Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Science Vs.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by SS.Invictus
 


Whatever you racist Nazi. I have no desire at all to even talk to someone as ignorant as you.


"There are 2 kinds of closed minded people. Those who believe, and those who don't"

Did it take you a whole century to produce such an intellect Tragedy?

I am a racist and a Nazi. I thought one of them was enough to be honest. Apparently I need a double-dose to get your remarks on my personality.

Secondly, there is a third kind; the most ludicrous one; the diplomatics, 2 hippies; over-balancing everything and everyone; even good, pure agnostics can produce more intellect than those even though they stick to the same theme.

What another Tragedy.

What happend? Got heated up by the lack of thinking?

If you want to use something to depict me I can do it by my self; call me a natural narcissist.

Ha.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Republican08
 


Problem is republican that the two need not be in conflict. The conflict is an artifact of people that care a little too damn much what others believe. Whatever their excuse. Oh, and incidentally, science is not inherently atheistic. Pure science is inherently agnostic as the question to the existance or lack there of a god/high power/prime mover/deity is NOT a question we can answer with anything but a highly subjective answer.


No, actually they two need to conflict until all the mind-playing and brain-washing of religion becomes nothing more than a dust of its Desert; History.

Including, power-play relations and authoritarian attitude.

Its power is falling apart, and this is only the beginning.

The last chapter, is the Vatican itself. Soon it will be demolished.

And oh, incidentally "pure this and pure that"; BS.

First of all, the majority of science are Atheists; one of the few disciplines to enjoy being an Atheist without being casted away.

Secondly, not knowing does not make them instantly agnostic; it just makes them temporarily lacking that particular understand and knowledge of the subject. Being agnostic, implies that you have accepted the defeat of your tools and you simply give up after an endless quest for the truth; science has never stated that nor it is its nature to do so.

The big picture of the universe becomes smaller and smaller year after year, whilst the gaps follow the same pattern.

And to finish, it doesnt do "highly subjective answer". All the conclusions that one individual sums up, having a rigorous scientific back for it to come forth;

In order for it to make it worthy of being respected by the scientific community, evidence or a logical plausability that could be supported by scientific research in the future or having a current situation that allows for that assumption to be digested, would have to lead them to that "highly subjective answer".



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SS.Invictus
 


I know why people put SS. at the start of their name. It's done to honor the SS of WWII, and is a popular choice among nazi's.

Invictus is a poem by William Ernest Henley. Somewhat popular among extremists I guess, as McVeigh cited it right before he was executed.

You are also a member of a forum that is similiar to ATS, but has the German cross as the logo of the site. I won't post a link, but don't worry cuz I did send it to the mods.

You didn't even say anything intellectual to begin with that was worth posting anyway. You say stuff about philosophy, but you don't even know my philosophy because I didn't post any.

And considering the fact that you have so much nazism in your name and other things, I'm not even going to waste my time with you, outside exposing you for your ignorance.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Updt Soon:

SS = Soul Slayer.
Invictus = Unconquered.
[]= Personal, Aesthetic Choice.
Final verdict = the defendant has proving that his controversial "name" is simply his nickname.

Judge decides; Guilty of charge.

Black Humour; if I was a Nazi, I would be defending Christianity by now; posting words such as "country", "our race of faith", ect.

So far so good.

Tu tu.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Forthly, I just created this username a week ago; my old one was Fackatos.

No, if you have the balls of steel please post that "german-like" BS of yours.

Make me proud Son.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Maybe you don't know the significance of your name. I dunno, but I personally doubt it.

I mean, sure I might could buy into that if you had S.S. in the front of your name, which could be short for soul slayer. But unfortunately, you only have a period at the end of the SS.

If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. But I have seen names in that format many times, and they were all nazi's etc. Combined with the poem that is often used by such extremists, and the rest, and it seems a bit fishy to me.

But I'll drop it and give you the benefit of the doubt. You might want to consider another name, because I'm going to bet this won't be the last time someone notices it.

The name with the SS. in front of it is known well enough, that an online game called WWIIOnline bans any name that starts with SS. For exactly the reasons I'm posting. So you might seriously want to consider a name change.








[edit on 11/20/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SS.Invictus
 



First of all, the majority of science are Atheists; one of the few disciplines to enjoy being an Atheist without being casted away.


Technically he was right, science is inherently agnostic. No honest scientific person would quickly pass judgment over the existence of a creator. It is possible that our universe may have been created, but this doesn't explicitly have to mean created by the crackpot Christian's God. We could be a simulation on a computer or a physical universe created by some unknown to us process in an alien lab in another universe. The possibilities are astounding and ultimately unknowable at this time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as against religion as anyone else but I am still open minded to certain possibilities without having to believe blindly in those possibilities with blind faith. Surprising, it is quiet possible to be an atheist and yet still be open minded to the scientific possibility for a creator of some sort, who knows, someday we may become Gods ourselves.


