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 the new religion

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
And the quotes are for?


A demonstration of a brilliant scientist who believes religion and science are two integral pieces.


Originally posted by AncientVoid
The proof that God exist?


If it were that easy, that's all I'd say everyday


[edit on 3-9-2007 by saint4God]




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
That says NOTHING about anything having to do with the nuclear bomb and his thoughts there in.


This is true. I was fanning the fire of the topic. These quotes agree with your viewpoint (or so I thought) rather than mine.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Your taking a quote about a completely UNRELATED MATTER.


It is related, as Einstein apparently believe science and religion worked together. Although it doesn't sound like he'd go as far as saying science IS a religion, he does believe they're very much inter-related.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Einstein wasn't perfect so what he thinks is largely unimportant on the topic of the existance of a higher power since he was human (albeit a VERY smart one) after all and capable of mistakes same as anyone else.


If I made an impression that Einstein was a god, then my mistake. It's what neither I nor he (per the quotes) feels.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hmmmmm ever try to disagree with global warming? Try it.

You can disagree all you like. The problem is actually being able to bring forth evidence to support your position.
That's where deniers and cranks seem to have an issue.


And monkey boy proves my point.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 



It is related, as Einstein apparently believe science and religion worked together. Although it doesn't sound like he'd go as far as saying science IS a religion, he does believe they're very much inter-related.


Ok ummmmmmmmmmmmmm You're taking what I said about your war quote and applying it to a topic I speak on later in the post.
Here is what I said all together and not chopped and jumbled as you obviously got it.

"Your argument doesn't stand up. Your taking a quote about a completely UNRELATED MATTER. He was praising those who went off to war to fight Hitler without any mention of the bomb. Calling them heros."

Otherwords that comment had nothing to do with Einsteins view on deity, yet you applied it anyway.

**shakes head obviously confused**



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by AncientVoid
And the quotes are for?


A demonstration of a brilliant scientist who believes religion and science are two integral pieces.



Umm there's brilliant scientist who don't believe in religion as well, there was no point of quoting him. Like you said, he's only believes that, doesn't make it true...

[edit on 4-9-2007 by AncientVoid]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
And p.s. you people can try to henpeck me into submission but thats not going to happen. Especially considering no one can answer my questions (one in particular) because we ALL know the answer. Spout all the half thoughts, picking on this or that of what I said or dismiss what displeases you as rubbish but you cannot COMPLETELY refute me with hard facts because such hard facts DO NOT EXIST.

I mean gravity confuses us yet you want to say we can 100% prove there is no chance of a higher power, and proceed to bash anyone that allows for such a thing to exist, COME ON. Sure, most the claims that major religions make can be disproved, but the existance of such a creature as I have suggested and think is the case could NOT be disproven by us. Your taking a leap of faith just as those in religion does, even if its in the opposite direction. That makes science (a incomplete picture of reality if ever there was one because we DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS) as you view it A RELIGION.

Ok lets see what wonderful gems of half arsed defense can you come up with, though I'd prefer to just agree to disagree. Yes I made this thread but I find that this is a pointless discussion, I made it in a hot headed attempt to start a dialogue and possibly provoke some thinking but all I have seen is people attempt to reinforce their entrenched beliefs in some really awe inspiring leaps of fantasy, and even more awe inspiring lack even acknowledging counterpoints. And do a dance with semantics while attempting to accuse me of the same thing.

In a nutshell we are all small limited creatures get over it and stop pretending you or anyone else for that matter, is any bigger or less limited then anyone else.




And NO I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU SAINT YOU ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BEAST.

And begin..................

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hmmmmm ever try to disagree with global warming? Try it.\


um... yes, actually anywhere from 40-60% of the scientific community either is unsure of outright disagrees with global warming...



Simple fact of the matter you cannot completely disprove whether or not there is a higher power. You are ACTING ON FAITH of what others have said. You have faith in what they say fine. By all means continue.


no no no
i am acting on a LACK of faith. you are affirming a position, i am saying you haven't proven it.
i am not acting on the faith of what others have said, i am acting on an understanding of the reasoning behind why they say it. if carl sagan says "this is how stars form" after explaining how stars form... well, i'll agree with him because he just explained the very scientific process. if i were so inclined i could then look into the entire idea, read up on all the complex physics behind it, and come to the conclusion that the man wasn't lying.



