Loading...
Next Match: Image
AZ Alkmaar in the Europa League.
Thursday 12th December 2019, KO 20:00 UTC.
User avatar
t.d.
International Player
International Player
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:44 am

Re: Terrorism

Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:06 pm

Andersongo wrote:
Dante wrote:
Glorio wrote:

Wrong, it's the absence of belief in deities. Everyone believes something - you choose what you believe. The accept evolution, you have to believe as it is independent of derivative evidence. The big bang theory and primordial soup?? Now that takes a massive leap of faith
Which is an absence of belief. I'm not sure what you think you're correcting there.

As for the rest, it's not a leap of faith. Scientific theories aren't faith based, they represent our bast understanding based on the facts we can establish. As the facts change, so do the theories. So the Big Bang for example is our current best model for the origin of the universe. At one stage there was also the Steady State Theory which competed. As time went on, and more study was done, the evidence pointed away from Steady State Theory and towards the Big Bang. The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 was one such discovery that tilted things.

It is likely that in the future, more discoveries will be made that change our understanding, and the model will change. Either as an amended version of what we have now, or to a totally different theory. That's why it is incorrect to say that it is based on faith.
BS. Scientific theories are only as good as the axioms on which they are built. We investigate and interpret the world based on a certain number of things that we assume (believe) to be true. And science can certainly not explain the origin of the universe or existence itself for. This is one of the reason why it is always funny to watch physicists pontificating about how their new latest convoluted theory is going to explain how something came out of nothing. I also find it extremely amusing that people gobble up the idea of the primordial soup with no second thoughts when even a hardcore materialist like Sagan basically balked at the improbability of it all and came up with the intellectual sleight of hand that is panspermia.
(I adhere to evolutionary theory due to what it entails from the point of view of the argument from evil.)
Define "nothing".


x(t) = Asin(ωt + φ)

mikey
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3080
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:10 pm

Andersongo wrote:
mikey wrote:For me, it isn't necessarily that I believe in science, it's more the fact that I don't believe in a god, gods, a divine creator, jesus, or any of the religions, or the things that religious people place their faith into. Not believing requires no faith. I believe there is nothing - no god - no afterlife - no heaven - no hell - no soul etc. We're born, we live, and then we die, and that is that.

As for the creation of Earth and the universe, and science not asking why, why would science need to ask 'why the universe was created', wouldn't that be implying that it was created for a reason? That is the kind of question that only the religious would ask, to confirm that the universe, and earth, and mankind, was created by an almighty being. Maybe there is no reason WHY the universe was created, maybe it just happened. Maybe the answer to HOW the universe was created, is also the answer to WHY the universe was created.
Every thing has a cause. We consider the motion of molecules to be random, not because they really are but because it is computationally impossible and pointless to deterministically describe the cascade of causes behind Brownian motion, things don't just "happen". The question is whether the first cause is a manifestation of God or nature. Also, how stupid is it to try to answer a "WHY" with a "HOW"?
Science asked HOW and WHY the moon orbits the earth, and HOW and WHY the earth orbits the sun. Invariably if you're trying to find out how something has happened you also find out why it has happened. Science will not ask 'WHY' the universe was created, because that is a philosophical question, and one that religion tries to answer. Science will ask 'how' the universe was created, and and in turn investigate, research, and create theories etc upon causation of the universe being formed.

Science is ever evolving and not set in stone. Science is always asking questions and seeking answers. This is where it differs to religion. How old is the earth again?

Now, if we're calling things stupid, then to me, believing that god created the universe is about as stupid as anybody can be. It's about as real a theory as Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, and the yeti.

Also, to quote your good self "But it is indeed true that one's actions speak louder than one's words. How man choose to live is a direct reflection of what beliefs he holds".

As I have already said, i have no religious beliefs yet I live my life trying to be kind, i treat people the way I would like to be treated, i do not discriminate, i do not judge etc. I basically try and be the nicest and kindest person that I possibly can. I do not need to worship a god, or attach myself to any faith system to help me with my choices over the way I live my life.



Oranje
Reserve
Reserve
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 pm

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:15 pm

mikey wrote:For me, it isn't necessarily that I believe in science, it's more the fact that I don't believe in a god, gods, a divine creator, jesus, or any of the religions, or the things that religious people place their faith into. Not believing requires no faith. I believe there is nothing - no god - no afterlife - no heaven - no hell - no soul etc. We're born, we live, and then we die, and that is that.

