Lockout Casualty Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Poor Newsflash got suckered into this topic with TRR. Take these words of wisdom from one who's been there before, and RUN. Or go bang your head on concrete 17 times and save yourself some time. The result will be identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Poor Newsflash got suckered into this topic with TRR. Take these words of wisdom from one who's been there before, and RUN. Or go bang your head on concrete 17 times and save yourself some time. The result will be identical. I feel like if he'd stop assuming I'm trying to say religion is wrong and going off on a tangent, he'd see that we're not really disagreeing on the main point (AllEyez's statement). Words were just used differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm not here to cause any controversy like how lockout casualty is falsely accusing of, w/e, but as for newsflash, yea fair enough I made a mistake and meant to say hypothesis in the links which are verified and identified as true via scientists. Here's what I say though from a neutral point which I truly do believe: Science and Religion (in their pure forms, un-misused) are tools of understanding existence. The one indisputable fact that science teaches us - if we are willing to listen - is that science is limited in its ability to explain things. Science can, through theory and experimentation, explain the how or why of events or cycles of events but it can not - and indeed is conceived in such a way as to be unable to - determine "meaning." To simplify: science can tell you every possible physics equation to describe the motion of ever quanta of energy in a car going from A to B, the effects it has on the energy states around it, and more details than a sane person would want to know; however, it can not provide insight into the why of the going from A to B. Religion seeks to understand the meaning of all the bits of data science discovered, even though it may misinterpret or utterly miss that underlying meaning (some poor guy dashing out at 3 am to find ice cream for his pregnant wife). This isn't troubling except to the faux-scientists who wish to supplant classical religion with the religion-of-science. When either Science or Religion seek to dominate the entire range of human experience, the pogroms begin. Peace to everyone \/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I feel like if he'd stop assuming I'm trying to say religion is wrong and going off on a tangent, he'd see that we're not really disagreeing on the main point (AllEyez's statement). Words were just used differently. I dunno what AllEyes said (though I'm sure it was stupefying), I just saw this last page and felt bad for you. Figured since I wished someone warned me last time, I'll go ahead and give you a heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Again, scientific proof is an oxymoron. The scientific method as we know it today was not around back then, yes... but that does not matter. I had a beef with a statement that said religion proved what science has supported. You agreed. So I asked, how? You are now saying by proof, you mean made a correct hypothesis. Okay. I do not take offense to the AllEyez original statement if it meant, "Science is supporting hypotheses that religions made a long time ago." I took it to mean, "Science is supporting hypotheses that religion demonstrated as being 100% certain." You've gone off on a tangent. I'm not here to debate the validity of religion (although I feel like I'm being dragged into it). I was here to debate the validity that religion already demonstrate things to a 100% certainty that science is now supporting. I'm of Sikh ancestry too btw. I'm not very religious, but I'm religious enough to put Sikh on a census form. I can tell you personally that not everything hypothesized in the religion has been supported by science. Well then whats your issue? You basically said you agree with AllEyez original statement that TRR and I agree with. Also aren't you going on a tangent? by acknowledging you are apparently being dragged into a validity of religion debate. I am of Sikh ancestry too and I agree that many parts of the religion are not scientifically accurate, but they did separate the presence of earth and the universe something science was trying to validate. When I read AllEyez original statement I think of science being as a tool to validate or disprove writings in various religions. Science in a way is an extension of religion itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm not here to cause any controversy like how lockout casualty is falsely accusing of, w/e, but as for newsflash, yea fair enough I made a mistake and meant to say hypothesis in the links which are verified and identified as true via scientists. Here's what I say though from a neutral point which I truly do believe: Science and Religion (in their pure forms, un-misused) are tools of understanding existence. The one indisputable fact that science teaches us - if we are willing to listen - is that science is limited in its ability to explain things. Science can, through theory and experimentation, explain the how or why of events or cycles of events but it can not - and indeed is conceived in such a way as to be unable to - determine "meaning." To simplify: science can tell you every possible physics equation to describe the motion of ever quanta of energy in a car going from A to B, the effects it has on the energy states around it, and more details than a sane person would want to know; however, it can not provide insight into the why of the going from A to B. Religion seeks to understand the meaning of all the bits of data science discovered, even though it may misinterpret or utterly miss that