DeletedUser14280
You're saying there's serious argument to be found in that church?Fixed it for you JR
I had formed the opinion that it was a long running parody.
What kind of arguments are there?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I had formed the opinion that it was a long running parody.
What kind of arguments are there?
DeletedUser
You're saying there's serious argument to be found in that church?
I had formed the opinion that it was a long running parody.
What kind of arguments are there?
Your perception of it being a parody is but one of the layers of truth.
It's not onion by chance alone.
I know it's a long thread, with much spam made by the foolish and those unable to read between the lines, but do read up on it.
DeletedUser14280
143 pages? Not now, I think.
Pick out a few choice passages for me, won't you?
Pick out a few choice passages for me, won't you?
DeletedUser
Wrong.
Religion arose because of lack of knowledge and superstition.
Humanity needed answers, and with the lack of evidence they concluded it was all done by magic and fairies. This is the opposite of a scientific approach.
for them that was scienec
for us this is modern science
who knows in future our current knowledge will be fairy tale
DeletedUser14280
That tale of the apple hitting the scientist's head?who knows in future our current knowledge will be fairy tale
DeletedUser
Science, as a concept, is a rigourous process and one which evolves and changes its paradigms with fresh evidence. Everyone who says that science does not work with belief is, of course, absolutely correct.
However, that's science as an endeavour. There are plenty of people who will happily believe whatever their told, providing the person telling them is wearing a lab coat and holding a clipboard. I'm not saying that they're posting here - but they exist. There aren't many people who, on a day to day basis, have the time, inclination or necessary understanding to check up on what a scientific report tells them.
For example, it's a generally accepted fact that smoking is a direct contributor to the development of cancer. I accept that. I believe what scientists tell me on that. Have I checked the research, though? No. Have I compared the results of reports from scientists who dispute the claim? No. Have I read a single peer-reviewed journal article on the topic? No. I take the advice on cigarette packets on face value as an accepted scientific "truth".
So, as I said, science as an endeavour has no time for belief. We, as individuals, aren't necessarily so. We delegate the responsibility of performing science's rigourous checks to the men in lab coats and, because the process of science lends an aura of credibility, we believe what they tell us - whilst never actually looking at the way in which they reached their conclusions.
Of course, journalism tends to cloud matters further as this is the medium through which most of us find out about scientific discoveries. Unfortunately, journalists often don't understand the standards expected of scientific research, so papers which have never been published or reviewed get written up in the papers as science.
One paper over here made a very big deal about links between the combined Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. This was based on the results of one or two very poor (quality, not cash) scientists who have never published their research or allowed anyone to scrutinise their methods. However, because they're written up as scientists and because people believe in science, many parents have refused to vaccinate their children with the MMR vaccine. As a result, measles is now on the rise.
Science, as a process, is a wonderful thing but unfortunately not everyone can tell the difference between a good scientist and a bad one. I'm sure everyone here has enough intelligence not to take something on face value just because it is labelled as "science" - but those increased cases of measles show that not everyone is as blessed.
However, that's science as an endeavour. There are plenty of people who will happily believe whatever their told, providing the person telling them is wearing a lab coat and holding a clipboard. I'm not saying that they're posting here - but they exist. There aren't many people who, on a day to day basis, have the time, inclination or necessary understanding to check up on what a scientific report tells them.
For example, it's a generally accepted fact that smoking is a direct contributor to the development of cancer. I accept that. I believe what scientists tell me on that. Have I checked the research, though? No. Have I compared the results of reports from scientists who dispute the claim? No. Have I read a single peer-reviewed journal article on the topic? No. I take the advice on cigarette packets on face value as an accepted scientific "truth".
So, as I said, science as an endeavour has no time for belief. We, as individuals, aren't necessarily so. We delegate the responsibility of performing science's rigourous checks to the men in lab coats and, because the process of science lends an aura of credibility, we believe what they tell us - whilst never actually looking at the way in which they reached their conclusions.
Of course, journalism tends to cloud matters further as this is the medium through which most of us find out about scientific discoveries. Unfortunately, journalists often don't understand the standards expected of scientific research, so papers which have never been published or reviewed get written up in the papers as science.
One paper over here made a very big deal about links between the combined Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. This was based on the results of one or two very poor (quality, not cash) scientists who have never published their research or allowed anyone to scrutinise their methods. However, because they're written up as scientists and because people believe in science, many parents have refused to vaccinate their children with the MMR vaccine. As a result, measles is now on the rise.
Science, as a process, is a wonderful thing but unfortunately not everyone can tell the difference between a good scientist and a bad one. I'm sure everyone here has enough intelligence not to take something on face value just because it is labelled as "science" - but those increased cases of measles show that not everyone is as blessed.
DeletedUser
However, that's science as an endeavour. There are plenty of people who will happily believe whatever their told, providing the person telling them is wearing a lab coat and holding a clipboard. I'm not saying that they're posting here - but they exist. There aren't many people who, on a day to day basis, have the time, inclination or necessary understanding to check up on what a scientific report tells them.
same happed in the case of catholic church the olny difference that sometime force if used and instead of lab cote and clipboard ... Church's father's dress and a bible
DeletedUser
143 pages? Not now, I think.
Pick out a few choice passages for me, won't you?
At this very moment I am no more willing than you to go through 143 pages in order to provide you with choice passages.
If you wish to learn more, you know where the thread is.
