reply to post by sirnex
What was there to counter in his argument?
Well the sooner you realize that you use cracked-barrel philosopher to re-shape but has been already established, the better it will be for your
half-truths and half-lies narrative of embodied knowledge.
Just because you get away for using freely the term philosophy, does not mean you can apply it to everything and get away with it.
Read the scientific literature on its dogmas and paradigms. Dont loosen up the language;
Just because youshould, doesnt mean you should.
The part where he called me a cracker-barrel philosopher? The part where he only stated that I was about half-truths and half-lies narrative?
The only thing I could consider intellectual is the part about dogma. But yet, if you notice I said religion was philosophy in it's PURE form.
Pure form, meaning not dogma.
As it turns out, I'm not a Christian and I dislike the Christian church. I often speak against the Dogma of the Church on these forums etc.
I never said a thing about dogma, nor do I defend it. I talked about understanding
, which is the opposite of dogma. If you actually read
the bible, then you will know that it speaks against dogma. I do like the bible, but I am 100% against organized religion.
"Anyone who argues Science vs Religion on either side obviously doesn't have the first real clue about either of them"
Only a prehistoric mamouth would make such a statement. Apparently, 3500 + have passed.
What am I to respond to here?
On a scale of 1 to 10, science has 9.9 success and religion 0. It does not even have the rest of the 0.1 percent to sum up together with science as 10
because it starts of with "God"; and no illusive term brings substance to be considered worthy of attention.
The majority of the great advancements in science are actually from people who were religious. While they were certainly at odds with the church at
times, the people who advanced things did not see anything at odds between science and religion. They seen it just as I mentioned before,
separate and for different things.
I have no problems with science or technology at all. I'm a programmer, I make my living using logic to create technology. What I do is
"Scientific" in nature as it is based on logic(as is science). But I at the same time realize the limits of logic, which is another topic in
The scale given here is completely besides the point, and is just another person who demands an argument between science and religion. As such,
there is nothing valid about it.
The oldest trick in the books; using, misusing and abusing general philosophies of life; buddism, ect; to state an over-rated infamous balance.
That is a gun with no ammunition. That is taking a shot to your head.
There is a significant difference of what E.X.A.C.T.L.Y something IS and what it S.H.O.U.L.D be.
Hitler socially contributed to society; it unified the whole world for a moment of peace and prosperity. Should I glorify Him philosophically?
Get a grip.
Hitler never contributed any such thing to society. Nor was there every a moment of peace and prosperity for the world. I'm not sure how such a
point can even be made.
Religion is not philosophy. Get it out of your stubborn head.
To add, psychology is the science of mental life as The Great Man said; William James.
The most controversial and significant contributors of psychology have been mainly philosophical scientists.
But oh no! Suddenly you switch, as if flawless, to the whole debate of consciousness vs objectiveness; Irrelevant.
Yes, philosophical scientists are those who do not see contradiction in them. It is using both terms there, because they are both being used.
Exactly what I am talking about.
Like it or not, Jesus has a philosophy behind what he says. In fact, he even tells people how to understand that philosophy for themselves, and shows
how to understand all the commandments with 2 lines. Love one another as yourselves and so forth.
The basis of the commandments are based on this. Don't steal, lie, kill and so forth. And it's not like it's some huge mystery either, it's
basically the golden rule.
You want to know the secret to what made Einstein so great? He realized and understood that time was not "real" in the manner we know it, and as
such - philosophically - he was able to see the universe without time. Because of this, he was able to come up with theories relating to time. He
had very good understanding
What Einstein was able to understand
was much more than he was able to prove.
You are the one who does not understand at all what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy. In your head, they are all magnificently
interwoven; therefore science = religion = philosophy; science + religion + philosophy = absolute fact and truth.
Dont even dare to walk on quantum physics. I bet your failure in here is greater than the sum of the three "things" aforementioned.
What you see as religion is the expression
of philosophy. Meaning, behind the expressions of religion there is a philosophy to it. The
religion is merely an expression of it.
The reason I am not a Christian and the reason I do not like organized religion is because the religions themselves do not teach the philosophy.
They instead teach dogma(acceptance/blind faith) over understanding and reason. They keep the philosophy hidden from people, so that the people
can not and do not follow it.
That is why you see so many things Christians do that is screwed up. They don't know or understand the philosophy.
How is that done? By focusing on the idols/symbols. That is why idolism is considered bad in the bible.
It's the equivalent of someone who can repeat 1+1=2 and someone who understands math. Christians do the equivalent of running around repeating
1+1=2 but have no understanding of math. Meaning, they run around saying Jesus this, Jesus that, praise Jesus - but they do not understand.
And the craziest part about it - Jesus even talks about it happening, and that it happens even then. When he says let those with ears hear, he is
talking about the difference in someone listening, and hearing. Hearing means you understand, listening means you just listen to the sounds and
repeat them etc. Big difference.
Am I to just ignore the philosophy I see being expressed because it's been taken over by a certain element who blinds people with the idols and
symbols, manipulating and brainwashing them? I don't think so.
Name the things about religion that you see are bad, and I will show you were the bible says they are bad too.
Sorry, but I don't let "them" decide things for me. They can make all the claims they want about god and such, but I understand and know
As for quantum physics. When quantum physics figures out the universe is static and without movement, let me know. I like quantum physics alot,
and it's very promising because unlike conventional physics, it understands the observers role in reality. But it still has much further to go -
which is understandable. Just like Einstein, understanding something and proving it mathematically are 2 different things. But I have "faith"
that quantum physics is a huge step in the right direction in terms of coming to understand our reality.
Is reality something coming from nothing? Or is it from everything limiting itself down into a limited perspective?
Happy now? Most of it wasn't worth responding too, and the rest are really other topics, that have been discussed many times here. But I hit on
them a bit, even though it's mostly a repeat of things I've said 1000 times before and most people have already heard and know what I think on the
[edit on 11/20/2009 by badmedia]