|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:26 pm
rmcdra Belief makes the world go round but most religions are based more on practices than beliefs. Science would say that the moon caused the world to go around. When it collided with the world, so very long ago. And leave it at that alone. Not question where did the moon start from. I then by the same contexts, the absence of practices is also religion. The same way absorbing all colors and releasing non, is still a color... we call it black. Quote: That's the beliefs of any decent person, doesn't require one to be an atheist to acknowledge that. Also a good number of people do actually believe on science since you know science is a body of knowledge. This is true, somewhat...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:33 pm
glitterboypilot rmcdra Belief makes the world go round but most religions are based more on practices than beliefs. Science would say that the moon caused the world to go around. When it collided with the world, so very long ago. And leave it at that alone. Not question where did the moon start from. I then by the same contexts, the absence of practices is also religion. The same way absorbing all colors and releasing non, is still a color... we call it black. Now we are getting into the problem of the word religion now. Everything can fit into it XD. I've pretty much come to see that culture and religion are interchangeable words. Quote: Quote: That's the beliefs of any decent person, doesn't require one to be an atheist to acknowledge that. Also a good number of people do actually believe on science since you know science is a body of knowledge. This is true, somewhat... what's off if you don't mind me asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:51 pm
rmcdra what's off if you don't mind me asking. How about we start with discerning fact from lies? The facts they never reveal, or the ones they cover up. Every-time they make a "discovery" one has to ask a thousand questions. Normally that is fine, leads to more add more discoveries, unless if one of these is who paid for the research and who gets the biggest benefit from it... And with all these questions one never comes up... Why? Why did we evolve from "ooze", into a cell... Even more so, Why combined to evolve again? A cell has nearly everything it needs to survive, it doesn't have to find a mate or rear young... it just divides and poof two cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:26 pm
glitterboypilot rmcdra what's off if you don't mind me asking. How about we start with discerning fact from lies? The facts they never reveal, or the ones they cover up. Belief makes the world go round. Quote: Every-time they make a "discovery" one has to ask a thousand questions. Normally that is fine, leads to more add more discoveries, unless if one of these is who paid for the research and who gets the biggest benefit from it... And with all these questions one never comes up... Why? More than likely because "why" is a philosophical/religious question that is not addressable by repeatable empirical observation and not prone to confirmation/cultural bias. Quote: Why did we evolve from "ooze", into a cell... Even more so, Why combined to evolve again? A cell has nearly everything it needs to survive, it doesn't have to find a mate or rear young... it just divides and poof two cells. Again a philosophical/religious question. We aren't capable of designing a repeatable empirical experiment that can address the question, thus outside the realm of modern science. Some may say it is within the realm of modern science to answer but such people are confusing naturalism with science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:52 pm
rmcdra glitterboypilot rmcdra what's off if you don't mind me asking. How about we start with discerning fact from lies? The facts they never reveal, or the ones they cover up. Belief makes the world go round. Quote: Every-time they make a "discovery" one has to ask a thousand questions. Normally that is fine, leads to more add more discoveries, unless if one of these is who paid for the research and who gets the biggest benefit from it... And with all these questions one never comes up... Why? More than likely because "why" is a philosophical/religious question that is not addressable by repeatable empirical observation and not prone to confirmation/cultural bias. Quote: Why did we evolve from "ooze", into a cell... Even more so, Why combined to evolve again? A cell has nearly everything it needs to survive, it doesn't have to find a mate or rear young... it just divides and poof two cells. Again a philosophical/religious question. We aren't capable of designing a repeatable empirical experiment that can address the question, thus outside the realm of modern science. Some may say it is within the realm of modern science to answer but such people are confusing naturalism with science. Outside science? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2981138/Scientist-creates-first-man-made-cell.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:22 pm
I made a similar point in the ED forum over the weekend...
The point I was trying to make is that Science, History, and Religion are not the same, and not equal... They are each their own sphere...
Yet the recent trend is demand that religion prove its validity through History and Science; For Science to accept religion as physical fact: and History validate itself through religious myth and to validate religion through fact...
It doesn't work that way...
But each time an Atheist demands that someone prove their religion through facts that the Atheist can accept... Well, it takes Atheism itself, one step closer to being it's own full-blown religion...
Atheists are becoming just as if not more fanatical in shoving their beliefs down other people's throats as fundamental right-wing Christian groups...
Not only that, but I know of a couple people who have been nothing short of harassed by those who do not believe in God, because they have converted to a religion from atheism... It reminds me of a cult mindset.