As for the creation of Earth and the universe, and science not asking why, why would science need to ask 'why the universe was created', wouldn't that be implying that it was created for a reason? That is the kind of question that only the religious would ask, to confirm that the universe, and earth, and mankind, was created by an almighty being. Maybe there is no reason WHY the universe was created, maybe it just happened. Maybe the answer to HOW the universe was created, is also the answer to WHY the universe was created.
You summed up my thoughts perfectly.



User avatar
t.d.
International Player
International Player
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:44 am

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:30 pm

The difference between science - and I'm talking more physics here than anything - and religion is the fact that science (physics) is almost invariably wrong, whilst religion - in the eyes of its beholders - never is. This is why science is progressive.

Anyway, I was hoping this was going to be thread on science.


x(t) = Asin(ωt + φ)

User avatar
Matt
Reserve Team Coach
Reserve Team Coach
Posts: 7513
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:42 pm

I moved it out of the Terrorism thread, named it a bit generically, post whatever you want mate.


You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.

User avatar
Andersongo
Reserve
Reserve
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:17 pm

Re: Terrorism

Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:09 pm

t.d. wrote:
Andersongo wrote:
Dante wrote:
Which is an absence of belief. I'm not sure what you think you're correcting there.

As for the rest, it's not a leap of faith. Scientific theories aren't faith based, they represent our bast understanding based on the facts we can establish. As the facts change, so do the theories. So the Big Bang for example is our current best model for the origin of the universe. At one stage there was also the Steady State Theory which competed. As time went on, and more study was done, the evidence pointed away from Steady State Theory and towards the Big Bang. The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 was one such discovery that tilted things.

It is likely that in the future, more discoveries will be made that change our understanding, and the model will change. Either as an amended version of what we have now, or to a totally different theory. That's why it is incorrect to say that it is based on faith.
BS. Scientific theories are only as good as the axioms on which they are built. We investigate and interpret the world based on a certain number of things that we assume (believe) to be true. And science can certainly not explain the origin of the universe or existence itself for. This is one of the reason why it is always funny to watch physicists pontificating about how their new latest convoluted theory is going to explain how something came out of nothing. I also find it extremely amusing that people gobble up the idea of the primordial soup with no second thoughts when even a hardcore materialist like Sagan basically balked at the improbability of it all and came up with the intellectual sleight of hand that is panspermia.
(I adhere to evolutionary theory due to what it entails from the point of view of the argument from evil.)
Define "nothing".
Nothing is nothing.


"A Moyes! My kingdom for a Moyes!" - Sir Alex Ferguson in the famous tragedy " Manchester United's great EPL campaign of 13/14" by respected journo G. Neville.

User avatar
Andersongo
Reserve
Reserve
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:17 pm

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:36 pm

mikey wrote:
Andersongo wrote:
mikey wrote:For me, it isn't necessarily that I believe in science, it's more the fact that I don't believe in a god, gods, a divine creator, jesus, or any of the religions, or the things that religious people place their faith into. Not believing requires no faith. I believe there is nothing - no god - no afterlife - no heaven - no hell - no soul etc. We're born, we live, and then we die, and that is that.

As for the creation of Earth and the universe, and science not asking why, why would science need to ask 'why the universe was created', wouldn't that be implying that it was created for a reason? That is the kind of question that only the religious would ask, to confirm that the universe, and earth, and mankind, was created by an almighty being. Maybe there is no reason WHY the universe was created, maybe it just happened. Maybe the answer to HOW the universe was created, is also the answer to WHY the universe was created.
Every thing has a cause. We consider the motion of molecules to be random, not because they really are but because it is computationally impossible and pointless to deterministically describe the cascade of causes behind Brownian motion, things don't just "happen". The question is whether the first cause is a manifestation of God or nature. Also, how stupid is it to try to answer a "WHY" with a "HOW"?
Science asked HOW and WHY the moon orbits the earth, and HOW and WHY the earth orbits the sun. Invariably if you're trying to find out how something has happened you also find out why it has happened. Science will not ask 'WHY' the universe was created, because that is a philosophical question, and one that religion tries to answer. Science will ask 'how' the universe was created, and and in turn investigate, research, and create theories etc upon causation of the universe being formed.

Science is ever evolving and not set in stone. Science is always asking questions and seeking answers. This is where it differs to religion. How old is the earth again?

Now, if we're calling things stupid, then to me, believing that god created the universe is about as stupid as anybody can be. It's about as real a theory as Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, and the yeti.

Also, to quote your good self "But it is indeed true that one's actions speak louder than one's words. How man choose to live is a direct reflection of what beliefs he holds".

