It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
sorry,
i've just realised the clocks have gone forward and it an hour later than i thought it was but.....
you have not addressed my point that Current Scientific Theory though verifiable by current scientific methods is not FACT. it is only CST(^)
as i said 100 years ago you, as a scientist, would have used geoogical data, mathematical models and base physics to rubbish poor Alfred Wegener and his crazy theories.

I watched a UK TV show by Richard Dawkins about the evil of religion and i felt he completely missed this point - that science is as much a part of human history as religion and it has its own story of discovery, ego and interpretation.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Religion is based on no evidence at all, just assumptions.

Science atleast makes educated guesses, and while science can't be proven 100% Religion can't usually be proven at all. So we should stick with science. Its not 100% reliable, its just more reliable. Alot more.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
posted by Mark Ten

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."




No it isn't, for the simple reason that this isn't the 14th century. Live with it.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
ProtOn:
Physics relies on language too, that doesn't prove that Physics and Language are both the same. Granted there is much that has been proven in Physics but also much that hasn't yet is still taught as fact. The whole basis of quantum mechanics is that it can't be predicted or observed without affecting the outcome. As I already mentioned in a previous thread, I'm not using quantum mechanics to explain anything mystical, simply as an example of how little scientists truly know. I have now desire in learning more about how little scientists know.

To use something as a building block you need to either know for a fact that it will support your structure or have faith that it will. By using theories as a foundation for building on those theories to create other theories you must have faith that the initial theories are correct. Really, really small particles are supposedly the building blocks for everything else, thus if holes exist at this level, surely this would have a severe impact on everything else.

If Science is unfinished, how can it's theories be considered factual? Facts don't need to get revised or amended, they are correct and finished no matter how much time passes. Assumptions on the other hand, as believeable and logical as they may be, can and are often revised and tweaked as new evidence becomes available.

sardion2000:
No doubt maths is a science, agreed. However there is a distinction between a science that tries to explain why things are the way they are, and one that is there as a tool to aid these explanations. A similar parallel can be drawn with Psychology and language, where language is the math and Psychology is Physics, Chemistry, Biology or many other sciences.

At the present time, with our present understanding, it seems that the acceleration of gravity is pretty accurate. All the pieces we have fit, but then again hundreds of years ago the Earth being flat also seemed pretty accurate. Perhaps there is a huge magnet drawing everything to the centre of the Earth, I don't know, but at the moment we have faith in gravity being the cause. This may not be the case in hundreds of years. Religion provides explanations of how everything came to be just as Science does.

NotClever:
Much of my response to ProtOn refers to your comments too. I'm sure I conceded that mathematics is an exception to other sciences. Having evidence to support something is not the same is it being proven to be true. Often this evidence subscribes to the theory that if it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck. This is an assumption that rules out the possibility that other species may share these same duck-like characteristics.

Kacen:
The fact that science does make educated guesses and passes them off as facts, such as evolution, makes it even more dangerous. Haven't you ever come across a person who gives there conveys there opinion as fact? If you don't know any better, you could easily be steered down the wrong path.

kegs:
So are you saying that we are now at a point where science has all of the answers? i'm sure that in the 14th century, they thought what the knew then was the truth too. How many of those ideas still hold true today? Similarly how many of todays "facts" will still be considered as such in 600 years time?

mark ten:
It's good to see someone has there eyes open.


[edit on 25/3/06 by mytym]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I joined a physics group because the owner has this revolutionary new idea about particle theory.

groups.yahoo.com...

Well, it's going to take me a while to grokk all this new language ; but the pictures are cuter.




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

kegs:
So are you saying that we are now at a point where science has all of the answers? i'm sure that in the 14th century, they thought what the knew then was the truth too. How many of those ideas still hold true today? Similarly how many of todays "facts" will still be considered as such in 600 years time?




Oh, no. I don't expect anyone to gladly manually face reality.

Nope. We are still unfortunalty at the point were people still expect their religious beliefs to coincide with their own 'learned' facts.

As ever, what actually happens when people investigate truth is still as progressively despressing as it has ever been.

And again, people will still mindlessly listen to anyones tripe as they pedal whatever vauge type of nonsense they want to hear.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   


Physics relies on language too, that doesn't prove that Physics and Language are both the same. Granted there is much that has been proven in Physics but also much that hasn't yet is still taught as fact. The whole basis of quantum mechanics is that it can't be predicted or observed without affecting the outcome. As I already mentioned in a previous thread, I'm not using quantum mechanics to explain anything mystical, simply as an example of how little scientists truly know. I have now desire in learning more about how little scientists know.