Science and Atheism are the religion of the New Millenium apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:33 pm
glitterboypilot rmcdra glitterboypilot rmcdra what's off if you don't mind me asking. How about we start with discerning fact from lies? The facts they never reveal, or the ones they cover up. Belief makes the world go round. Quote: Every-time they make a "discovery" one has to ask a thousand questions. Normally that is fine, leads to more add more discoveries, unless if one of these is who paid for the research and who gets the biggest benefit from it... And with all these questions one never comes up... Why? More than likely because "why" is a philosophical/religious question that is not addressable by repeatable empirical observation and not prone to confirmation/cultural bias. Quote: Why did we evolve from "ooze", into a cell... Even more so, Why combined to evolve again? A cell has nearly everything it needs to survive, it doesn't have to find a mate or rear young... it just divides and poof two cells. Again a philosophical/religious question. We aren't capable of designing a repeatable empirical experiment that can address the question, thus outside the realm of modern science. Some may say it is within the realm of modern science to answer but such people are confusing naturalism with science. Outside science? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2981138/Scientist-creates-first-man-made-cell.html I'm familiar with the man made cells. I'm sorry when I say why I mean why in the sense what meaning does it have to us, not why in how it happens. Yes in theory we can recreate an experiment that reproduces how life develops and we can discover all the nicks and ticks of how it all works and tinkers, but that doesn't answer why in what that means to us. We just don't function on just the facts. Facts without meanings applied are useless to us, we aren't reasoning machines, but rather rationalizing machines who can crudely reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:36 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia I made a similar point in the ED forum over the weekend... The point I was trying to make is that Science, History, and Religion are not the same, and not equal... They are each their own sphere... Yet the recent trend is demand that religion prove its validity through History and Science; For Science to accept religion as physical fact: and History validate itself through religious myth and to validate religion through fact... It doesn't work that way... But each time an Atheist demands that someone prove their religion through facts that the Atheist can accept... Well, it takes Atheism itself, one step closer to being it's own full-blown religion... Atheists are becoming just as if not more fanatical in shoving their beliefs down other people's throats as fundamental right-wing Christian groups... Not only that, but I know of a couple people who have been nothing short of harassed by those who do not believe in God, because they have converted to a religion from atheism... It reminds me of a cult mindset. Science and Atheism are the religion of the New Millenium apparently. And misnaming and misappropriating names and titles is quite the trend of the New Millennium too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:12 pm
rmcdra I'm familiar with the man made cells. I'm sorry when I say why I mean why in the sense what meaning does it have to us, not why in how it happens. Yes in theory we can recreate an experiment that reproduces how life develops and we can discover all the nicks and ticks of how it all works and tinkers, but that doesn't answer why in what that means to us. We just don't function on just the facts. Facts without meanings applied are useless to us, we aren't reasoning machines, but rather rationalizing machines who can crudely reason. Evolutionists, say that survival of the fittest. My why was mean, to what reason did the first cell come to be? There was nothing that could threaten its survival... for it was nothing before. Then why bond with another? Eh, too much time alone... causes the mind to wonder. Sorry, I didn't mean to drift this conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:13 pm
rmcdra Eltanin Sadachbia I made a similar point in the ED forum over the weekend... The point I was trying to make is that Science, History, and Religion are not the same, and not equal... They are each their own sphere... Yet the recent trend is demand that religion prove its validity through History and Science; For Science to accept religion as physical fact: and History validate itself through religious myth and to validate religion through fact... It doesn't work that way... But each time an Atheist demands that someone prove their religion through facts that the Atheist can accept... Well, it takes Atheism itself, one step closer to being it's own full-blown religion... Atheists are becoming just as if not more fanatical in shoving their beliefs down other people's throats as fundamental right-wing Christian groups... Not only that, but I know of a couple people who have been nothing short of harassed by those who do not believe in God, because they have converted to a religion from atheism... It reminds me of a cult mindset. Science and Atheism are the religion of the New Millenium apparently. And misnaming and misappropriating names and titles is quite the trend of the New Millennium too. ? Sorry if I am slow today... Misnaming and Misappropriating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:02 am
glitterboypilot rmcdra I'm familiar with the man made cells. I'm sorry when I say why I mean why in the sense what meaning does it have to us, not why in how it happens. Yes in theory we can recreate an experiment that reproduces how life develops and we can discover all the nicks and ticks of how it all works and tinkers, but that doesn't answer why in what that means to us. We just don't function on just the facts. Facts without meanings applied are useless to us, we aren't reasoning machines, but rather rationalizing machines who can crudely reason. Evolutionists, say that survival of the fittest. My why was mean, to what reason did the first cell come to be? There was nothing that could threaten its survival... for it was nothing before. Then why bond with another? Eh, too much time alone... causes the mind to wonder. Sorry, I didn't mean to drift this conversation. Funny I thought it was natural selection. Survival of the fittest is a term from social darwinism. They're still working on figuring that one out I heard, This might be of interest to you. Nothing could threaten it? Single-cell organism are pretty fragile. I think you might be forgetting about environmental factors. It's okay, luckily I used to be pre-med so this is stuff I am semi-familiar with though it's been about 8 years since I've looked at this stuff, so my information might be out dated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:11 am