Let me try this little hypothetical gem on you. And answer or just bugger off.
What if there was a higher power. And what if it did not want us to have complete undeniable proof of its existance or of a life after physical death.
And since I obvious have to add this would not want or need worship or even noticing.
You know wants us to figure things out for ourselves. And here is the key to the WHOLE thing it also SET THE WHOLE THING UP. Do you honestly think mankind, we little specks of things smaller than dust living on a grain of sand on this vast beach we call the universe would be able to prove or disprove it? Yes or no.
We both know the answer though.


logical fallacy, special pleading....

you really should read up on logical fallacies.



Simple fact is your making a leap of faith, just as the christians are that there is in a fact a god, just in the opposite direction. You can only walk so far on what we know FOR CERTAIN and then you start leaping.


i'm not taking a leap. i'm saying "i don't know if this thing exists or not, but its existence is unproven, and i don't believe in things whose existence aren't proven"

do you believe that it's a leap of faith to say that the invisible pink unicorn, russel's teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster don't exist? what about thor, baal, hera, osiris, and amaterasu?



Scientific method is based in the physical


actually, it's also based on the abstract concept of logic..



and if the spiritual does in fact exist Scientific method is woefully inequiped to study it.


so you're saying that, if the spiritual exists... it isn't part of the natural world and not subject to any sort of logic and reason?
now, can you explain why that is?









[edit on 3-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And p.s. you people can try to henpeck me into submission but thats not going to happen.


Sheesh, who cares. Revel in your ignorance for all I care. This thread should have died within the first few posts. The dogmatic are those who are completely beyond rational argument, so I see a bit of projection here.

As far as AGW and dogma, show me the evidence and my position follows. That is, it is not a position of dogma, but one of assessing the weight of evidence. Unless, of course, you now want to bastardise the meaning of more words, heh.

Any scientist can disagree with whatever they like, in fact, it is embodied in the notion of scepticism. However, until they bring forth actual reliable and valid scientific evidence, they obviously won't make much impact.


[edit on 4-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And p.s. you people can try to henpeck me into submission but thats not going to happen.


No need to be paranoid, I'm sure there are plenty of people in this world who are actually out to get you.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And NO I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU SAINT YOU ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BEAST.


Why are you yelling? I'm right here. I've been called many things in my lifetime, though this is the first I've been called a "beast". Now if only I can get that kind of response after my kung-fu sparring
...

I will take and treasure the adjective "different" as my own and be thankful for it.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
um... yes, actually anywhere from 40-60% of the scientific community either is unsure of outright disagrees with global warming...


Madness is right, there's quite a hefty disagreement about it. We can talk about the ecology/climatology of it if you like. I found it very interesting. Gives whole new meaning to 'balance'.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
actually, it's also based on the abstract concept of logic..


Also true in that neither observation nor data alone constitute proof.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


i'm going to have to completely agree with you here... this is at least the second time i've done this in the last few weeks...
odd, no?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I don't want to turn this into a climate change thread, but there isn't really a large debate over whether humans are having an effect on climate. It's pretty well-established we are, unless someone has found a way to show that GHGs are not really GHGs, heh.

Thus, even if we take Von Storch's recent jarred poll (the password for access made its way into the septic community), something like 70-80% of the respondents agreed that the IPCC position is largely correct. Even a contrarian like Dickie Lindzen accepts that pumping out billions of tonnes of GHGs will warm the climate, he just questions the predictions (and Lindzen can be considered a contrarian, compared to shill deniers like Bob Carter, Fred Singer etc).

The debate is over the finer details (e.g., predictions, effects, attribution, action). Which is obviously not a simple part of the science.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   


no no no
i am acting on a LACK of faith. you are affirming a position, i am saying you haven't proven it.


I am affirming the right to question and not attack others with different view points then what you yourself accept. You affirm the right to bash like you know 100% better. And you have not proven 100% your position either.



logical fallacy, special pleading....
you really should read up on logical fallacies.