I am planning on a compilation some time in the future though.
for them that was scienec
for us this is modern science
who knows in future our current knowledge will be fairy tale
False yet again. Religion has never been anything close to science,
merely a way of producing an explaination to something we do not understand.
Science on the other hand tries to gain understanding.
This understanding is found through observation and testing,
a step which is conviniently skipped by the religious dogmas.
Good post
Thumbs up.
DeletedUser
Science on the other hand tries to gain understanding.
This understanding is found through observation and testing,
a step which is conviniently skipped by the religious dogmas.
mayas and chinese experimented then became a religion
same with vedas
DeletedUser
mayas and chinese experimented then became a religion
same with vedas
I don't think they applied the scientific method in all honesty.
DeletedUser
I don't think they applied the scientific method in all honesty.
You can rest assured that they did not apply the scientific method.
I dare say that no religion ever applied any scientific method in order to
obtain the answers they did.
DeletedUser
I don't think they applied the scientific method in all honesty.
Exactly. The Scientific Method is the key to Science and also what seperates it from Religion.
Scientific Method requires that the evidence be testable and repeatable ... which allows it to be proven or disproven. Science is always striving to know everything it can about ow things work. This is admittedly not possible but as Albert Einstein once said:
"Shoot for the moon and if you miss you'll land among the stars."
Religious ideas and concepts are usually impossible to disprove ... as well as prove. What proof is there that man and woman can be made ... not born, but made as in a machine (ie taking Adams rib and giving it to Eve) Though by no means believe that Evolution as we know it is right or perfect.
Creationism, Catastrophism, Natural Selection .... all are theories which mean they are not perfect or unquestionable. It is hard to prove that one animal evolved into another to a person who wants to see it first hand ... ie the creature evolving, but it is just as had to explain catastrophism in many cases of layering of soil or biological remains.
DeletedUser
so you are trying to say all those maya accurate astronomies are wrong and also all vedas are wrong
really you lost the point JR
really you lost the point JR
DeletedUser
Creationism, Catastrophism, Natural Selection .... all are theories which mean they are not perfect or unquestionable. It is hard to prove that one animal evolved into another to a person who wants to see it first hand ... ie the creature evolving, but it is just as had to explain catastrophism in many cases of layering of soil or biological remains.
There is a world of diffrence between the "theory" of creationism, and the theory of evolution.
In no way does the so-called theory of creationism deserve to be considerd as an equal to evolution.
so you are trying to say all those maya accurate astronomies are wrong and also all vedas are wrong
really you lost the point JR
You completely missed the point.
I don't know enough of either the vedas or the mayan astronomy feats to comment sufficently on this,
but just because a religious belief uses scientific facts to its purposes, rituals, etc, doesn't mean that they cooperate and are "friends" as you put it.
Quite the opposite.
Whenever science is used as a tool to support superstition it is being blatantly abused.
You are welcome to articulate your posts better, in order for us to better understand the point you are trying to make,
as any comment to your posts at this time has to be considered a liberal interpretation of intent.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
so you are trying to say all those maya accurate astronomies are wrong and also all vedas are wrong
really you lost the point JR
I think it might help if you gave a clue about what astronomies or vedas you're referring to.
DeletedUser
I guess bk200 the gap your missing is that while they may have been accurately tracking the stars, (again I only know so much about that) deciding that the world will end in 2012 as a result isn't infered, that half of it is religion, they have no evidence to back it up.
I happen to believe ancient people were as intelligent as modern humans, and just as ingenious, the difference is that we stand on the shoulders of giants so to speak, so the gaps in their knowledge were vast even in the 'normal world'.
This is why these arguments have moved into metaphysics and away from reality.
Science and religion are seperate concepts, and I really fail to see how or why religious people feel the need to put the two in bed together in this way, or what motivation there can be for the argument.
I happen to believe ancient people were as intelligent as modern humans, and just as ingenious, the difference is that we stand on the shoulders of giants so to speak, so the gaps in their knowledge were vast even in the 'normal world'.
This is why these arguments have moved into metaphysics and away from reality.
Science and religion are seperate concepts, and I really fail to see how or why religious people feel the need to put the two in bed together in this way, or what motivation there can be for the argument.
DeletedUser
Out of curiosity...
Would the atheists in here consider atheism to be a belief?
Would the atheists in here consider atheism to be a belief?
DeletedUser
there isn't a civilization of atheists yet (in my knowledge well)
and science discovered fire ..... there is god of fire in many religions
science gave us weapons .... god of war
science told us about air ..... god of air
and science discovered fire ..... there is god of fire in many religions
science gave us weapons .... god of war
science told us about air ..... god of air
DeletedUser
Out of curiosity...
Would the atheists in here consider atheism to be a belief?
I'd say it's more of a lack of belief, or disbelief.
Or the denial of existence, if you will.
there isn't a civilization of atheists yet (in my knowledge well)
and science discovered fire ..... there is god of fire in many religions
science gave us weapons .... god of war
science told us about air ..... god of air
*sigh*
Show me a cilization of christians then, or of any religion.
We discovered loads of things through scientific pursuit, but you don't see a god for plutonium, anti-depressants, or fighter jets, now do you?
DeletedUser
Out of curiosity...
Would the atheists in here consider atheism to be a belief?
Speaking as one of the atheists (and not a spokesperson), atheism is a lack of belief.
Share: