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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Prot0n:
Just as a side note, it is not my responsibility to research your fanciful ideas of different varieties of faith, as I cannot research figments of your imagination. You brought it up, you do the research and present your findings here.

In regards to the subject being off-topic, you brought up the idea of religious faith not me, although I believe that science involving faith is very much core to this whole thread. Then again, what would I know, I only started the thread.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
science only proves gods there but you must not know enough about either.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I personally feel that you need to elaborate on this post as I am finding it difficult to determine what exactly you are trying to say.

However, I can tell you that I am definitely not presumptuous enough to believe that I KNOW very much about anything at all. So in that regard, I agree with you, I don't KNOW enough about either.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   


In regards to the subject being off-topic, you brought up the idea of religious faith not me, although I believe that science involving faith is very much core to this whole thread. Then again, what would I know, I only started the thread.


Boy you haven't even been paying attention to even what yourself is saying. Even after I quote you.


One more time. In full this time.



The only reason religion requires faith is because it has not been proven to be true. Once there is proof, faith is redundant. Agreed? If science doesn't require faith it must be true. Agreed? If this is the case, why does science always change with newer discoveries? The truth doesn't need to change. Face it, IT'S A RELIGION, that's why.


Your talking about faith in a religous context. Your equating a faith in science from a religous standpoint. Religous faith. Don't play stupid with me and cut the BSing with me. It's getting old. Either you know wtf your talking about or you don't. If you do know what your talking about, atleast act like it.



Just as a side note, it is not my responsibility to research your fanciful ideas of different varieties of faith, as I cannot research figments of your imagination. You brought it up, you do the research and present your findings here.


I'm guessing you didn't read anything I've posted then. I've been showing you how faith is used in the context your wishing science to use it in. I've shown you how your concept if flawed. I've shown you the correct manner to look at it from. I've shown you different definition's of faith and belief and how each applies to both religion and to theories. Then again, I do remember you stating in another thread that you have no desire to learn. Don't get on my ass when your unwilling to effing learn about something. I've shown you, I've given you links to look at. If your unwilling to understand and learn about something so idiotically simple, that's YOUR problem, not mine. Don't pawn your unwillingness off on to me and make it appear to be MY job to educate you. Either take the initiative and be a man, or stay the... in school (or go back, whichever).

You've already stated numerous time's that you don't know this and you don't know that and your unwilling to learn this or unwilling to learn that.

Screw you buddy, don't act like you know wtf your talking about if your so unwilling to learn. If you need quotes, I can get em for you. Again, out of this thread. Can't teach people like you jack.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Ouch! That is one verbal barrage! Had I not been so thick skinned, I'm sure I would've been reduced to tears. To quote Neil from the Young Ones, "In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!."

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish be continually reposting my posts, because all they seem to do is reinforce my view and contradict the point you're trying to make, as you would expect. I'm talking about faith in general, you are the one deciding that the context I am using is a religious one. Science is a religion because it requires faith just as a religion does, not because it requires the imaginary variety of "religious faith", which by the way, you have yet to distinguish for me, despite repeated requests.

I'm not WISHING science to use faith in any context. Again, this is your interpretation. Science already uses faith as I have demonstrated from the beginning of this thread. You've shown me how you justify using figments of your imagination to prove your point, that is all.

Ah, yes, I remember you taking my posts from other threads out of context and misunderstanding what I posted to suit your needs, despite giving you the direction to correctly interpret them. I have already addressed the remainder of your post, thus have no desire to do so again.

Please let me know if when you say you are "out of this thread", I am to take it literally, as you indicated this last time, yet here you are. If I can't trust your word on this, how can I trust anything you say?


On a more sincere note, sarcasm aside, allow me to offer some advice:
All we can do here is respond to what is written in a post. I don't know you, and it is difficult to make an accurate assessment based on what is written in your posts, especially if we have opposing views on a particular subject, as is the case here. I can only attack or endorse what is written in your posts with any accuracy. I can make a judgement on your demeanor, your appearence, your mood, your tone of voice, perceived intelligence but it is likely to be very innaccurate, thus commenting on it would probably be a little misinformed. If we were standing in a room face to face it would be different.