Just answer the question.
You can attempt to dance around it all you want but when it comes down to it you can only honestly answer one way, otherwise you would be placing undue special abilities to mankind at this juncture.
Because where I am sitting all I see is attempts to dodge the question.
And how praytell is it a logical falacy, splain please? I ask a perfectly valid hypothetical question, is it because I (gasp) point out that we are not all that?
Like I said if gravity, something as fundamental to our existance as that confuses us. You really got to ask yourself, do we really know all that much?



i'm not taking a leap. i'm saying "i don't know if this thing exists or not, but its existence is unproven, and i don't believe in things whose existence aren't proven"


Neither is it completely disproven. Two edged sword there m8.
So I take it you also believe there is no such thing as life on other planets as well? That has not been proven.
And that is what I mean. The keyword here "belief", you believe something. Belief is not reality and pretending otherwise is silly.



so you're saying that, if the spiritual exists... it isn't part of the natural world and not subject to any sort of logic and reason?
now, can you explain why that is?


Nope not what I am saying at all. Its complex and I would be wasting my time trying to explain my thoughts on it anyway.



Sheesh, who cares. Revel in your ignorance for all I care. This thread should have died within the first few posts. The dogmatic are those who are completely beyond rational argument, so I see a bit of projection here.


Yet you continue to post.
And how pray tell am I "reveling in ignorance"? For disagreeing? Bad me. How dare I question what others accept as truth. Is THAT not the true spirit of skeptism?


Any scientist can disagree with whatever they like, in fact, it is embodied in the notion of scepticism. However, until they bring forth actual reliable and valid scientific evidence, they obviously won't make much impact.


Yep mankind can biopsy/vivsect the universe and thusly know everything. (sarcasm)
And most scientists that try to disagree with accepted what-not and have evidence and etc on it will be attacked in other ways. Politics reign supreme in human affairs.
And will most likely lose their livelihoods in the process. It's happend.


And as for you saint. You are different then those I was speaking to, but yet have an amazing ability to take things out of context at will (as evidenced earlier) which is why I added that line to begin with.



[edit on 4-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I am affirming the right to question and not attack others with different view points then what you yourself accept. You affirm the right to bash like you know 100% better. And you have not proven 100% your position either.


You've proven what percent? 0?



Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Like I said if gravity, something as fundamental to our existance as that confuses us. You really got to ask yourself, do we really know all that much?


Then why do people believe in god and have such a detailed concept of it? When you guys keep on saying how complex it is, 2 complex for humans. Then how do you guys know there's a god?




Neither is it completely disproven. Two edged sword there m8.
So I take it you also believe there is no such thing as life on other planets as well? That has not been proven.
And that is what I mean. The keyword here "belief", you believe something. Belief is not reality and pretending otherwise is silly.


I'm pretty sure this belife of life on other planets is based on the vastness of this universe and facts or data. Not just based on nothing at all...



Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yep mankind can biopsy/vivsect the universe and thusly know everything. (sarcasm)
And most scientists that try to disagree with accepted what-not and have evidence and etc on it will be attacked in other ways. Politics reign supreme in human affairs.
And will most likely lose their livelihoods in the process. It's happend.


Yeh look what happened when the Church screwed up the world for 1400 ( years, not only when they believed that the whole universe orbited the Earth, but killed anyone who dared go agaisnt them...



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   


You've proven what percent? 0?


Answer my question. You fail to prove your point.



Then why do people believe in god and have such a detailed concept of it? When you guys keep on saying how complex it is, 2 complex for humans. Then how do you guys know there's a god?


How you know theres not? As I have said multiple times even if you refuse to notice it (because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of what I am) I don't think ANYONE has it completely right.

And for the GAZILLIONITH TIME I don't pretend to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if there is or isn't a higher power, but I allow for possiblity. So kindly stop trying to label and file me away.



I'm pretty sure this belife of life on other planets is based on the vastness of this universe and facts or data. Not just based on nothing at all...


