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.

 

Doesn't Light speed theory debunk "Young earth" theory?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 


Hmm..

This is the Fourth Day:

Genesis 1:14-18

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth.

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

I was just showing that the Creation story has the Earth and the Oceans created [or existing] prior to the Sun [greater light], the Moon [lesser light], and all the stars..
edit on 2-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I appreciate your lengthy reply. It assures me I'm not gonna end up with some personal bashings.. haha.. I'm so sick and tired of ending up with the "my dick is bigger than yours" arguments. Anyway...


Ghost147

Could you elaborate? I don't find science even remotely religious in any sense.


Personally, I look at science as a method of learning to finding out the nature of some things to help me understand them better. It's a continuous seemingly endless process, but I've no qualms about activities being endless.

As for the body of knowledge (or set of beliefs) science, its peripherals is mostly the fruits of its theories, which is technology, and you can hardly be religious about technology because it's very worldly and practical. But the core of science is still a bunch of beliefs aptly called "theories" or "laws" that one accepts as truth without question. We accept it as truth like it was the air we breath, it's so automatic and unconscious that we hardly feel it is religious at all. The ordinary person remains in that state unless he/she chooses to become a scientist and question the current status quo on these "laws"/"theories". And when he does, he is met with opposition from the people up high, just like your conventional religion. There will come a time when the ordinary person becomes so removed from the inner workings of science that he will view new emerging technologies as feats of magic and the scientists as priests of science. Even now, the way science is disseminated to children is in the form of "mini-bibles" with differing authors as science textbooks being distributed across different regions. The children harmlessly accept them as facts and takes pride in memorizing them all, but really, it has the subtle effect of controlling their mindsets.


Ghost147
No, actually, I don't. I consider it our current most accurate observation of the exact speed. Nothing in science is "fact". There is no such thing as absolute, in other words. That is one of the reasons why science is so fascinating, because our descriptions of naturally occurring phenomena are constantly becoming more and more accurate. There is always more discovery and new-found knowledge.

Even though we could never know for sure. We can only make the best possible description through our current observations.


It is wonderful that you are not bounded by what science has to offer to you. Other people I've talked with has sadly closed their minds and resorted to glorifying science as the be-all and end-all of things. It's not as if they've even done any actual research, they're just parroting what they've read from some paper by some scientist and claiming it as truth for themselves to justify their egos (or lack thereof).


Ghost147
Yes and no. I trust that the individuals conducting the research are doing so properly. I have assurance that they are in fact doing so with several other different researches confirm those same results, despite using different methods as well as different facilities and researchers.

However, I also have the ability to do those same experiments myself and confirm the same results, or even different ones.

This is not the same type of faith that a religion has. It is the same type of faith I have in my door nob. When I turn it, I have faith that it will open the door, but I do not devote my entire existence to it's abilities. There are often separate meanings for the same word (at least in English).

That's because it doesn't need to. There are other controlled tests (over 150 in the case of Light Particles) that have represented and confirmed the speed of light itself. There is no need to do it again, and then carry out the current experiment.

As I stated previously, this is not due to religious-based-faith, or an uneducated guess. There simply is no need to do something, and spending unnecessary funding to an experiment that has already been verified, and then apply more funding to the one that's actually in question.


My only qualms about these "other" controlled tests is it's not replicable to the ordinary person using ordinary common tools. If you would notice, the basis for all these tests still point back to a few sets of postulates, and the tools they use still considered an "inner special" tool because to the ordinary person, these measuring tools are too complex to operate, and he has to accommodate these postulates with a certain amount of faith for the results to make any sense. All in all, I must apologize for the crude analogy, it's just like a con-man collaborating with another con-man to put on a show for the intended recipient.


Ghost147
It's the same reason why most factories don't dig up their own raw materials to build their products. It's much cheaper to buy those materials from someone else so as to make their products. As a somewhat off-set example.

This is not how science works at all. If something were to be observed that disproves a previously thought verified phenomena, then a new hypothesis is formed in order to more accurately describe our new observation. The old hypothesis is completely discarded. It certainly is not held on to for some sort of sentimental reason, or to protect ourselves from new information that doesn't conform to our set beliefs. Science isn't ever a set belief. Even one of Newton's Laws was recently proven faulty.

Good riddance to poor description, welcome to updated and new version!