Eltanin Sadachbia rmcdra Eltanin Sadachbia I made a similar point in the ED forum over the weekend... The point I was trying to make is that Science, History, and Religion are not the same, and not equal... They are each their own sphere... Yet the recent trend is demand that religion prove its validity through History and Science; For Science to accept religion as physical fact: and History validate itself through religious myth and to validate religion through fact... It doesn't work that way... But each time an Atheist demands that someone prove their religion through facts that the Atheist can accept... Well, it takes Atheism itself, one step closer to being it's own full-blown religion... Atheists are becoming just as if not more fanatical in shoving their beliefs down other people's throats as fundamental right-wing Christian groups... Not only that, but I know of a couple people who have been nothing short of harassed by those who do not believe in God, because they have converted to a religion from atheism... It reminds me of a cult mindset. Science and Atheism are the religion of the New Millenium apparently. And misnaming and misappropriating names and titles is quite the trend of the New Millennium too. ? Sorry if I am slow today... Misnaming and Misappropriating? Science is a body of knowledge that we've gathered through empirical observation and repeatable empirical observation. When most people say they believe in science they are talking about naturalism, the philosophy assumed when performing experiments using the scientific method or materialism, the philosophy that everything is either matter or energy, there is no spiritual. Atheism means belief in no God. It does not convey anything about religiosity since there are a number of non-theistic religions like LeVey Satanism or sects of Buddhism, and now apparently secularism. There are atheists who do believe in the paranormal, like ghosts and spirits. Rare in western culture, but more common in eastern cultures. The misuse of such terms makes it easy to create an us vs them mindset. Like religious people don't believe in science or atheists don't believe in anything spiritual. It makes it easier to regard the other side as something that cannot be related to and thus gives justification to act superior to those that don't fit into one's clique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:12 am
rmcdra Science is a body of knowledge that we've gathered through empirical observation and repeatable empirical observation. When most people say they believe in science they are talking about naturalism, the philosophy assumed when performing experiments using the scientific method or materialism, the philosophy that everything is either matter or energy, there is no spiritual. Atheism means belief in no God. It does not convey anything about religiosity since there are a number of non-theistic religions like LeVey Satanism or sects of Buddhism, and now apparently secularism. There are atheists who do believe in the paranormal, like ghosts and spirits. Rare in western culture, but more common in eastern cultures. The misuse of such terms makes it easy to create an us vs them mindset. Like religious people don't believe in science or atheists don't believe in anything spiritual. It makes it easier to regard the other side as something that cannot be related to and thus gives justification to act superior to those that don't fit into one's clique. Yes, Understood... My point was that the us verse them mindset is creating a 'brought to level' field on the point of generalized Christendom or other fanatical religious group with generalized atheism... I do have a bad habit of generalizing. and I suppose I should be clear that the definition of religion that I go by is - a way of thinking that is taught to an audience who will accept it, commit to it, and devote themselves to it ... or as quoted by Miriam Webster - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith . I do differentiate religion and faith... but to be honest, the atheists that I have recently talked to show a great amount of faith that they are right. LOL The problem is now starting to explode because of superiority complexes developing on both fanatical fronts... I believe we will be seeing more and more of these demonstrations against Christianity, and soon all religion in general... There is already a snowballing sentiment across the world that everyone would be better off without religion... and although there are more religious people in the world today than there are non-religious... The sad fact that different religions can't seem to put aside their differences is going to be our undoing... There are movement to remove anything that even faintly resembles a religious anything from public notice... From what I've been told by European friends, things are getting pretty strict over there... And anyone who tries to keep up with US politics can see where the movement started, and right-wingers are rising up against it, but their way of doing things is just making our situation worse... because in retaliation for some of their 'rights' being dampered, they would take away everyones' rights to disagree with them... It's gonna bring the country to a breaking point, and it's gonna slap all of us in the a** before it's said and done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:48 pm
and now after reading over this my head hurts rofl
i was always under the understanding they didn't believe in anything so umm unholy water makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