Pretty sure huh?
Wheres the physical evidence? Since it can't be proven that there is or isn't life on other planets, since we haven't gotten far off our grain of sand (the moon isn't all that far given the distances in space. Seeing as to how he said he can't believe in what cannot be proved.



Yeh look what happened when the Church screwed up the world for 1400 ( years, not only when they believed that the whole universe orbited the Earth, but killed anyone who dared go agaisnt them...


That is a human problem my friend not just the religious types. Alot of people will seek to destroy (lethally and nonlethally) those that disagree with them, as if disagreeing is some form of personal insult.

Funny you did not even try to argue my point only further seeked to attack this erronious view you have of what I am.

Another error you make is that I am justifying the BS religion has come up with Ancient. I am not. Your fighting the wrong battle. I merely take issue to people claiming they have the right of it and bashing others when they don't have anymore proof then those they bash, they just substitute one form of BS for another. We are after all like I said little more than particles living (briefly) on a grain of sand and by no means even the masters of our own bodies much less reality. So in my view to claim the ability to understand it all is foolishness.
And I agree that religious types make some pretty out there claims but they still might be right at the base if not what they build it up to be. Like they say there is a kernel (err something like that) of truth in every myth.
You can't prove that a higher power doesn't exist. just as religious types can't prove they do.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yet you continue to post.


Because when people make silly statements like 'teh climit syince iz teh dogmar!!!111!!oneoneone"

I just have to poke the person who said it. I guess I'm like a sort of moth drawn to shining ignorance. I must build some decent will-power...

And to answer the silly question. Yes, if an invisible intelligent cup-cake exists but she doesn't want to be eaten by hungry people and so has absolutely no impact on the natural world, to the point it would seem such cup-cakes don't exist, then we won't be able to assess its existence.

All you would do is posit something that is forever beyond testing, that has absolutely no impact on nature. Well done. I think we can stick that in the 'most useless scientific concepts ever' box. Either that, or call it 'sophisticated' theology.

Monkey 'boy' out.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And monkey boy proves my point.


This is out-of-bounds and hope you're person enough to apologize for it.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If


Because when people make silly statements like 'teh climit syince iz teh dogmar!!!111!!oneoneone"


Yet when someone disagrees or expresses doubt they are immediately blasted. Hmmmmm.
Yea that is not a duck its a spider monkey.



I just have to poke the person who said it. I guess I'm like a sort of moth drawn to shining ignorance. I must build some decent will-power...


Ignorance is obivously subjective. Seeing as to how anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant as you apply it.



And to answer the silly question. Yes, if an invisible intelligent cup-cake exists but she doesn't want to be eaten by hungry people and so has absolutely no impact on the natural world, to the point it would seem such cup-cakes don't exist, then we won't be able to assess its existence.


Finally someone answers the question that you guys have been tiptoeing around for a while now. Sure you attempted to turn it into a joke and lessen the impact of the fact that you admit that we would not be able to prove or disprove such a creature. But all well I expect such, you still admited it.
If such events and creature exist it would have an impact on nature as the thing that got things going, and once again can't be disproven so thusly possible, we don't know, many never know, anyone who does not agree we are limited being is fooling themselves. And nor could we guess its reasons.



All you would do is posit something that is forever beyond testing, that has absolutely no impact on nature. Well done. I think we can stick that in the 'most useless scientific concepts ever' box. Either that, or call it 'sophisticated' theology.


You posit, no you state as 100% beyond a doubt proven fact, the lack of an existance of such a creature. And a great many things are beyond testing that are accepted exist. Yes we know for a fact gravity exists yet we are unable to test and figure out exactly how, why or its origins.
Plan on disbelieving gravity exists? Thats what would happen if you apply your tact on this to all things.


And no Saint I will not be apologising for the simple fact I am not the only tossing insults here. I had a moment of weakness and threw in as well but I will not apologise for it. For the simple fact is I would be lying because I am not sorry.


[edit on 5-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I really don't know why I'm bothering. Why?




Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yet when someone disagrees or expresses doubt they are immediately blasted. Hmmmmm.
Yea that is not a duck its a spider monkey.


I didn't even blast you. I disagreed with you. I even presented evidence in a later post of someone who does disagree with the IPCC consensus, Lindzen, who still accepts that human activity will have some effect. He has a job. He publishes articles. Same goes with the septic cranks like Bob Carter. He has a job in academia, and gets even more dosh from fossil fuel interests.

Both are very vocal, like most contrarians, in fact, these guys get more media attention than they deserve. They are not silenced, or rejected from the scientific community. They can still publish and research. But they seem to have difficulty actually presenting the evidence they require, which is why they use the media to spout.

There is no dogma. It is a position based on evidence, and one that will change with evidence.


Ignorance is obivously subjective. Seeing as to how anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant as you apply it.


I think in many cases there are clear areas of significant ambiguity and uncertainty, in which case there are no clear answers. In others there are.

Climate science is not dogma, and neither are any areas of science. They can be overturned by evidence. As I said, you can disagree with whatever you like, but you will be essentially ignored in science until you put forward evidence.


Finally someone answers the question that you guys have been tiptoeing around for a while now. Sure you attempted to turn it into a joke and lessen the impact of the fact that you admit that we would not be able to prove or disprove such a creature. But all well I expect such, you still admited it.
If such events and creature exist it would have an impact on nature as the thing that got things going, and once again can't be disproven so thusly possible, we don't know, many never know, anyone who does not agree we are limited being is fooling themselves. And nor could we guess its reasons.


You'll be surprised, if you are nice enough to me, I will answer whatever you want me to.

Of course, you miss the point of why I made a joke out of it. Because of the nature of such theological/philosophical claims, that is, unfalsifiable, we can make any old stuff up. It will be just as coherent. So my cupcake theory has the same scientific status as whatever theological belief you cling to. Which is why there are so many conflicting alternatives. Even a galactic warlord called Xenu.

As soon as you bring such claims into the realm of nature, we can test and falsify. Thus, if you say that the earth was created 6000 years ago by a superfairy, and that she caused a worldwide flud a couple of thousand after that, but some lucky organisms floated in a little boat, we can test and falsify such claims. In fact, we have.

If you say you can communicate telepathically with some sky-fairy and he does favours for you, like healing people you ask him to. We can test. Again, we have. And find that such things don't appear to work.

Yet, some people still cling to these emotion-based beliefs.

Maybe now you might see some difference between theology and science....nah, probably not...


You posit, no you state as 100% beyond a doubt proven fact, the lack of an existance of such a creature.


Do I?

I don't think I said any such thing. I am an atheist scientist, not an omniscient sky-fairy.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



I didn't even blast you. I disagreed with you.


Sad thing is I never stated whether or not I agreed with Global Warming or not. You just assumed I did. And I might add that calling someone ignorant is a blast my friend.

And I might add, you have had a high horsed approach to this whole converstation, while participating in this conversation have lameted and wondered why you are as if you as are some god among monkeys. Need I cut and paste examples?

As for the rest I won't bother, because I see little to gain from it. You will prove what I am saying in your attempts to deny it, you will continue to decry what you say I am doing while whole heartly do it yourself. (semantics hm?) and this conversation will continue in a nice circular pattern til I give up, because you obviously have a ego to feed and it is my experience such things will not be denied by those that give in to it. I will from this point agree to disagree with you and wish to drop it. But this I notice you don't address and I feel compelled to point out.

Apparently only those who are ignorant are those that disagree with you. Notice the inference? Do you have some inside track that makes all the other tracks pure silliness? Does anyone? If you do please enlighten me so that I will not doubt the great human thing called science. Your egotism shows.

Humanity can and has fooled itself into believing things before and false things can be wrapped in words in attempt to make them become accepted as true. And if you say that can't be the case now you are insinuating we are something that we aren't. You can talk about cupcakes, faeries and/or whatever the hell you want. You are following a belief that there are valid arguments against and to sit there with your pretend rod of rightousness is silly. Or are you just getting off on pushing buttons?

And you make QUITE a few assumptions as to what my beliefs are, even going as far as to dismiss (read completely ignore) when I state otherwise. I know what I believe, no matter how much you attempt to belittle and trivialise.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join