As I have already said, i have no religious beliefs yet I live my life trying to be kind, i treat people the way I would like to be treated, i do not discriminate, i do not judge etc. I basically try and be the nicest and kindest person that I possibly can. I do not need to worship a god, or attach myself to any faith system to help me with my choices over the way I live my life.
Science only deals with efficient causes of how state x1 leads to state x2. It can't identify first causes which are found at the start of the cascade of causes.
Any religion that does not torment its followers with the most profound of questions every breath they take is no religion at all. Science, by the way, can never be "wrong" since it is a method; our understanding of the universe can on the other hand be wrong due to incomplete observation and faulty reasoning which any way is not a virtue at all.
You say that you don't judge and don't discriminate? Who are you trying to fool? Man, being a moral agent, is compelled to judge and discriminate. The question is whether the basis on which you choose to judge and discriminate is sound. Whether what you consider to be right is indeed just and what you think as wrong is really unjust. But how foolish is the endeavour to know what is wrong and right when one finds no purpose in the world? Why then should there be such things as wrong and right beyond mere subjective "yuck" factor?
How old is the earth? I fear, in light of such a stupid question, that you might live another 4.5 billion years and still be none the wiser.


"A Moyes! My kingdom for a Moyes!" - Sir Alex Ferguson in the famous tragedy " Manchester United's great EPL campaign of 13/14" by respected journo G. Neville.

mikey
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3080
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:57 pm

Andersongo wrote:
Science only deals with efficient causes of how state x1 leads to state x2. It can't identify first causes which are found at the start of the cascade of causes.
Any religion that does not torment its followers with the most profound of questions every breath they take is no religion at all. Science, by the way, can never be "wrong" since it is a method; our understanding of the universe can on the other hand be wrong due to incomplete observation and faulty reasoning which any way is not a virtue at all.
You say that you don't judge and don't discriminate? Who are you trying to fool? Man, being a moral agent, is compelled to judge and discriminate. The question is whether the basis on which you choose to judge and discriminate is sound. Whether what you consider to be right is indeed just and what you think as wrong is really unjust. But how foolish is the endeavour to know what is wrong and right when one finds no purpose in the world? Why then should there be such things as wrong and right beyond mere subjective "yuck" factor?
How old is the earth? I fear, in light of such a stupid question, that you might live another 4.5 billion years and still be none the wiser.
I know exactly what science deals with as I have a BSc first class honours degree, and in a couple of years i will hopefully have a doctorate after completing a research PhD in ornithological evolutionary and speciation genomics. Maybe I should have took a priesthood instead. That why I could of just declared birds are different because god made them that way. If somebody says "ahh, but what about the instances of evolution which have been observed in real time, such as the peppered moth, I will say that god made evolution too.

Profound questions eh? Like should the Catholic church change it's stance on contraception to ease the AIDS pandemic in Africa?

Why is it foolish to endeavour to know what is right and wrong when I have no purpose in the world, and how do you know, just because I don't worship to some god, that I have no purpose? So only those with religion have purpose?

As an animal, my purpose on this planet is to first of all survive to breeding age, and then to reproduce, to ensure genetic survival. As a highly intelligent animal, my purpose in life is also to enjoy it to the maximum, to live my life the way I chose, and to die with as little regret as possible. The world is a nicer place if you're a nicer person. I don't like many birth canals, so I chose not to be a birth canal. This is why I choose to have my own personal set of values (not that i've wrote them down). I certainly wouldn't call that foolish, and I don't think any sensible minded person would either. In my eyes we are all equal, regardless of background, culture, religion, or race. So no, I don't judge, and I don't discriminate. Not the way that religion does.

It is my belief that this is why the bible, and religions were formed in the first place. Asides as a form of control and power, religion and their belief systems are an ancient set of rules, a design for living, a way of making the world a more civilized, and therefore a nicer place.

I asked about the age of the planet as I recently attended a debate on evolution where a vicar argued that the earth is just over 6,000 years old. So, it's not really that stupid a question.

Anyway, i've got some nasal mucus i'm going to try an plait, after i've done that i'm going to try and piss into the wind.



Dante
Referee
Referee
Posts: 9068
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: Science

Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:40 pm

Andersongo wrote:You say that you don't judge and don't discriminate? Who are you trying to fool? Man, being a moral agent, is compelled to judge and discriminate. The question is whether the basis on which you choose to judge and discriminate is sound. Whether what you consider to be right is indeed just and what you think as wrong is really unjust. But how foolish is the endeavour to know what is wrong and right when one finds no purpose in the world? Why then should there be such things as wrong and right beyond mere subjective "yuck" factor?
Again, because what you say is not quite clear to me, are you saying that you need religion to determine right and wrong? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?