That is how all Science works.


For easily observed differences that affect relatively new hypotheses, discarding prior hypotheses is not really a problem. But for core tenets, it is an issue and scientists still tend to act like religious people do, taking sides and preaching their side to be the truth. I guess the big difference is there aren't any inquisitions happening or jihads and religious wars and crusades.. only limited to personal (character) assassinations maybe? LOL But who knows what the future brings. Science is still a relatively new movement.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


so basically, the heavens was empty on day 0..

that answers the OP's question... both theories contradict each other and if you hold one theory to be more truthful than the other, then I suppose that one debunks the other.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

I just think it's absolutely ridiculous someone would bark at the lack of evidence and then when it's turned around on them for their beliefs throw up their hands and say "well….for me it's faith….doesn't apply".

Somehow society has convinced itself questioning religion is taboo. Logic and reason applies to absolutely everything else except religious faith. All I see is a blatant and unforgiving double standard.



Are you serious?
Christians and other religions dont question their faith
Go read and works of the church fathers
Hell, go study Luther
I am surprised you believe that, Christianity has many branches, many different ideas and opinions

Seems all most do around here is question religion, and so they should, as they should science.
Constantly



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
 

Personally, I look at science as a method of learning to finding out the nature of some things to help me understand them better. It's a continuous seemingly endless process, but I've no qualms about activities being endless.

As for the body of knowledge (or set of beliefs) science, its peripherals is mostly the fruits of its theories, which is technology, and you can hardly be religious about technology because it's very worldly and practical. But the core of science is still a bunch of beliefs aptly called "theories" or "laws" that one accepts as truth without question.


I agree with everything within these paragraphs except for the last line. The theories and laws within science have been questioned and continue to be questioned constantly.

That's why we have 150+ different experiments on the verification of the speed of light alone. The entire process of science is about questioning everything; especially the claimes we have made about a natural phenomena.

I do agree that the general public views scientific matters as absolute fact, sometimes, but this is not how science works. The people who make those absolute assumptions are simply not as educated within general science to understand that.

Fortunately, mass belief does not equate correct belief.


The ordinary person remains in that state unless he/she chooses to become a scientist and question the current status quo on these "laws"/"theories".


Exactly! Precisely what I just suggested. Now that they are more educated, they can make a more well founded consensus on the subject; more acurrately, too.


And when he does, he is met with opposition from the people up high, just like your conventional religion.


Once again, you're relating religious concepts with subjects that aren't religious. You could make the same comparison between that example and any job that has some sort of hierarchy with their chain of command.

It still does not constitute a religious formation in any way because of the lack of a religious-faith, a religious-belief-system, a higher power of some sort (not always necessary), and a philosophical view of life/how the universe was created/ethics and moralities.



There will come a time when the ordinary person becomes so removed from the inner workings of science that he will view new emerging technologies as feats of magic and the scientists as priests of science.


Alright. Everything before hand I can completely understand the confusion between definitions, but this is quite a massive stretch.

I'm not quite sure how any form of progression within the profession of some scientific background would ever relate to what you've described here.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand how you came to this conclusion.



Even now, the way science is disseminated to children is in the form of "mini-bibles" with differing authors as science textbooks being distributed across different regions. The children harmlessly accept them as facts and takes pride in memorizing them all, but really, it has the subtle effect of controlling their mindsets.


This too is pretty ridiculous. You could imply the same thing about any textbook. Would you say the same thing about mathematics or history? No. Yet they are still presented as facts.

In fact, it would be irresponsible teaching for a science teacher to state that this is all absolute and must be taken as that. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is both a naturally occurring phenomenon as well as a description of that phenomenon. Just as Gravity is both a fact and a theory.



My only qualms about these "other" controlled tests is it's not replicable to the ordinary person using ordinary common tools.


Many of those tests actually are able to be reproduced by ordinary people. But that's beside the fact.

In order for us to test some natural phenomena, then we must have the funds to do so. The goal of science is not to make it inexpensive for everyone to do, it simply is to help explain the functions of a natural process.

These tests aren't deviating from the scientific method just because their equipment is expensive. It certainly isn't a way to hide their information from the public either. We have separate labs testing the same experiments in different ways to ensure there is no fraud.

Thousands (if not more) of scientific experiments can be done at home. Why would a few that couldn't, be considered to be questionable because of this; eapecially when they are being questioned by other labs?