underlying meaning (some poor guy dashing out at 3 am to find ice cream for his pregnant wife). This isn't troubling except to the faux-scientists who wish to supplant classical religion with the religion-of-science. When either Science or Religion seek to dominate the entire range of human experience, the pogroms begin. Peace to everyone \/ I don't agree with some of what you said from the second paragraph downwards, but that's not a debate I want to have. Agree to disagree there. Well then whats your issue? You basically said you agree with AllEyez original statement that TRR and I agree with. Also aren't you going on a tangent by acknowledging you are apparently being dragged into a validity of religion debate. I am of Sikh ancestry too and I agree that many parts of the religion are not scientifically accurate, but they did separate the presence of earth and the universe something science was trying to validate. When I read AllEyez original statement I think of science being as a tool to validate or disprove writings in various religions. Science in a way is an extension of religion itself. I agree with AllEyez statement if by proof he meant something religion hypothesized. However this is a definition of the word I have never encountered. I'd be willing to bet most people do not use this definition. When people say they proved something, I usually think they demonstrated it to 100% certainty--not that they made a hypothesis that someone else later supported close to 100% certainty (science is never 100% certain). I think this is the more popular definition. Even TRR said he made a mistake and should have said hypothesis. Also for all we know, what AllEyez originally meant is different from the rare definition you seem to have. I don't want to argue about who said what, so enough about tangents. And agree to disagree on your last two paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm not here to cause any controversy like how lockout casualty is falsely accusing of, w/e, but as for newsflash, yea fair enough I made a mistake and meant to say hypothesis in the links which are verified and identified as true via scientists. Here's what I say though from a neutral point which I truly do believe:Science and Religion (in their pure forms, un-misused) are tools of understanding existence. The one indisputable fact that science teaches us - if we are willing to listen - is that science is limited in its ability to explain things. Science can, through theory and experimentation, explain the how or why of events or cycles of events but it can not - and indeed is conceived in such a way as to be unable to - determine "meaning." To simplify: science can tell you every possible physics equation to describe the motion of ever quanta of energy in a car going from A to B, the effects it has on the energy states around it, and more details than a sane person would want to know; however, it can not provide insight into the why of the going from A to B. Religion seeks to understand the meaning of all the bits of data science discovered, even though it may misinterpret or utterly miss that underlying meaning (some poor guy dashing out at 3 am to find ice cream for his pregnant wife).This isn't troubling except to the faux-scientists who wish to supplant classical religion with the religion-of-science.When either Science or Religion seek to dominate the entire range of human experience, the pogroms begin. Peace to everyone \/why does there need to be a "reason" for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 why does there need to be a "reason" for anything? This might explain the importance of "reason" in regards to various disciplines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 This might explain the importance of "reason" in regards to various disciplines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonreason like like that wiki article is not what TRR was talking about. He said there is a "reason" something moves from A to B. implying that science cant figure out the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 reason like like that wiki article is not what TRR was talking about. He said there is a "reason" something moves from A to B. implying that science cant figure out the reason. I think he means science can't explain why something moves from A to B because we don't know the origin of why something like that occurs kinda like the meaning of life. We know it has to do with gravity and physics, but who or what created it or why exists is still yet to be fully figured out. Thats where religion supposedly comes in.. Science is yet to figure out the reason to something like the "origin of life" or "the Afterlife" all we can do is develop theories. Also what I mean by "origin of life" is not evolutionary I don't deny that fact, but what I mean is why are we here? type of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I don't agree with some of what you said from the second paragraph downwards, but that's not a debate I want to have. Agree to disagree there. I agree with AllEyez statement if by proof he meant something religion hypothesized. However this is a definition of the word I have never encountered. I'd be willing to bet most people do not use this definition. When people say they proved something, I usually think they demonstrated it to 100% certainty--not that they made a hypothesis that someone else later supported close to 100% certainty (science is never 100% certain). I think this is the more popular definition. Even TRR said he made a mistake and should have said hypothesis. Also for all we know, what AllEyez originally meant is different from the rare definition you seem to have. I don't want to argue about who said what, so enough about tangents. And agree to disagree on your last