Just try to keep this in mind, otherwise you might find yourself coming under the scrutiny of the moderators, and I don't want you to get banned. I may be egging you on and provoking you into forming a personal dislike for me, but I'm not worth getting banned over. If you feel the need to put me in my place or shut me up just ignore me. This is a most effective technique and you won't get banned for it. Anyhow, it may sound like I'm being a smart alec here, but honestly I'm just trying to offer some constructive advice. All the best, I'm sure we'll cross paths again and good luck with your future posts.


[edit on 14/4/06 by mytym]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I often read that "this or that" cannot be scientifically proven, thus it isn't true or doesn't exist. A perfect example is the non-physical or spiritual world. Many dismiss it's existence simply because it cannot be scientifically proven. Science doesn't believe in the spiritual world, so the chances of it being able to prove it's existence are pretty slim. To make matters worse, it then uses this assumption as a basis for explaining other phenomena. If the assumption is wrong, everything based on it is unreliable. Despite this flaw, a hallmark of many religions, we continue to use science as the ONLY gospel of truth.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
IMO
The religion of 'popular' science with its millions of passive believers as well as fanatical worshippers that simply take a given theory as gospel without challenge is directly comparable to the popular religions of the day.

Whatever group has the most power and influence at a particular time and place gets to spread it's message/view to a 'wider share of the market', so to speak.
Just as psuedo-history is written by the victors, perceived scientific reality is dictated by those with the most power and influence within the scientific community and without.

The high priests of science and religion a like, peddle many flawed theories and beliefs that are perceived as truth to the masses who in general accept without further investigation.
After all, who are we to question these supposed 'experts'?


[edit on 21-4-2006 by point]

[edit on 21-4-2006 by point]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
I often read that "this or that" cannot be scientifically proven, thus it isn't true or doesn't exist. A perfect example is the non-physical or spiritual world. Many dismiss it's existence simply because it cannot be scientifically proven. Science doesn't believe in the spiritual world, so the chances of it being able to prove it's existence are pretty slim. To make matters worse, it then uses this assumption as a basis for explaining other phenomena. If the assumption is wrong, everything based on it is unreliable. Despite this flaw, a hallmark of many religions, we continue to use science as the ONLY gospel of truth.


The 'spiritual world' shouldn't need to be "believed" in to be "proven" true. Anyone should be able to test for it and recieve the same result's to show such a concept exist's in what I like to call reality. Theories aren't considered true nor fact's untill they are proven as such. Even with a ridiculously large amount of evidence in favor of a certain theory. While it's true that many people will defend theory A over theory B due to the ammount of evidence in favor of theory A, one shouldn't take this to mean that everyone considers theory A as undeniable fact.

In the case of non-physical phenomenon such as ghost's, psycics, leperchauns etc. Any time these thing's are studied under TIGHT CLOSED AND CONTROLED setting's, literally nothing is found. No results. Zip. Nada. Either the "psychic is found to be a fraud or he/she (or the guy who claims to be ET reincarnated in human form) claim they can't "perform" under such "preassure". Mess's up with the "mystical" energies or whatever various excuses they have for it. An afterlife can only be tested for when you die, not sure how many people have came back from the dead to report back on such a place. No I don't mean NDE's (if you choose to not learn more about the physical cause's for them that's your issue not mine), I mean actual physical death, the point of no return death. Buh bye death.

In defense of the sceintific method used to discover everything we've taken for granted today so we can see post's such as yours, even YOU have the ability to test these 'wild and ridiculous' claims. Doesn't even cost a whole hell of alot either. Within reason of course. Alot of what you take for granted was discovered through the scientific method you guy's enjoy attacking so much. The computer and internet, electricity, even your toilet paper that keeps your bum squeeky clean and the soap you (hopefully) use, you can thank people who discovered these things. Those people didn't have a religous type belief in them prior to being the "truth" It was through logic, reason, experimentation, alot of years of hard work getting things just right, alot of testing to make sure they were right etc. Just as any 'theory' goes through. As I keep repeating on closed ears, some theories DO GET DROPPED, even despite previous evidence FOR those theories.

You guy's can shake your fist at it and scream all you want and you can piss and moan all you'd like, but thankfully ignorance will not turn a method into a religion or make a theory seem like a reigous belief.




The religion of 'popular' science with its millions of passive believers as well as fanatical worshippers that simply take a given theory as gospel without challenge is directly comparable to the popular religions of the day.


Really? Never met someone who does that before. Well, exept maybe those who believe in any religion or "psychic powers" or ghost or the jolly green giant. I don't know why so many people think or would like to ignorantly believe that people take theories as undeniable proof and as absolute truth. You'd have to be ... with lack of better words ... to actually believe in a theory in such a way. Or to literally think most if not all (sane
) people believe in theories that way.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Everything you say comes from the perspective I mentioned in my last post where scientific proof is the only acceptable form of proof despite it's flaws. I've already explained what the flaws are, but they seem to fall on deaf ears.

In regards to the non-physical world, science holds the belief that it will be able to explain everything in a physical sense thus searches for ways to explain the non-physical within the confines of this belief. Sometimes it will be possible to reach the correct conclusion within these confines, sometimes it will not.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
By scientific proof I'm assuming you mean the scientific method used to discover thing's? There's really no flaws in the method itself, possibly the theories, but not the method. "Science" doesn't hold to *just* the physical, there have been numerous time's scientist's have continously tested for the "super-natural" the main problem being, most test's for such a thing are either inconculsive or fraudulent. If you don't have a problem with such result's, good for you.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
By scientific proof I mean operating within the narrow parameters dictated by the beliefs of science, as mentioned previously, which choose to disregard much of the possibility spectrum. In these numerous times that scientist's have continuously tested for the "super-natural", the main problem is that each time they are operating within the confines of these limited parameters, as I already mentioned, thus the results will continue to be unreliable. You refer to this unreliability as being inconclusive or fraudulent. It is akin to looking through a telescope in search of the moon from inside a room with no windows. Chances are you're not going to find it. This is the problem I have with such tests.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Oooh ok, I got ya now. It's not the subjects fault for using ropes to levitate or using psychological clues to read a mind or subconsious cues to guess the symbol on a card ... It's the scientist's fault for being o narrow minded.


I guess the guy who made the statue of liberty dissapear was really an all powerfull warlock too and not some really good stage illusionist?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
You were right on the money with the narrow mindedness of science. However you seemed to get off track with the remainder of your post. I think my explanation is fairly easy to understand.

[edit on 24/4/06 by mytym]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
You were right on the money with the narrow mindedness of science. However you seemed to get off track with the remainder of your post. I think my explanation is fairly easy to understand.

[edit on 24/4/06 by mytym]


No, wasn't really that easy to understand. Exactly which part of the method used by scientists do you have a problem with? Assuming of course you are fully aware of the scientific method?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
It's not the method itself per se. It's the beliefs that limit the the choice of method adopted.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
It's not the method itself per se. It's the beliefs that limit the the choice of method adopted.


I'm not exactly clear on what your saying. It's not the method that you have a problem with then, just the conculsions obtained with using the method?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Take the example of using the telescope to look at the moon.

There is nothing wrong with this method, however the belief that you can see the moon using this method inside a room with no windows, will limit the chances of seeing the moon. The choice of viewing the moon from outside is not available due to the belief that everything can be achieved from within this windowless room.

Perhaps it's not the best analogy, but I think you get the idea.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
That make's no sense at all mytym. You should know better!

Scientist's don't do as you describe, under any example. For example. If you were to claim to levitate and had accepted to undergo scientific study. How is it the scientist's being at fault for you lying about your abilities and blaming them for the bad results because "they didn't believe" or "the cosmic energies were just to low" or any other numerous excuses given by those who failed to perform under tight conditions without chance of fraud.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
That sounds like a classic sicentists approach. You automatically assume I'm lying if I claim to levitate, so what chance do you have of scientifically proving that I can levitate with that mindset?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
It's through lack of following through with the claim to levitate that determines if the claim is even valid. There's been hundreds, if not thousands of such studies where those claiming certain abilities claimed they couldn't perform under such tight conditions where there was absolutley no chance of fraud or outside help. Other cases were discovered to be definatly fraud. Alot of "mystics" have been discovered to be frauds. To my knowledge, there is not one single clearly documented case being absolutley true, without fraud, without deception and proven as real.

It has nothing to do with the mindset. It shouldn't matter whether I believed the claim or slimey joe off the side of the street believed the claim. You make the claim and you agree to scientific scrutiny and then FAIL to follow through with whatever excuse you choose to use and then continue with more and more excuses with every test attempted to be done, it really hurts your credibility, and this is what has happened in alot of cases. Hell, alot of these so called supernatural or mystic powers are easily performed by even you and me, if we bother to learn the tricks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join