Can you show me a model of physics that relies upone the definision of ant? Physics only usage of language is to describe what it is we're discussing, such as gravity or energy. We give objects and properties name's, or else we wouldn't have language. As I pointed out, if you took the time to learn more about QM you'd find that through QM we're actually discovering MORE about thing's, not seeing that we know less. It's really odd that someone would use an example such as that and then say they have no desire to learn more about it, and then claim their learning more about the universe when they know nothing about the very theory they "think" show's how little we know. You really should learn more about QM itself before you claim an authoritive tone over how it works.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
So only through Quantum Physics can I learn about the Universe? How about through experience? There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The problem with physics is that it is developed to explain how things work in the physical world, yet Quantum Physics attempts to explain things that involve elements of the non-physical world, with physical world logic, seeing as how science seems to "believe" that the physical world is all there is. An example of attempting to complete a jigsaw without all the pieces.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I am quite new to this board. Infact this is my first post. Alot of you sound very educated. How you got this way , maybe school? Me on the other hand, I do research for my self. I will not pay the 25k to go to college. For being under educated I know a very lot. Science is not all facts. Also, I am not religious and I believe in alot of the things most religions do. I believe religions (some of them) all believe in the same thing. There is a god. Now you cant place science in the place of religion. 2 totally different things. Science was not even known back when the bible was out. Also, the maya proved that you can be accurate since they just watched to sky and predicted alot that is happening today. They didnt use science? I personally think that it is more then science we need to look at. Taking science and religion out of this and taking a better look behind the hologram. We live in an illusion of energy. Our body's are electrical current. Now my question is, what if you changed the energy being soaked up by our body, what if the body dies where does all that energy go. Im going a little out of context here but I dont care what science says or what religion says, we are all connected to the universe. Mind you, science is not always BROAD facts. Science is wrong alot. As far as the big bang theory, I dont believe that neither. I dont think something just went boom and made the universe. There ismore behind it. Also, how can they tell how many years old the universe is if we can barely get passed our solar system?/ Bunch of pozsmosh. I dont believe in religion and I dont believe in science although alot of it is fact, I believe in god yes, Its an illusion and we are being guarded from truth. The US gov hides everything from us, its one big lie. If you watch fox news.. Alot of it is Bull$ u know. The collapse is coming and I bet it will be before 2008. Alot will be revealed and science will no longer exist , it will be called something else. Facts not fiction.

Lol ok you guys think im crazy



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Well, when it comes to beliefs, talk is cheap. We all have beliefs about this and that and true and false and yes and no. And they're all just mentations rattling about in the brain, doing not much of anything.

It's behavior that causes change, from speaking to caring (or not caring). Hospitality and generosity are what build us a future or keep us in poverty (it is said). It is by the fruit of our behavior that we are judged--not by what we're thinking about.

Thank God. He gave us Free Will and (to some extent) Free Speech.

Chai



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   


So only through Quantum Physics can I learn about the Universe? How about through experience? There's more than one way to skin a cat.


Well, the problem with going by experience alone is... your not really learning much of anything. The experience from our ancestor's showed that life arose from decaying matter, or natural weather was caused by god's. There are still some tribe's that actually believe they can casue rain through ritualistic dance's and through the few time's it actually happen's to rain, that seem's to be proof enough for them. The other time's it doesn't work it's written off as the will of the god's.



The problem with physics is that it is developed to explain how things work in the physical world, yet Quantum Physics attempts to explain things that involve elements of the non-physical world, with physical world logic, seeing as how science seems to "believe" that the physical world is all there is. An example of attempting to complete a jigsaw without all the pieces.


If you knew anything about QM you wouldn't be saying this. QM doesn't really say anything about a non-physical world. QM was developed to explain the physical world close and at the plank level where macro physics doesn't work. The other thing with QM is, QM doesn't work at the macro level either. The physical world down at the micro level is abit different and does have it's quirks, but we're actually learning more about atomic interaction and chemical interactions and how the different force's interact thanks to QM.

jdem02,

I'm going to college this coming fall as I enjoy learning. Only through learning can we actually ... well, learn anything. There's a reason why we didn't advance during the dark age's. Alot of scientific progress was hindered back then as it didn't fit the view's of the church's or what was already believed. People back then would rather hang on to what they thought was right rather then try and learn other way's.




Now my question is, what if you changed the energy being soaked up by our body, what if the body dies where does all that energy go.


Well, it dissipitate's into the background, such as air, or the ground. If the "energy" in our bodies goes to some afterlife after the body stops producing energy, then we should assume batteries or capacitors, which also lose energy over time, also goto some sort of afterlife.



m going a little out of context here but I dont care what science says or what religion says, we are all connected to the universe.


I'm not sure what you mean here, connected to the universe?



As far as the big bang theory, I dont believe that neither. I dont think something just went boom and made the universe. There ismore behind it.


Well, it is known now that the universe did in fact go "boom", in a sense. There is more behind how the initial conditions allowed for this, but we're currently and possibly never able to peer beyond the event horizon.



Also, how can they tell how many years old the universe is if we can barely get passed our solar system?/ Bunch of pozsmosh.


Basically through knwoing the speed of light and measuring distance's based upon that. Light travels at a certain speed, roughly 186,000mps in a vaccuum. Using that and really distant nova's we can determine a close age, unfortunalty not an exact age. There could be thing's beyone the observable universe that just hasn't reached our planet yet. For all we know the actual universe could be trillions of years old. But the OBSERVABLE universe is roughly 13 billion years old.



The collapse is coming and I bet it will be before 2008.


It's been thought so many time's through out history that the "end" was coming soon. Even Jesus taught the "end" was coming soon, in his lifetime, or atleast the lifetime's of the people he was speaking too. I always thought the common new end of the world date was 2012, where'd you get 2008 from?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Due to the fact that nobody gets out of "here" alive in any case, it's good to grab knowledge of cause-and-effect while one can. Here in the physical dimension is the place where that knowledge is operable and observable.

"When" things are going to collapse is also observable--prophetic date or no prophetic date.

When the whales are dying off wholesale and the birds are dying off wholesale and the trees are dying off wholesale, and the fish are dying off wholesale, we can be sure this planet is undergoing Change that will affect mankind also.

Isn't that reasonable?

Does it matter whether it's 2012, 2010, 2008 or this year? Not really, not in cosmic time.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Prot0n:
I was referring to my own experiences rather than those of our ancestors through history.

Of course quantum physics doesn't mention anything about the non-physical world. Why would it? I already stated the science doesn't believe it exists. That's the problem.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
Prot0n:
I was referring to my own experiences rather than those of our ancestors through history.

Of course quantum physics doesn't mention anything about the non-physical world. Why would it? I already stated the science doesn't believe it exists. That's the problem.


The example I tried using was to show you that even despite your "experiences", using experience alone as an answer is usually wrong and doesn't explain anything in truth and reality.

The reason why we don't believe in a non-physical mystical universe is basically due to learning more about the world we inhabit and the universe at large. Pretty much everything once considered "mystical" back in ancient time's is now fully explainable and in some case experimentally reproducable. Experience might dictate a weird strange universe, but knowledge prove's this isn't so.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
From my understanding, religion is a belief or faith in something controlling or influencing existence. It is also my understanding that science tries to explain what the something is controlling or influencing existence.

Science is what happens when a person looks at the world around them, comes up with some explanations for the characteristics of that world, tests those explanations, reconsiders and reformulate them in light of new eivdence, rinses and repeats.

Thats pretty much unlike religion, which, in almost all cases, is where a person or set of people claim to have contact with a super-natural entity and call for other people to listen to that supernatural entity.

Religion is irrational thoughts about this and 'other' worlds, literally. Science is rational though applied to nature.

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

Religionous 'thoughts' are contradicted by the evidence of the world around us, and are propped up by internal, subjective, personal faith, science is universal and can be worked by anyone, regardless of beleif, and, more importantly, science works. So, given those two 'systems', which one should be taught in schools, and which one operates most closely to 'fact'?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
QUOTE--Religionous 'thoughts' are contradicted by the evidence of the world around us, and are propped up by internal, subjective, personal faith, science is universal and can be worked by anyone, regardless of beleif, and, more importantly, science works. So, given those two 'systems', which one should be taught in schools, and which one operates most closely to 'fact'?UNQUOTE

**********************
This sentence doesn't make any sense to me--whatsoever--because every human is unique. There is no such thing as "scientists think" or "religionists think."

That is an artificial construct based on an idea of monolithic thought patterns.

Where does that idea come from -- that human beings experience their thoughts in clumps or bunches or WHOLE PARADIGMS; rather than experientially, one-moment-at-a-time?

Having free will, we are free to choose to keep or discard any single, individual thought or perception that may occur in our brains (we have two, remember, bicameral?)

So, how does one arrive at huge categorizations for whole classes of humans, as if human thoughts are monolithic?

You from Sirius, maybe?



I truly wonder--literally--where you're coming from.

Chai



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
chaiyah99,

What you just posted in reply to that quote make's no sense. You basically took what Nygdan had said out of context to make it appear as if he were talking about what people in general think. There's a thing called reading comprehension that alot of people fail to actually exercise when reading something. Unless of course you meant to twist his words around for your own advantage? If that's the case then kindly disregard my post.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Please elaborate.

I thought, by taking a whole paragraph, I was taking a compleat thought--a thought I found troubling.

Was I wrong?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I thought I was pretty clear in my last post, but yes. You were wrong. The quote used speaks nothing of what you posted in reply to it. I don't even understand how you came to such conclusion's through reading that text unless it was through purposefully twisting it .



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
ProtOn:
Rather than using experiences you are using science alone to explain the world around us. Why is science OK, but experience is not?

Nygdan:
From your perspective this is the way you see it. Your definitions of rational and irrational aren't necessarilly the same as someone else's. They are subjective.

I have no problem with teaching science or religion in schools. It's the disguise that science is factual that troubles me. Much of science is not factual merely assumptions of best fit at that point in time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join