two paragraphs. Fair enough, all good. And yea it's cool if you don't agree, they're just my opinions and we all have them. As for admitting a mistake, I do so when I make a mistake and it's human nature to make mistakes but manning up to it is another thing. And let me tell you something since it's related to you explaining 100% certainty and proof, the lockout causality user who accused me of whatever himself in a previous thread defended a user who said "I know God does not exist" numerous times claiming he has certainty he knows there is no God. Crazy, I know lol. Sad thing...they never admitted to making a simple mistake on an online forum and continued to defend how the remark was correct and etc...I'll just stop there cause I don't want to start another argument but that's a little insight : p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 reason like like that wiki article is not what TRR was talking about. He said there is a "reason" something moves from A to B. implying that science cant figure out the reason. Used that just as an example, nothing else, and there are numerous things science can't reason as to why it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I think he means science can't explain why something moves from A to B because we don't know the origin of why something like that occurs kinda like the meaning of life. We know it has to do with gravity and physics, but who or what created it or why exists is still yet to be fully figured out. Thats where religion supposedly comes in.. Science is yet to figure out the reason to something like the "origin of life" or "the Afterlife" all we can do is develop theories. Also what I mean by "origin of life" is not evolutionary I don't deny that fact, but what I mean is why are we here? type of questions.exactly. and what I was asking is.. why does there have to be a meaning of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Used that just as an example, nothing else, and there are numerous things science can't reason as to why it happens. You've posted them before and simply dodged when people pointed out your errors and flawed reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 exactly. and what I was asking is.. why does there have to be a meaning of life? There doesn't have to and it varies how people think of it. Some people care about if, others don't. It's in their own interest and benefit. But why? It's human nature really. Science answers question of how, not have why. In most cases they try to stay away from it and I believe spirit is the why. In my opinion, spiritual realities are the result of a growth stage every person can go through if s/he decides to and has had the luck of receiving correct information about it. It´s about real new perception of the world and new insights one couldn´t have imagined before experiencing that stage. Like every growth stage it requires attention, care and personal investment. Spiritual PRACTICE results in a new worldview of the participant that is hard to communicate through scientific proof, plainly because it requires a personal experience and is above logical growth stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Most people need something to believe in ,and most people want to be told Religious people have caused so much pain and suffering in this world because of their beliefs, this is not the case with agnostics. You just caused me pain and suffering with your generalizing, I guess that proves you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 You just caused me pain and suffering with your generalizing, I guess that proves you wrong. you have a point the age when wars happen over useless things like religion is over: now its oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 you have a point the age when wars happen over useless things like religion is over: now its oil. for oil companies you mean, like the ones that got to exploit Iraq, Libya. we got the 3rd largest oil reserves and probably higher if they develop the sands more, plus all other forms of extraction taken into consideration, north america could gain energy independence if it wanted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 You just caused me pain and suffering with your generalizing, I guess that proves you wrong. Really ? Sigh.... This is what always happens when one attempts to have a logical , rational conversation with a religious person at some point they abandon reason. As i have stated religious people have/ still cause a lot pain and suffering in the name of their beliefs/ God , this is not a generalisation this is a fact. Agnostics have/do not cause others pain and suffering in the name of their beliefs , if you do not agree with this please present some evidence to prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Really ? Sigh.... This is what always happens when one attempts to have a logical , rational conversation with a religious person at some point they abandon reason. As i have stated religious people have/ still cause a lot pain and suffering in the name of their beliefs/ God , this is not a generalisation this is a fact. Agnostics have/do not cause others pain and suffering in the name of their beliefs , if you do not agree with this please present some evidence to prove me wrong. You hurt me again. Let me get this straight - you are saying you are far better than everyone else right? Wow. You should try a cup of humility for a change. Wrong. Your facts are wrong. Which means they are not FACTS at all. Some religious people have caused a lot of pain and suffering and some religious people just don't get it. Just as some non religious people have caused a lot of pain and suffering and some none religious people just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.