Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[i2amroy]

So like I was saying, we are equal with bacteria. Thanks science.

Well we have seen the effects in the 40-year long russian fox domestication project too.

That said lets tone it down. This is the religions thread, not the "science vs. religion" thread, so try not to go around demanding "proof" from either side. (Because each side uses a different definition of the word!)

That said I think the big difference between science and religion lies in the fact that should I chose to do so (given the proper equipment) I can repeat the observations made in scientific journals, such as rerunning the evolution experiment, or taking a look through a telescope at a nearby star. I am unable to repeat the observations made in most religious books, because no matter how much I try I will never be able to see water turned into wine again. It's not necessarily whether one thing or another is true (because as science has shown us, it is often wrong ) it's just the repeatability of the observations that is the key fact.

[Vilanat]

Well, he does have a point, though. most people never seen a star in a telescope nor have the tools to determine whether what the scientists tells them is true.

"We" believe the scientists just like the religious guys believe the Prophets.

[i2amroy]

I guess you could claim that. I'd still say a difference lies in the fact of whether or not I could replicate something though. As I pointed out, I could go buy a telescope and look through it at the planets at any point in time, but I can't make God turn water into wine again at my whim. (Excluding the fact that telescopes cost money and all that). It's impossible to experience everything after all, so you have to trust someone to be correct. Personally I choose the guys who I can understand the mechanisms of why things happen and repeat their observations should I chose to, but that doesn't mean you have to just believe them. (As a matter of fact one of the key ideas of "science" is to constantly question the conclusions! As an educated listener you should make it part of your job to question the conclusions scientists draw and go educate yourself enough to understand their observations!)

[That Wolf]

That Wolf, if you're not going to be serious, and not going to try and make sense, I'd call that trolling, and I'd ask you to leave.

Say what?
If it was the ad thing.. I accidentaly double post, so I did some charity work.

I believe im making sense, im bad at writing in english though.
Maybe dont get upset with my bad education and help me out

[i2amroy]

That Wolf, if you're not going to be serious, and not going to try and make sense, I'd call that trolling, and I'd ask you to leave.

Say what?
If it was the ad thing.. I accidentaly double post, so I did some charity work.

I believe im making sense, im bad at writing in english though.
Maybe dont get upset with my bad education and help me out

I think it's more the fact that you are getting very close to violating thread rule number 5 (i.e. being respectful) and as a result are walking rather close to rules 2 and 6 on flaming.

[TD1]

That said lets tone it down. This is the religions thread, not the "science vs. religion" thread, so try not to go around demanding "proof" from either side. (Because each side uses a different definition of the word!)

Language game theory has always been weak to me. It's not science vs religion, because science is the study of everything that is true, or conceivably true. If you pit yourself against fact, then it doesn't matter what language game you use.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I think he means to say that religion uses things that can not be entirly proven as it's reasoning and proof while science uses cold hard found facts

[i2amroy]

I think he means to say that religion uses things that can not be entirly proven as it's reasoning and proof while science uses cold hard found facts

My main point was that statements like "show me your proof!" are little more then flame bait in a religions thread.

That said the big thing is that AFAIK pretty much all religions are inherently non-"scientific", i.e. not based on repeatable observations of the world. As such it's impossible to "prove" them in a scientific sense, since a scientific proof requires there to be observations present. Since religions aren't based on repeatable observations, they are unable to provide them, and are such automatically unable to provide scientific "proof". It makes the whole question of if a religion has "proof" totally worthless, since it's impossible for them to have scientific proof (else we would call them "science" instead).

[That Wolf]

Well if you dont like me get me kicked for being a dick.

I was being very respectful and I only swear because its like conversational seasoning.
I never trolled, and Im not trying to start a flame war.
Im sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilitys.
Im stubborn and arrogant.
It was purely a directional comment for maximumzero and his (what I believe) flawed statement about proof on any level. From stars to gods.
And like vilanat cleared up.

Well, he does have a point, though. most people never seen a star in a telescope nor have the tools to determine whether what the scientists tells them is true.

"We" believe the scientists just like the religious guys believe the Prophets.

[Vilanat]

I guess you could claim that. I'd still say a difference lies in the fact of whether or not I could replicate something though. As I pointed out, I could go buy a telescope and look through it at the planets at any point in time, but I can't make God turn water into wine again at my whim. (Excluding the fact that telescopes cost money and all that). It's impossible to experience everything after all, so you have to trust someone to be correct. Personally I choose the guys who I can understand the mechanisms of why things happen and repeat their observations should I chose to, but that doesn't mean you have to just believe them. (As a matter of fact one of the key ideas of "science" is to constantly question the conclusions! As an educated listener you should make it part of your job to question the conclusions scientists draw and go educate yourself enough to understand their observations!)

Have you ever tried replicating buddhists directions for enlightenment? the underlining logic behind it is very sound and can be easily understood and experienced, its just the end result which require belief.

As a casual listener, you have no way to verify whether the Higgs boson exists or whether enlightenment exists. the theory behind both is known. the basics are simple to understand. the ultimate proof of personal experience or personal direct knowledge is beyond our grasp in both cases, yet we both choose to believe the scientists at CERN and not the countless Buddhists monks.

(Not to say these two contradict or even relate to each other. i am just giving examples of things we can replicate, can't replicate and choose to believe in)

[timferius]

A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums.

[TD1]

Read back a bit. There have been a few people saying what they were. Fundamentalist Mormon, Wiccan (I think?) and Muslim.

Probably more I don't remember.

[King Kravoka]

About that, there should be a tvtropes page titled "All religion is fundamentalist christianity" because, seriously, tell me the last time you heard someone complain about Buddhists or something like that.

Read back a bit. There have been a few people saying what they were. Fundamentalist Mormon, Wiccan (I think?) and Muslim.

Probably more I don't remember.

Isn't Mormonism technically a split of Christianity?

[TD1]

Depends on if they call themselves Christian, I suppose.

[That Wolf]

It seems both vilanat an I observe our conciousness through meditation.
And its a fool proof method to any kind of self help. Just takes practice. Before this, years ago I used psilocybin and that helped me evolve my thinking quite a bit.