Being agnostic, implies that you have accepted the defeat of your tools and you simply give up after an endless quest for the truth; science has never stated that nor it is its nature to do so.


Agnostic means not being a closed minded little arrogant prick.


The big picture of the universe becomes smaller and smaller year after year, whilst the gaps follow the same pattern.


That right there is just an outright lie. Every year we realize just how little we actually do know about our universe. The current standard model wouldn't even have a leg to stand on if we didn't have to invent roughly a dozen different thing's that have never been observed just to make what we have observed fit the model as is. If anything, we've discovered our standard model is woefully wrong and should be reworked to flesh out the paradoxical observations.


And to finish, it doesnt do "highly subjective answer". All the conclusions that one individual sums up, having a rigorous scientific back for it to come forth;

In order for it to make it worthy of being respected by the scientific community, evidence or a logical plausability that could be supported by scientific research in the future or having a current situation that allows for that assumption to be digested, would have to lead them to that "highly subjective answer".


You obviously have a piss poor understanding of what forms of so called evidence is being put forth by the scientific community. I myself am a man of science, but at least I understand enough of the science behind these theories to see how erroneous they are. You just seem to be as blind and dogmatic as a religious nutter. You can't even imagine how much that saddens me, it's like you almost get it, but then you just say f*** it and devolve your intellect right down there with the religious crowed.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm against religion myself. I understand the many horrors and atrocities that a variety of religions have brought about upon our species. Yet the basic generalization that a creator has no place in science is just as wrong in itself. If the universe were created, we should be able to scientifically discover that. We shouldn't either blindly believe it was or arrogantly proclaim its not possible.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Maybe you don't know the significance of your name. I dunno, but I personally doubt it.


Your just being a trolling nitwit. There is no reason to attack his name other than the fact that you can't reasonably attack his arguments. It is not his fault if you lack the intellectual capacity to counter argue his statements. Instead of doing the mature thing and bowing down, you would really rather sit here and attack his name? You may not realize this, but your not hurting his position by acting like an immature imbecile yourself.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
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 itself.

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 about time.

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 better.

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 topic.






[edit on 11/20/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
btw, it's not "consciousness vs objective", it's "Objective Vs. Subjective" reality.

I believe in subjective reality. Subjective reality includes the objective reality, but then also understands that it is but 1 possible reality among an infinite number of realities.

Objective vs. Subjective in Philosophy, Religion



Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Atheism

Because of the very fundamental nature of the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, atheists who engage in any sort of philosophical discussion with theists on issues like morality, history, justice, and more need to understand these concepts. Indeed, it's hard to think of a common debate between atheists and theists where these concepts don't play a basic role, either explicitly or implicitly.

...

Knowledge of philosophy is useful in just about every area of possible debate, in large part because philosophy can help you better understand and use basic concepts like these. On the other hand, since people aren't very familiar with these concepts, you may end up sending more time explaining the basics than debating the higher-level issues. That's not objectively a bad thing, but it may be subjectively disappointing if it's not what you were hoping to do.


Yep, stuck debating and spending time on the basics.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Very well stated from an agnostics view point.


I personally don't think that science and religion should be at odds. When considering subjectivity and objectivity as was mentioned, it's just strikingly similar to science and religion. Science - objectivity, religion - subjectivity. They're not really at odds IMO, more like the 2 different ends of the same stick that we're using to bash ourselves in the face.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Really didn't expect this thread to get anywhere.... at all due to PUI.

Reserved Spot, Got to do some schoolwork, I'm cutting back on my problematic procrastination.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Updt Soon 2:

This is getting personal. Too personal. Yet, I love it.

Once you raise the bar, I do not and will not allow you to lower it.

The time right now is almost 6 am and tomorrow I have to study for my presentation.

Will respond within a 24 hour window; probably less.

Be ready.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I'll admit I didn't read his thread in full, I scrolled up from the bottom of this thread and just happened to see your post where you appeared to be doing nothing but attacking his name. I still stand by that there was no reason to attack his user name, it was just petty and in poor taste, it doesn't help your arguments at all.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex
 


Very well stated from an agnostics view point.


I personally don't think that science and religion should be at odds. When considering subjectivity and objectivity as was mentioned, it's just strikingly similar to science and religion. Science - objectivity, religion - subjectivity. They're not really at odds IMO, more like the 2 different ends of the same stick that we're using to bash ourselves in the face.


Well, I do personally consider religion and science at odds in a way. Human invented religious Gods are created as an absolute truth without question of it's existence, therefore it's entirely unscientific and by nature unfalsifiable. There is a distinct difference between religious dogmatic belief in deity and a scientific drive to discover deity.

What get's me is that most of the Christians I've talked to on ATS keep calling me closed minded for that belief. They don't realize that all man made Gods have already been disprove as real by archeological history and research. We know how belief in those Gods developed and in some cases why they developed. That's why the religious aspect is at odds with science, they don't accept the scientific discoveries that does away with their created concepts.

