|
| Thread: poll: Should we believe in God or no? (inspired by french mathematician Pascal) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Incubus
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 17, 2001 06:43 PM |
|
|
Lol sha_Men!
You got the spirit! Just make friends with evil guys! And help them with their evil missions.. that's what i should o when facing freddy cruger, the devil or the candyman? Lol! I just make friends by showing how evil i am.. and then i will help them! I'm born to go to hell! (again when there is one!) 100% Sure NOT! Heaven is even more Foolish!
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 17, 2001 07:37 PM |
|
|
Sorry Zune...
But that thing is how you understand the "simple" texts of bible. It isn't in so selfexplanatory said in there, or is it? However I have read so little bible that I have know qualification to judge it that way...
I can say only it's very interesting book or just the bestseller of all time when it comes to penny dreadfuls.
Or does we have winner in the red book of Mao Tse Tung?
LOL
Don't take offence here about bible you all religious people out there. Bible is book where you should seek wisdom from...
I sometimes just browse it for to look dilemmas. I'm fan of Zen philosophy and some parts of bible has some things said in way that it can mean almost anything...
Keep reading the bible Zune (IF you are now), it has some interesting stuff for sure. Ecclesiastes example. If one doesn't find wisdom there he won't find it anywhere...
Here's one quote from Ecclesiastes I find it to be very true:
There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men
-----------------------------------------------------------
BTW those who don't have bible in real world check this virtual one:
http://www.carm.org/bibleonline.htm
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Coldfyrius
Promising
Famous Hero
Vice-God for Marketing
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 08:24 PM |
|
|
Ockham's Razor:
As said, the theory that fits the facts with the fewest ungrounded assumptions wins.
SCIENCE:
1. It is possible for us to understand everything in the universe.
CHRISTIANITY:
1. We cannot fully understand the Universe.
2. There is an omnipotent, omicognizant, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God.
3. A Jewish carpenter/rabbi named Jesus was the physical manifestaiton of God, and was at the ssame time God and the son of God.
Et cetera.
____________
"All the punks are gonna scream, 'yippee!'/ 'Cuz it's the thing that only eats hippies."
-The Dead Milkmen
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 12:48 AM |
|
|
Actually-
Quote:
Ockham's Razor:
As said, the theory that fits the facts with the fewest ungrounded assumptions wins.
SCIENCE:
1. It is possible for us to understand everything in the universe.
If you think about what you are saying for a moment you might realize how foolish that statement is. Scince has many ungrounded assumptions, the first is that everything works everywhere the way it works here. That is like a sea slug in a vent on the ocean flower theorizing that oxygen always floats upward everywhere. We live on a small rock hurtling through a vast expanse of empty space which swirls around more vast expanses speckled with a few lumps of matter and which spins in the outer portions of an insignifigant galaxy, and yet because we think we can measure accurately the results of different forces here, that they work the same everywhere? That is as large a leap of faith as anything in religion.
Secondly, it is impossible to understand everything in the universe unless some old theory that the universe will eventually collapse into one black hole- but, even then we won't know what happened before that so not even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011* will ever be known.
You also mentioned earlier that you toss out your old theories when a new one comes out that is better or more true. Well, how do you know? Just look at physics and you will see how many times theories were thrown out, then reinstated with some changes, then thrown out again and still we only know how some things behave, not really anything about why they behave as they do. I could tell you as much as they know simply be observing myself, and that is what they have done. Science is only a way of collecting observations over time and hoping the reasons those things happened aren't changeable, but really we have such a small window of time that we have no idea what might change and if anything is permanent. Even know there is a theory that lgith isn't constant as was always thought since Einstein, and in a few years another theory and so on, the deeper everyong observes the more we realize how little we know about the causes and can really only list and tabulate the results we have seen so far...
The idea that scientific methods will answer any question closes your mind to different possabilities as much as any religious fanatic. The postive aspects of science are ones that lead to keeping an inquiring mind, the positive aspects of religion are the encouragement of acting for unselfish motivations and providing a stable structure for society. Neither system is perfect, and any system that could concievably replace them is also imperfect. That is life, but maybe not- we assume it is because that is all we have seen and it apears obvious, but before the big bang it wasn't so obvious, or wait, do you believe in the big bang?
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:14 AM |
|
|
I think we have very much same thoughts
Ichon...
Quote:
Secondly, it is impossible to understand everything in the universe unless some old theory that the universe will eventually collapse into one black hole- but, even then we won't know what happened before that so not even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011* will ever be known.
The theory is old yes but I would like to here why it wouldn't work. I'm not saying it's fact. It's just my silly thoughts. But I think it as good as any religious theory.
Science is LSD to the people. It seems that people are ready to believe anything when it has stamp "science" in it. I believe science is as harmful as religion in wrong hands.
Some people usually never tell what they really think they just comment others opinions. I hate "totally sceptics" more than any people. They never have anything more to say than say some "wise" words about something but then in the end they don't really have anything to offer. I believe this isn't the case with you Ichon but I want to ask you the same question as did in bort's case.
Into which do you believe?
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Shadow_Phoenix
Known Hero
Shadow Ruler
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:14 AM |
|
|
A lot of ppl says that science is an oposite of religion and of the existance of gods but just think. But science just shows that the world arround us is very complex, and the science explanation of the creation of the universe, life and a lot of other things being just luck dowesn't seem fit. I think this was already explained somenone on this thread.
But I don't believe that we can comunicate with whatever created us (at least by praying) so I really don't care if there is or there isn't a god.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:27 AM |
|
|
Why?
Quote:
The theory is old yes but I would like to here why it wouldn't work. I'm not saying it's fact. It's just my silly thoughts. But I think it as good as any religious theory.-
Because it presupposes that all matter now existing is the final amount of matter that there will ever be. That is a large assumption. Also- the idea that a black hole could encompass all matter when blackholes are still only a theory not proven.
-Science is LSD to the people. It seems that people are ready to believe anything when it has stamp "science" in it. I believe science is as harmful as religion in wrong hands.-
Any concept can't be used for nefarious schemes, everything is a weapon according to how it's used.
-Some people usually never tell what they really think they just comment others opinions. I hate "totally sceptics" more than any people. They never have anything more to say than say some "wise" words about something but then in the end they don't really have anything to offer. I believe this isn't the case with you Ichon but I want to ask you the same question as did in bort's case. Into which do you believe?
I don't think anything is wrong with total skeptics myself, unless they try to say they never make assumptions or beliefs, the idea I have is that it's impossible to take an action unless you have some assumptions, you can't sit and question every single thing, the true skeptic is the person who is willing to question themselves, not because evidence contradicts, but because it's entertainment and also where does the contradictory evidence originate? You must ask the question first. As for what I beleive, well- I think there is something more than what we can see or become aware of here, obviously a whole lot more just beyond our eyesight, but also I think beyond our life. If not then this whole thing is pointless, and really I just prefer to beleive it's not, though there is no really good evidence either way. To continue awareness in some way- deeper than even caring about my life now, but of what the barrier between the I and everything else must be maintained and expanded, because in expanding you don't need to take away from others, but simply push them away- at the same time you are pulling them towards you? Do you comprehend that?
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:51 AM |
|
|
I think you mean the same...
As I am by "understanding"...
I said earlier it's above everything else in my mind.
So I see your point. If you really mean the same thing...
The thing about I hate with totally sceptics is they say they don't have any theories or believes. I have noticed that "sceptics" just want to be above all judgements about their own theories which they however in fact have. They just keep sitting in the top of tree saying how small you all in there down look. However people in down cannot see this person as he hides himself and only echo comes back from the forest when yelled. This kind of discussion is as useful as talking by myself so why talk with sceptic? Well, I think being "sceptical" is the same thing as religion when it goes too far. However of course some people can be sceptical with even with their own theories and I respect that. We need to be critical and sceptical in some level but being too negative or positive you just draw yourself from the discussion. So that isn't really understanding...what I look for...
I said I many times want to ask people into which they believe in because it's essential question. Answering that tells more about people in many cases than asking their name or such. It also gives me more than just pure information but also new view to universum at whole. Your mind, the labyrinth I mentioned earlier also, changes all the time.
Theories...
We can of course play with theories but usually I stop this game in some point because I very often to notice philosophical discussions to change into debates about what people said and meant rather than the subject being talked over. So philosophical debates usually end up being about some theories nobody really understands or understands so differently it's impossible to mention them to help the discussion go on. It's more about the problem not being able to communicate and not about how people thought something. This is especially case where people are talking different native languages like in here.
However I'm really good listener and willing to do it all the time if somebody is just posting. I do questions once in a while just keep discussion going on. Not to be sceptical about everything. And when asked I will tell my opinion.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Science is LSD to the people. It seems that people are ready to believe anything when it has stamp "science" in it.
And religion is the opium of the masses. (Marx, I think)
The problem isn't that people will believe everything that has the stamp "science" on it, it's where people get their science news from. Hint -- a 2 minute feature on abcnews tonight is not a good source for scientific info.
Come on people, a subscription to Science (as well as membership in AAAS) is only $71.00 a year if you can prove you're a student...