Image

User avatar
Glorio
International Player
International Player
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:36 am

Re: RE: Re: Terrorism

Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:51 pm

Matt wrote:
Glorio wrote:
Dante wrote:Atheism is an absence of belief, so it involves no faith whatsoever.

Ben, Catholics do get quite defensive about that actually.

Wrong, it's the absence of belief in deities. Everyone believes something - you choose what you believe. The accept evolution, you have to believe as it is independent of derivative evidence. The big bang theory and primordial soup?? Now that takes a massive leap of faith
No leap of faith required to accept evidence based scientific conclusions.
The belief in empirical science is a logical one, but a belief all the same. You decide to believe what you want to.

FYI there are no scientific conclusions on any of those.


There is only one GOLDEN BOY

User avatar
Matt
Reserve Team Coach
Reserve Team Coach
Posts: 7513
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Science

Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

On what? Evolution and the big bang theory?


You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.

User avatar
robertbrian23
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:34 am

Re: Science

Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:05 pm

Matt wrote:I moved it out of the Terrorism thread, named it a bit generically, post whatever you want mate.
About to ask also to separate the Science v religion against Terrorism. Image

For me is a guide to help on what is right and wrong. But I also know that not all things published by the Roman Catholic are correct. Like the idols are worshiped, etc.

As long as I respect and I got the same respect from people regardless of religion and I have my own space/ privacy. I'm good with it.

I'm still keeping my faith though but I'm inclined on a more free will thinker. And appreciate what I have and what I can do as long as I don't offend or hurt others. Respect and equality is key for those who have strong religious belief to avoid being offended or so. Not saying that I have different level of respect to non-religious people. It is just they are also free will/ have more freedom and understand the world in different view than religious people.


Image

User avatar
t.d.
International Player
International Player
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:44 am

Re: Science

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:59 pm

To say one believes in the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory, etc, is utter moronic and makes no sense. Science is not a belief system.


x(t) = Asin(ωt + φ)

User avatar
Glorio
International Player
International Player
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:36 am

Re: Science

Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:13 pm

t.d. wrote:To say one believes in the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory, etc, is utter moronic and makes no sense. Science is not a belief system.


lol... People believe the law of gravity to be true - that is belief. In the same way, people believe the aforementioned theories. In fact, one of the listed synonyms for belief is theory. You go into a plane and believe that the person speaking through the comms is a trained pilot because he says he is - or you assume so, and you believe (trust, or whatever flies your boat) in the aviation company's system to prevent a wandering drunk to get into the cockpit. In empirical science, you make a hypothesis, run an experiment, and based on the result or a number of results, you BELIEVE a notion to be true. So however you twist it, humans believe something.

Now let me state, I have no intention to insult anyone or put them down because they don't believe what I do. There's no need trading insults. Not sure why people feel the need to get aggressive. I kept mute for most of the topic because it was sure to happen. You could say I BELIEVED it would happen inevitably. I'll give my views and if you oppose, fair play - if you feel to need to attack me personally though, I have no interest.

Anyway:
There's the argument that science seeks for enlightenment but religion closes it's eyes to things (not necessarily true), but herein lies the limitation - science seeks knowledge through one route only - empirical evidence through observation. I actually have nothing against science. I have a Bsc in microbiology myself. A brief foray into quantum physics tells you something is amiss in our understanding of the basic principle of matter. The bible for instance, has the same principle i.e. the more you focus on something, the real it becomes. My point, what if our approach to discovery itself is limited? I think Andersongo was alluding to the same thing - what if the method that is empirical science which discounts anything beyond observable evidence is limited? There are many questions it can't solve - we know that. So is it that outlandish to suggest there is something greater and to allow for concepts outside physical observation? How do you account for documented miracles, for prophesies etc.? Like has been stated before, the beginning of the universe, the start and end of time etc.? Again, I am as religious as they come and but I actually accept empirical science whilst noting that it is limited. Why does science close it's eyes to anything beyond?


There is only one GOLDEN BOY

RedSte
Reserve Team Coach
Reserve Team Coach
Posts: 9751
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:40 am

Re: Science

Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:38 pm

I respect your opinions (beliefs) Glorio, I really do - however I think the key difference between a religious believer and a scientific believer is this. If someone who believed (i.e. took to be true) for example, the laws of gravity or the big bang or whatever, but then some new compelling evidence came to light that this was in fact false and now "X" was proved to be correct, then those "scientific believers" would accept the evidence and change their opinion in line with the facts presented to them...however I cant imagine that a "religious believer" would do the same [obviously a few people do from time to time, either change or renounce their religion but these cases are very very few and far between]


My old man said be a City fan...

Nothing significant and lasting will ever come of FFP! - RedSte (2012)

Return to “Members Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users