Yet at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable by science to have an open mind for the possibility of some creator, if the religious crowed really wanted to put an end to the petty war between their dogmatic faiths and scientific discoveries, they should begin research into that open minded possibility. I started a thread a few days ago to do just that, it's mostly a scatter brained mess right now, but at least it's an attempt. Not one single religious person is even remotely interested in working it out and all the science people are still stuck on the assumed truths of assumed facts and constants of current scientific knowledge. We can't win and it might be a long time before the two come together.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by badmedia
 


I'll admit I didn't read his thread in full, I scrolled up from the bottom of this thread and just happened to see your post where you appeared to be doing nothing but attacking his name. I still stand by that there was no reason to attack his user name, it was just petty and in poor taste, it doesn't help your arguments at all.


Well, if I'm wrong about the nazi thing, then I hope he will accept my apologies. I have no problem debating things, and generally enjoy a good debate. But I don't care to debate with people who are ignorant in the way I thought his name represented.

I did make an assumption in it, and that is generally a bad idea. So I will just give him the benefit of the doubt and treat it as if I am wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


If I couldn't separate the things religious people say and do from god, then I would probably still be an atheist.

You are simply using religious people as being a reflection of god. I used to make that same mistake. I only looked at the hypocrisy of religious people, and their ignorance in things.

That is what the phrase in my signature is about. Because what I eventually figured out is that I was still accepting what the religious people said as being true of god. Even though I rejected what religious people said and were about, in reality I was still allowing them to be the authority on the topic for me. I was allowing them to define the topic of god for me.

If you believe or disbelieve it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that "they" are allowed to define god for you.

I can't really defend the things religious people do, any more than you can defend some of the things others do. The question is if what they do is actually what someone like Jesus says. And I find the answer to that question to be no.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


If I couldn't separate the things religious people say and do from god, then I would probably still be an atheist.

You are simply using religious people as being a reflection of god. I used to make that same mistake. I only looked at the hypocrisy of religious people, and their ignorance in things.

That is what the phrase in my signature is about. Because what I eventually figured out is that I was still accepting what the religious people said as being true of god. Even though I rejected what religious people said and were about, in reality I was still allowing them to be the authority on the topic for me. I was allowing them to define the topic of god for me.

If you believe or disbelieve it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that "they" are allowed to define god for you.

I can't really defend the things religious people do, any more than you can defend some of the things others do. The question is if what they do is actually what someone like Jesus says. And I find the answer to that question to be no.


Well, considering that the entire concept of a creator or God is purely the intellectual invention of primitive man's attempt to explain natural phenomena and ultimately is literally no different than today's primitive tribes still worshiping a rain God, we are left with no verifiable reason to actually believe one hundred percent without doubt in any form of creator.

I personally ask those who blindly believe to question that belief. Let's throw away all man made concepts and look at the problem from a more realistic angle of attack. I believe that if the universe was indeed created, then we should be able to scientifically discover such a thing or at least develop a reasonable mechanism behind creation of a universe.

I'm not allowing the religious community to shape my belief or understanding of God as there is no evidence put forth for any Gods. By attacking the concept of an intentionally created universe from the ground up, we can then attempt to learn if our universe was indeed created. I however do not believe that if it were created that this creator is still alive or even created the universe specifically for mankind. I despise that sort of arrogant ignorance and idiocy and I won't strive towards those attributes like anyone who blindly believe in deity.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Here's a question for you. When someone says "God", do you think they mean a sky fairy? Like a little man in the sky who watches over everything?

What is the concept of God to you?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


Here's a question for you. When someone says "God", do you think they mean a sky fairy? Like a little man in the sky who watches over everything?

What is the concept of God to you?



The only concept of God I am able to come to terms with myself is some entity or intelligence with the capacity to create a universe by some unknown process. What this entity looks like or what form it takes is beyond my capacity to know, nor will I make any case in favor for what this entity might be without explicit knowledge for that entity. I just simply lack the required arrogant ignorance to submit to such forms of belief.

The reason I don't subscribe to the idea that this entity or intelligence exists outright is due to the lack of evidence to support such a belief. I neither support the big bang theory either as it requires at least a dozen or so unobserved inventions to make it work with observable data. Basically, I don't accept any origins of the universe theory at this moment, but I am willing to speculate and theorize on different scenarios based on what we have observed so far rather than based on assumed things that have never been observed.

[EDIT TO ADD]

I take that back; It may be possible that whatever process created the universe may not have had any conscious intelligence at all. The universe could have arisen by the reproductive or maybe even byproduct waste of some form of life existing in a different state of matter while existing with a different set of physical laws that allow for it's existence and ours to coexist. Perhaps in it's state of matter there is no speed limit for information allowing these large creatures to exist and through their normal lives, a universe may be a byproduct of their existence.

That's the wonders of science, many different possibilities exist and could be worked out on paper and maybe someday with the right technological advances we could test those theories either in reality or in simulation.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by sirnex]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join