And for the record, Popular Science is not a freakin' journal!
|
|
ozzyosbourne
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
Riddler of the Sky
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:59 AM |
|
|
Well all i want to know is whats at the end of the universe.. cuz its very hard to believe that it keeps on going without ever ending... so could someone place state their opinions about this one??
____________
Life is like a carousel. Spinning fast you got to ride them well. The only time you speak is in your dreams.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 18, 2001 02:15 AM |
|
|
I changed opium to LSD...
to fit better to science theme.
Ichon you are right. But I think it's almost impossible nowadays judge what is "real" science and what isn't. There are so many wackos doing "science" stuff and saying it's the real thing that it's sickening. And what is the worst part people are believing into it like into religions. It's big business now as everything else is too. Same goes to religion in many cases too. So the good old base your facts into reality science is gone for good I think. If it has never existed really.
Ozzy...
I made post "The end is the beginning is the end" there is some stuff about end of universum. It is one thought from million different thoughts.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 02:35 AM |
|
|
Real science
Well, I have a problem with the idea that only certain people or institutions can judge what science is. Science is any exploration that follows scientific method and hece can be repeated on the assumption any observable chain of events will repeat given the same initial circumstances. However, I think some very interesting lines of inquiry or closed off because certain people think they aren't 'real science' and so the funding or even the publishing just doesn't occur. Of course there are many people who would say they just discovered something and if you read it in National Enquirer you deserve to feel the fool.
Another thing happening in science with real world implications is this debate on stem cell research and embryonic studies. Most laymen don't know enough to judge, and even though I've read a whole lot of materiel I am not sure which side is correct in this debate. Most scientific industries are this way, computers have moved so far you need to study years to understand what is going on now, not to mention be able to think of new ways to apply existing technologies. I think most often what happens is someone from outside the field comes along and sees a whole new way of looking at it, and the reason it takes that for a ground breaking discovery very often nowdays is that so many researchers have taken certain things as gospel and when you stop thinking, of course you won't discover anything.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 02:54 AM |
|
|
Which side is right...
I think we should really wait before going too far in the genetics. Research is very good but you don't know how they work in practice. I think the problem is the funding here. If researches would get enough money they would be satisfied just to study and not start practice of example cloning in recent years. What I have read the information about DNA is really thin still. The long time effects of cloning are unknown. There is the possible higher risk of cancer.
Somehow I have this feeling that humans are rushing right now forward. I'm not really any great morale example but maybe it's my characterictic to first think and then act. Somehow people nowadays even in science field are trying to act first and thinking later when they see what has happened.
Somehow the Dr.Frankenstein story fits this whole scene well. If you know what I mean.
"It's alive, it's alive"
Let's not get too enthuastic I would have said first. Let's see what it does and how people react to it.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
ozzyosbourne
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
Riddler of the Sky
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:10 AM |
|
|
hmm this has nothing to do about this thread.. Kindof.. but im watching a show about Aliens and UFOs.. like all the evidence and snow..... so one thing that might be interesting....
If Aliens are real. what are there part in this 'Evolution' or whats the purpose in life.. why are they here..... And if their is a god, why did he put Aliens in this universe????????
____________
Life is like a carousel. Spinning fast you got to ride them well. The only time you speak is in your dreams.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:16 AM |
|
|
Ah, but...
We are those aliens, "aliens"- somebeing amongst them is asking why did God put these animals here?
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:21 AM |
|
|
Yes...
and you can fit also aliens that would exist to evolution because if you look it larger than just happening in Earth. The Race is on, but we don't know where the goal is...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If Aliens are real. what are there part in this 'Evolution' or whats the purpose in life.. why are they here..... And if their is a god, why did he put Aliens in this universe????????
Simple, evolution isn't restricted to the Earth. Evolution can occur on other planets.
And fer cryin' out loud, cloning is not the same as genetics. Genetics (and other bioscience fields) have a lot more applications than, for instance, creating a mindless race of zombie clones. For instance -- Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) screening in humans to determine which drug treatments will work on a particular person, engineering pest resistant crops as well as higher yield, higher nutrition crops, curing genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs, cancer treatment (by the insertion of tumor suppresor genes) as well as other forms of gene therapy (ie - heart attack prevention/mitigation). And that's just genetics, to say nothing of the other fields that cloning involves such as cell bio and developmental bio. See, this is what I mean by taking the most sensational, ABC news view of science!
And after the rant is done, I know that's not what you meant, Sha, but it's a little pet peeve of mine and I need to let off steam.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:29 AM |
|
|
Not that bad
One thing I am pretty certain of is that much of this controversy has been sparked by people jumping on the bandwagon when they really don't know what it is about. Why does it matter so much? It is a different person, and if you ask about not knowing the consequences of cloning, we hardly know the full consequences of much that happens in medical science. I think that field is more full of biased opinions and greed than any other current field. I don't trust an M.D.'s opinions. Also the way some people completely dismiss anything outside the normal purviews of western medical science. Science is structured inquiry- now some biomedical companies are hiring shaman from countries because the oral knowledge passed down speeds up the search for new medicines, the sad thing is that these big companies then go and patent a plant of which the native culture was aware of and used it's properties for centuries.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:35 AM |
|
|
Let of steam...
You said what you had to say...
And you are right again. I meant you before, not Ichon about that science. Ichon is going pretty well now too. This is what happens when you guys don't have avatar. I knew it was you but said Ichon...
But my english doesn't cover really so highly sophisticated science as those you mentioned when I'm writing. I know what those they are when I read them but when I try to write them I find no good words so there are my boundaries right now in english, but I'm learning...
So my "genetics" was just to give some word to nameless feature which you covered better now.
But I was just thinking that does anybody really know what happens when you change DNA? I mean the consequences after one hundred years? Just simple question. I don't have answer. I'm not sure does have anyone else.
That mindless zombie thing was just about that one day we might end up there if we don't set boundaries to science...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
2. Allowing somebody to make the choice to do something is different from actually allowing them to do it.
Is a slave free when he thinks about escaping while being forever bound in chains? I'd say no. When God gave us free will, he meant it - not just as something to keep the people happy while he pulled the strings, but the ability to make real choices with real consequences. When people choose to do evil, evil will result. God allows this, yes, but according to the Bible he also allowed the same to be done to himself when he lived on earth as a man. I can understand entirely that to the Humanist this is no answer at all, that a God that allows suffering for any reason must be a cruel uncaring tyrant. But that comes of seeing human life and human experience on this earth as the be all and end all. If it is though, then religion's wrong anyway, so it would be illogical to judge it by this assumption. As foreign as it may be to see things from this perspective, the assumption generally found in theism is that the soul is eternal, and life on this earth but a flicker compared to what follows. How things would have been before sin entered the world no one can say, but as it is now the Christian would say that the purpose of life on this earth is not merely to enjoy it, for everyone to have a good time, but to make a decision about whether to obey God or not, a decision that will have eternal consequence. Yes, life sucks sometimes, but it's our decisions, not our experiences in it that are important.
Quote:
1. It fails to even address things such as ebola (very few people, of their own free will choose to have their organs explode), earthquakes, drought and Richard Simmons
Such things are the result of a choice made by the first humans to disobey God. They chose to be separated from Him, and so He 'withdrew' himself a little from the world, and let an altered Nature take its course. You of course won't believe that to be historically true, but regardless, there is no inconsistency between what the Bible teaches and what we observe of the world.
Quote:
However if you are very religious you might my thoughts post very offensive so please don't read any further.
Hehe, I don't think anyone's going to be offended by hearing a different opinion expressed  . I think it's incorrect of course, as you think mine to be, but it would be very unreasonable for someone to find that offensive. Now Incubus on the other hand, he could almost be offensive, except that it's hard to take him very seriously.
Quote:
But that thing is how you understand the "simple" texts of bible. It isn't in so selfexplanatory said in there, or is it? However I have read so little bible that I have know qualification to judge it that way...
Well, the Bible says that all have sinned, and that the wages of sin is death. So if it were only about our actions in this life, we'd all be going to Hell (assuming, as you were, that such a place exists). The way to be saved from that is to repent and submit to God, and accept the sacrifice that He made for us. That's the same for everyone - no one can get to heaven on their own merits, and nor can anyone preclude themselves by what they've previously done.
Quote:
Ockham's Razor:
As said, the theory that fits the facts with the fewest ungrounded assumptions wins.
SCIENCE:
1. It is possible for us to understand everything in the universe.
CHRISTIANITY:
1. We cannot fully understand the Universe.
2. There is an omnipotent, omicognizant, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God.
3. A Jewish carpenter/rabbi named Jesus was the physical manifestaiton of God, and was at the ssame time God and the son of God.
Et cetera.
Firstly, the Razor says nothing about 'winning'. Secondly, you need to differentiate more clearly between founded and unfounded assumptions. Your disagreement with something does not make it unfounded. Thirdly, the way that you're trying to use it makes it highly subjective - I could add plenty more points to the science side, and remove many from that of christianity, or just restate the question (as I did in my previous post). Indeed, I'm quite baffled by your selection of 'assumptions', but never mind. Suffice it to say that your use of Occam's Razor is blatantly incorrect.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
| |
|
|
