity be right now if the dominant religion said it was fine to kill your neighbor because you like his wife? At one point in time it's very likely religion DID say that in at least one tribe somewhere. That doesn't make for a very healthy society though and so the religion that worked better for a given society granted them the power to conquer others and bring them into line with God thus continuing the evolutionary cycle.

In my mind both science and rational thought should work hand in hand with religion and spirituality as they exist in separate realms. Instead what we have is a football team and a hockey team playing on the same field and the outcome is going to be a big pile of shit that NO ONE is going to like. Just wait and see.

[azxten]

P.S. The primary "difference" between faith and religion is evidence. You might argue that science is based on evidence and is thus superior but how can you make such an argument when over and over again the evidence is shown to be bogus?

As example comes to mind regarding the faith people had that new brain cells aren't created. The majority of scientists supported this viewpoint based on the evidence obtained using the scientific method in a lab. It turns out though that by putting monkeys in a lab they removed the dynamic environment necessary to produce new brain cells. It was only later with the study of birds in their natural environment that we saw that new brain cells were being created.

The history of science if full of these situations where the researchers are so bias they distort their own results to support their viewpoints. If it's not that then the observation itself changes the results. Maybe our tools were just lying to us the whole time. On and on.

Meanwhile the results that science is producing from these ultimately flawed experiments are being spread from the scientific community as "the truth" and "the way it is". Is it not a leap of faith to believe that's the truth? Don't you have to have faith that the experiment was done right? The researchers stayed true to non-bias? That somewhere on a quantum level shit just got wild because you peeked and have no idea what you're REALLY even doing in the first place?

Of course you do. In the exact same way the religion requires faith in spiritual leaders to tell them what is holy or good. Until new evidence arises in either case all we have is faith in an ideal that is produced by imperfect beings.

The problem arises when people are unable to let go when evidence points out the flaws in their faith. A further problem arises when people are unwilling to admit that new evidence might itself be flawed and not actually disprove anything.

[Hauling]

Originally Posted by azxten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In my opinion the "science crazed" portion of society has forgotten that science and technology are supposed to exist to serve humanity. Instead we're entering an era where humanity is serving science and the end goals aren't very clear. The same risk exists with our business and financial institutions. Do the banks and corporations exist to serve and uplift humanity or does humanity now exist to serve and uplift the banks and corporations? These institutions are entities in and of themselves just like you are composed of the living cells in your body.

Science isn't an institution. It's a method used to learn how things work. I think that's a pretty clear goal. You first wonder how or why something happens and you come up with an idea. For instance, you might wonder where wind comes from and maybe you think that it could be trees sneezing. You then test that idea and see if the idea fits, you might throw chili powder on a tree to induce sneezing and when they don't sneeze, you come up with another idea and test that until you get to the real answer; areas of high air pressure push air into areas of low air pressure. And even once you have that answer, you test it multiple times to see if your results are consistent. Then you give it to other people to test to see if they can get the same results too.

Science and religion are the same thing, except religion doesn't bother to test the ideas. I am confident that as our understanding of things improve, through the scientific method we will find a way to test the existence of a god or gods (though probably not in our life times). I am also confident that whatever is found out won't be consistent with the views you have now.