Also, Machio Kaku (not sure if that's the correct spelling) made a particle excellerator in his house when he was 18. Just as a fun fact.



If you would notice, the basis for all these tests still point back to a few sets of postulates, and the tools they use still considered an "inner special" tool because to the ordinary person, these measuring tools are too complex to operate, and he has to accommodate these postulates with a certain amount of faith for the results to make any sense.


Many high end laboratories allow you to take tours in them, so they are not trying to hide anything from the public. Secondly, you can take courses in engineering and science in order to learn how to operate that machinery. And you can be any religion to do that.

It's complicated not for the purpose of confusing the general public, but because whatever they're studying is quite technical.

You make it sound as though there is this massive conspiracy.

The fact is, science is not a religion or religious in any form.



For easily observed differences that affect relatively new hypotheses, discarding prior hypotheses is not really a problem. But for core tenets, it is an issue and scientists still tend to act like religious people do, taking sides and preaching their side to be the truth.


Once again, you are drastically over analysing this, and using incorrect uses of definitions.

There is no such thing as a tenant in science. There is also no preaching and bickering between sides. One side has presented a hypothesis based off of their observations and another side offers their observations in order to come to a conclusion on the new hypothesis.

This is hardly a matter of faith spouting and unprovable ideologies that you would actually see if two religious people were to debate about which religion is correct.

I'm sorry, but your attempts at conforming this subject to this degree are a bit absurd. Science simply does not work like the way you're trying to portray it. Even if I were to humour you, it would still be a non-religious description on all those similarities, which would still render science non-religious.
edit on 3/2/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Other things we know about life on Earth are in conflict with the Creation Story.

There is an easy experiment one can do that demonstrates the Bible isn't the infallible word of the Creator.

Plant some fruit seeds in a few pots in a basement. Make sure the temperature in the room is very cold and it receives no light the entire duration of the experiment. Are they growing into fruit bearing trees? Are they growing at all?

Because prior to Day 4 [prior to the Sun] there are fruit trees growing and yielding fruit on Earth according to Genesis.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Of course the situation would be even worse without the Sun, but it's enough to drive the point home.

And if you think 'well it was literally only 1 Earth day without the Sun', it surely begs the question then how a tree went from seed to bearing fruit in one Earth day.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Ghost147
I agree with everything within these paragraphs except for the last line. The theories and laws within science have been questioned and continue to be questioned constantly.

That's why we have 150+ different experiments on the verification of the speed of light alone. The entire process of science is about questioning everything; especially the claimes we have made about a natural phenomena.

I do agree that the general public views scientific matters as absolute fact, sometimes, but this is not how science works. The people who make those absolute assumptions are simply not as educated within general science to understand that.

Fortunately, mass belief does not equate correct belief.


The core of religions also do the same thing: it continues to question and find out more about the nature of its basic tenets. From the sufis to Buddhism to your contemporary Christian catechism, all these "doctrines" were not arrived at with blind faith. The people of the past have continuously pondered and meditated on these beliefs further refining them into our current system. The fields of study may be different, because most of religion deals with human relationships to the divine and the methods are the least literal or physical. It deals with emotions and experiences with something they deem extraordinary in their lives. I believe a similar thing happens in science when someone has made a profound discovery that has a considerable impact on the system as a whole.


Ghost147
Once again, you're relating religious concepts with subjects that aren't religious. You could make the same comparison between that example and any job that has some sort of hierarchy with their chain of command.

It still does not constitute a religious formation in any way because of the lack of a religious-faith, a religious-belief-system, a higher power of some sort (not always necessary), and a philosophical view of life/how the universe was created/ethics and moralities.


But can we separate man/woman from science? In the same manner that we cannot separate man/woman from religion. Maybe my definitions are a bit vague, but I do not limit a religious formation to mere gatherings for worship or prayer in a "house of God" in the conventional sense. I've attended scientific conventions where they award notable people of their achievements in their fields, and personally, I interpreted it as similar to religious gatherings for worship and prayer. The only difference is that they were praising themselves instead of a deity.


tomoe723
There will come a time when the ordinary person becomes so removed from the inner workings of science that he will view new emerging technologies as feats of magic and the scientists as priests of science.



Ghost147
Alright. Everything before hand I can completely understand the confusion between definitions, but this is quite a massive stretch.

I'm not quite sure how any form of progression within the profession of some scientific background would ever relate to what you've described here.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand how you came to this conclusion.


I have already seen it happen in local cases where the IT guy holds the "secrets" to a computer system and uses it to mesmerize his "ignorant" clients. In fairness though, from the standpoint of the IT guy, it is a pain having to explain every little detail of why his client's computer broke down. The same situation happens in the medical system, where doctors have figuratively become the priests of the "medical religion". Some unscrupulous doctors take advantage of the ignorance of the patient.



Even now, the way science is disseminated to children is in the form of "mini-bibles" with differing authors as science textbooks being distributed across different regions. The children harmlessly accept them as facts and takes pride in memorizing them all, but really, it has the subtle effect of controlling their mindsets.



Ghost147
This too is pretty ridiculous. You could imply the same thing about any textbook. Would you say the same thing about mathematics or history? No. Yet they are still presented as facts.


But is it really that ridiculous? They are viewed as facts to the ordinary person, but every historian knows that history is still a set of stories, some not far from the truth and some totally made up, which is similar to a system of beliefs. A retelling of the past is always subjective of the story teller's point of view. Even with our state of the art visual and audio recording devices, we can never capture the totality of an event and record it in history as absolute fact. Some may be edited or tampered with and if it goes unnoticed, the truth shall be buried.


Ghost147
In fact, it would be irresponsible teaching for a science teacher to state that this is all absolute and must be taken as that. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is both a naturally occurring phenomenon as well as a description of that phenomenon. Just as Gravity is both a fact and a theory.


I am fortunate to have teachers point out that subtlety..


Ghost147
Many of those tests actually are able to be reproduced by ordinary people. But that's beside the fact.

In order for us to test some natural phenomena, then we must have the funds to do so. The goal of science is not to make it inexpensive for everyone to do, it simply is to help explain the functions of a natural process.

These tests aren't deviating from the scientific method just because their equipment is expensive. It certainly isn't a way to hide their information from the public either. We have separate labs testing the same experiments in different ways to ensure there is no fraud.

Thousands (if not more) of scientific experiments can be done at home. Why would a few that couldn't, be considered to be questionable because of this; eapecially when they are being questioned by other labs?

Also, Machio Kaku (not sure if that's the correct spelling) made a particle excellerator in his house when he was 18. Just as a fun fact.

Many high end laboratories allow you to take tours in them, so they are not trying to hide anything from the public. Secondly, you can take courses in engineering and science in order to learn how to operate that machinery. And you can be any religion to do that.

It's complicated not for the purpose of confusing the general public, but because whatever they're studying is quite technical.

You make it sound as though there is this massive conspiracy.


I do not intend to formulate any conspiracy behind science. But western science, from my experience, has ceased to become a true pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of humankind. Sadly, it's become a tool to control people and economy and even the progress of developing countries all in the favor that benefits the U.S.




Thousands (if not more) of scientific experiments can be done at home. Why would a few that couldn't, be considered to be questionable because of this;


this is where science has become a religion in my eyes. For the basic practical experiments that I can do at home, I'm fascinated by what science has to offer. But for the more abstract theories like DNA or Evolution, sadly, I'd have to put my faith on the people who have claimed these things to be real.



Ghost147
Once again, you are drastically over analysing this, and using incorrect uses of definitions.

There is no such thing as a tenant in science. There is also no preaching and bickering between sides. One side has presented a hypothesis based off of their observations and another side offers their observations in order to come to a conclusion on the new hypothesis.

This is hardly a matter of faith spouting and unprovable ideologies that you would actually see if two religious people were to debate about which religion is correct.

I'm sorry, but your attempts at conforming this subject to this degree are a bit absurd. Science simply does not work like the way you're trying to portray it. Even if I were to humour you, it would still be a non-religious description on all those similarities, which would still render science non-religious.


Without the violence and religious wars, have you ever seen two rabbis or two priests arguing about their "hypotheses" on their respective religious fields? It is very similar to that of scientists debating, presenting their evidences for their arguments. Perhaps your view of religion is limited to preaching and bickering between sides. But even so, some form of preaching and bickering also happens in the scientific community. We're just not privy to the details. Scientists are still human after all.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Are you serious?
Christians and other religions dont question their faith?

You didn't a moment ago. You gave a strict set of criteria for something to meet less it be considered a fairy tale. When that questioning was turned on your faith the conversation stopped. Maybe you were questioning internally?


I am surprised you believe that, Christianity has many branches, many different ideas and opinions

I know. Something like 30,000+ different branches. Of course Christians question. Many atheists were once Christian
Now Christians questioning, and their religion encouraging that kind of questioning, are two different beasts..

We are clearly talking about two different kinds of questioning if you think faith is adequate in of itself. Faith is belief without evidence. By questioning I am talking about thinking critically. Making sure the belief is logically sound. Faith is antithetical to that. You already demonstrated this when you alluded the critical questions you posited weren't applicable to your belief. That's not thinking critically towards your belief. That's bad questioning. Good questioning shouldn't have barriers.

As for others not questioning science. That's not a fault of science, that's a fault of people. Science itself encourages it. It is in fact a necessary component. This is why we give so much weight to findings being peer-reviewed.

Well I think we have gone back and forth enough off topic. Equally my fault. Let's just agree to disagree for now
I won't press this aspect further if you don't.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 


The people of the past have continuously pondered and meditated on these beliefs further refining them into our current system. The fields of study may be different, because most of religion deals with human relationships to the divine

You mean an alleged relationship with the divine.

Think about it. If all those various people from various religions were actually having a relationship with the divine, in accordance with their religion, how do we account for the differences? They have different gods, different creation stories… All the creation stories are true even when they conflict? See we are again abandoning reason.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy


Well I think we have gone back and forth enough off topic. Equally my fault. Let's just agree to disagree for now
I won't press this aspect further if you don't.


and that is the problem with these threads

I agree, we will disagree and you have my respect for your beliefs in science and evolution

I was once an atheist evolutionist as well



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by tomoe723
 


The people of the past have continuously pondered and meditated on these beliefs further refining them into our current system. The fields of study may be different, because most of religion deals with human relationships to the divine

You mean an alleged relationship with the divine.

Think about it. If all those various people from various religions were actually having a relationship with the divine, in accordance with their religion, how do we account for the differences? They have different gods, different creation stories… All the creation stories are true even when they conflict? See we are again abandoning reason.


Alleged if you don't believe in the divine.. I'm not really here to argue who's creation story is true or not.. and you are referring to the exoteric side of most major religions..

It may surprise you, but reason is upheld very much when formulating arguments on the more essential things that religion has to offer--like issues of morality (definition of good and evil) or kindness to strangers, or charity or the search for meaning in a person's life.

Some of these "creationists" movements are born out of an extremist's view but some are merely defending their faiths because it's not easy to handle when their own world view is suddenly disturbed by people who could not care less about what they believe in. Some may be mature enough to handle the opposition, but most are still afraid of what these people really intend to do bringing up such disturbances to their already safe confines.

Of course, some religious are also not exempt from their incessant preaching and recruiting, especially when they go brandishing their condemnations if you decide not to agree with their teachings. But with a mature character, these can also be disregarded without much trouble too. We do not live in the witch hunting, heretic burning era anymore.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 


Alleged if you don't believe in the divine..

Wasn't quite what I was getting at.

Let's say it's true.

Religious people have a relationship with the divine. Divine is real. Their understanding of that relationship is through their religion. Their divine god(s) being real would validate their religion as truthful.

And that's why this doesn't work.

You can't just ignore the obvious conflict this implies. If the Ancient Egyptians had a real relationship with say Ma'at, then their creation story is true. How do we reconcile that with the differing account of Christianity on the creation of the Universe?

You can't. Unless..

1) Only one religion is true. In other words, only one actually has a relationship with the divine.
2) None of them have a relationship with the divine.
3) You abandon logic i.e all the creation stories are true.


on the more essential things that religion has to offer--like issues of morality (definition of good and evil) or kindness to strangers, or charity or the search for meaning in a person's life.

None of that is exclusive to religion though. Morality? Existentialism? I gots me some of that
I surely recognize good things that religious people do but as Christopher Hitchens once said: “Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”


Some may be mature enough to handle the opposition

I don't think strong opposition towards religion is one of immaturity. If their beliefs were more or less benign then sure. That's obviously not the case though. These religions directly affect our World. Oftentimes in very bad ways. When we recognize this we shouldn't sit idly by because we 'respect their beliefs'. I'm not advocating anything more than opposition manifesting via discussion and debate.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by tomoe723
 


Alleged if you don't believe in the divine..

Wasn't quite what I was getting at.

Let's say it's true.

Religious people have a relationship with the divine. Divine is real. Their understanding of that relationship is through their religion. Their divine god(s) being real would validate their religion as truthful.

And that's why this doesn't work.

You can't just ignore the obvious conflict this implies. If the Ancient Egyptians had a real relationship with say Ma'at, then their creation story is true. How do we reconcile that with the differing account of Christianity on the creation of the Universe?

You can't. Unless..

1) Only one religion is true. In other words, only one actually has a relationship with the divine.
2) None of them have a relationship with the divine.
3) You abandon logic i.e all the creation stories are true.


on the more essential things that religion has to offer--like issues of morality (definition of good and evil) or kindness to strangers, or charity or the search for meaning in a person's life.

None of that is exclusive to religion though. Morality? Existentialism? I gots me some of that
I surely recognize good things that religious people do but as Christopher Hitchens once said: “Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”


Some may be mature enough to handle the opposition

I don't think strong opposition towards religion is one of immaturity. If their beliefs were more or less benign then sure. That's obviously not the case though. These religions directly affect our World. Oftentimes in very bad ways. When we recognize this we shouldn't sit idly by because we 'respect their beliefs'. I'm not advocating anything more than opposition manifesting via discussion and debate.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


That is your definition of the divine... and who's to say what their definition of the divine is. You see, you are attempting to contain the divine within your finite understanding of what it is. To them it is different, to you it does not compute. That's how I see why you said alleged because you probably do not believe in anything divine.

Again, I'm not here to argue which creation story is true or not. The true believer knows that it does not matter how life came to be, but that it all came from God. God gives life and takes life away. The believer may choose to adhere to one story if he subscribes to a particular world religion but arguing among them is a fool's errand because the divine has many faces it shows to humankind.

In argument against Christopher Hitchens who you so fondly quote in your defense, who are these non-believers who have uttered similar ethical statements or done similar ethical actions? Non-believer of what exactly? I find it amusing when some people claim to be non-believers yet they are believing in something else. Their "beliefs" just don't lie with an organized religion, but it's something else for sure. Maybe they are still figuring out what they want to believe in. Or maybe they've found it already but it's not as clear and evident as we make it out to be. The only real non-believer is the one who brings destruction to anything good in this universe but even that in itself is also another face of the divine.

I have this feeling that you do not want to be associated with any form of religion or set of beliefs, so if my words offend in some way, I apologize for that.

Any kind of strong opposition towards something is always met with a similar level of opposition to keep things the same. I believe that is one of Newton's laws of mechanics. LOL. But I was referring to the people who are already satisfied and happy with their belief system, why bother to disturb them? In our times now, these major religions have an impact on society but it's not to say that they dictate our lives like it did during the roman civilization or thereafter. You see proponents of pro-life against abortion, but you don't see people being burned at stake for carrying out an abortion (or even those who are promoting the use of contraceptives). Gay people being condemned to hell or similar issues, it's all trivial human conflict.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I will frame this in a "scientific" manner.

Let's say the holographic universe theory is real, or some form of the simulated universe is .

Okay? Got that assumption?

Next, assume the administrator had a set requirements he needed to run a sim.

Being outside the system could said administrator just start the program at the exact point needed to test those requirements?

And if the above held true, and we are on a simulated universe,

The program could of turned on 2 hours ago, and none of us would know.

Or how bout this one for the religious, is God so limited that he has to fall under our understanding of space and time, if the assumption is an "all" powerful creator, the time needed to do anything does not matter as anything could be explained away by being outside the system he controls not inside it.

Eta:

Keep in mind the holographic simulated universe is a real theory which is testable and being worked on,

My whole point, believe in god or don't, that's a choice, but no one on this planet has enough of a clue to start poking at others very personal beliefs.


edit on 4-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 



That is your definition of the divine... and who's to say what their definition of the divine is. You see, you are attempting to contain the divine within your finite understanding of what it is. To them it is different, to you it does not compute.

What??…

I gave no definition. In fact I wasn't suggesting anything other than using theirs!!

Who's to say what their definition of the divine is? Ummm…they say.

I am talking about how they describe their god(s) and how they describe their religion. I am not attempting to do it for them. Am I making up religious scripture and stating they believe its contents? No. They have their own they believe in. And that is all we need in order to understand the point I was making.

Which is again: if they all have a relationship with the divine entities of their religious faith it presupposes the truthfulness of their scripture/holy books and thus creates a plethora of logical contradictions amongst the faiths.

They can't all be true based on their (not mine!) understanding of the divine. It can't be more obvious than isolating their accounts of creation, that's why I am using them as examples. God 1 claims it's the one and only creator god and it made the oceans before the stars. God 2 claims it's the one and only creator god and it made the stars before the oceans. They can't both be true accounts of reality.

Religions postulate truth claims about reality. And religions conflict on fundamental levels with each other. It's completely illogical that they would all be true.

Thus your statement they all have a relationship with the divine doesn't work. Unless we say, for example, Egyptian religion is the only true one, and Mormons and Muslims are actually paying homage to Ma'at or Osiris with their relationship with the divine. That being the case, that's quite a deceitful relationship hehehe.


The true believer knows that it does not matter how life came to be, but that it all came from God. God gives life and takes life away. The believer may choose to adhere to one story if he subscribes to a particular world religion but arguing among them is a fool's errand because the divine has many faces it shows to humankind.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Okay here is my response to that. Using your own words:


post by tomoe723
That is your definition of the divine... and who's to say what their definition of the divine is. You see, you are attempting to contain the divine within your finite understanding of what it is.

What's funny is I didn't actually give any definition of my own or make an attempt at describing it. Yet, here you did. You literally just described how they should believe.

You essentially just said a true believer is a religious pluralist. I assure you not all religions agree with that. Like not at all. Calling those believers that differ from what you just described as not 'true believers' very much makes you guilty of what you just accused me of. Which is, defining it for them.


The only real non-believer is the one who brings destruction to anything good in this universe but even that in itself is also another face of the divine.

And now you're defining what non-believing means for the non-believers. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.

Also. I have no idea what all that meant. Brings destruction to anything good in the Universe?? O_o


I have this feeling that you do not want to be associated with any form of religion or set of beliefs, so if my words offend in some way, I apologize for that.

It absolutely doesn't offend me, and thank you for noticing.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


My whole point, believe in god or don't, that's a choice, but no one on this planet has enough of a clue to start poking at others very personal beliefs.

and on the flip side of that coin ….no one has enough of a clue to know their beliefs in these matters are factual accounts of reality. Best guesses at best



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by benrl
 


My whole point, believe in god or don't, that's a choice, but no one on this planet has enough of a clue to start poking at others very personal beliefs.

and on the flip side of that coin ….no one has enough of a clue to know their beliefs in these matters are factual accounts of reality. Best guesses at best


Exactly as if we had to take our world views on faith...

When science holds the chance that we didn't exist yesterday, who really is being silly?

Those that don't know are really the only people being intellectually honest with themselves on these matters, everyone else?
Faith.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Those that don't know are really the only people being intellectually honest with themselves on these matters, everyone else? Faith.


I agree about the intellectual honesty, and that it goes both ways.

However it needs to be said that science itself is intellectually honest in this way. Science is about discovery and intrinsic to that is the understanding there are truths left to be discovered. Truths that could likely decimate existing scientific positions. Science welcomes this as it's ultimately only about what is most truthful.

My position on the divine and God and such is that none of us know with certainty either way, because we can't know with certainty. We are limited to the constraints of nature. Science is our method of understanding reality within those constraints.

Now when I say that I mean to say the existence of supernatural forces. I most certainly do think we can invalidate religious claims when they describe specific characteristics of those forces. For one, again we are limited to the known World so they are being intellectually dishonest by claiming them as factual truths. And two, when they blatantly conflict with what we have already discovered. We know lightning doesn't physically come from Zeus's scepter. We can dismiss that religious claim and it wouldn't be an offense to intelligence to do so. Dismissing that however isn't synonymous with dismissing the existence of the supernatural. So while I agree we can't say with certainty supernatural forces don't exist, we can say with certainty the non-existence of specific religious claims.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

tomoe723

The core of religions also do the same thing: it continues to question and find out more about the nature of its basic tenets. From the sufis to Buddhism to your contemporary Christian catechism, all these "doctrines" were not arrived at with blind faith. The people of the past have continuously pondered and meditated on these beliefs further refining them into our current system. The fields of study may be different, because most of religion deals with human relationships to the divine and the methods are the least literal or physical. It deals with emotions and experiences with something they deem extraordinary in their lives. I believe a similar thing happens in science when someone has made a profound discovery that has a considerable impact on the system as a whole.


(this is in response to most of the rest of your post too)

Ok, you need to stop for one moment and really grasp what I am attempting to portray. This is not meant to come off as an insult, but you continue to display the same misconception about the definition of religion and religious practice.

In every one of your posts here, you are trying to relate religion in some way or another to science. The issue, is that your misconceiving definitions, or using words improperly to attempt to show that relation. If you were to replace the word "science" with any other form of study, such as Mathematics, the exact same implications would apply. Does this mean that Mathematics is Religious? Certainly not! It takes more to religion than some obscurely perceived relationship between actions that are actually intrinsic to religion, and those that are simply similar, or use the same word to describe a similar action.

This does not equal religion.

If you are claiming that Science appears religious, because of these similarities - which, we can admit, have been very stretched at times - then I can completely agree with you! However, this is not the case, because the definition of a religion requires more than these stretched similarities. Performing math isn't religious, nor are mathematicians, nor is a "hierarchy" of new mathematicians and veteran ones a display of religious stepping stones to enlightenment.

This is what your not really understanding.

Here's a very descriptive list of why Evolution (or any other thing that isn't religious) isn't religious. The same thing could be implied to Science, Mathematics, History, and so on (with a few necessary tweaks, of course).

Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:

Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

Can these comparisons and differences become confusing or appear very similar? Absolutely! However, there is nothing within Evolution, and no absolute defining qualities within any other thing that isn't religious that makes it religious.




tomoe723
I do not intend to formulate any conspiracy behind science. But western science, from my experience, has ceased to become a true pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of humankind. Sadly, it's become a tool to control people and economy and even the progress of developing countries all in the favor that benefits the U.S.


This is an issue of the country, not science in general. You could use mathematics for incorrect, immoral and horrible reasons as well. Math itself, isn't a bad thing.



tomoe723
this is where science has become a religion in my eyes. For the basic practical experiments that I can do at home, I'm fascinated by what science has to offer. But for the more abstract theories like DNA or Evolution, sadly, I'd have to put my faith on the people who have claimed these things to be real.


DNA is not a theory. Also, you can do DNA tests at home at relatively no cost. Tests within Evolution are free, and I have conducted both of these instances myself, at home.



tomoe723
Without the violence and religious wars, have you ever seen two rabbis or two priests arguing about their "hypotheses" on their respective religious fields? It is very similar to that of scientists debating, presenting their evidences for their arguments.


once again, you're over analyzing the situation, and over simplifying what is word is. In this case, Debate. You could say the exact same thing for anyone having any debate about any thing at all! This does not mean it's a religious activity. What is different between a religious debate and a scientific one is that with a religious debate, there are no facts (unless it's about something physical like scripture), it's all speculation and belief. Where as with Science (or most other things), it is in fact based on evidence that is testable by any party.


tomoe723
Perhaps your view of religion is limited to preaching and bickering between sides. But even so, some form of preaching and bickering also happens in the scientific community. We're just not privy to the details. Scientists are still human after all.


Yet again, you are over simplifying a word, in this case Preaching. You're using it in the correct way, as in saying that they are delivering a speech, but you're also implying that it has some religious context to it. Which it doesn't. They are not delivering a sermon, they are simply giving a speech about some facts. Once again, does this make Mathematics religious? or any other form of speech religious because it could, from an obscure distance, be compared to religious preaching? Not at all.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I really don't know how to respond to all that, I fear for falling into the trap of bickering and preaching if I try to refute all that you have posted. Yet I will try my best to keep showing and refrain from refuting/denying... it's up to you what you make of it.

I'd take it that your answer to my earlier question that can man/woman be separated from science? You're answer seems like a big "Yes" from all that lengthy post.

The conventional definition of religion apparently does not apply to science, and for this matter, science is not a religion, it's not a religious organization, it doesn't have practices for faith and worship, nor does it have any structure akin to a religion where you have hierarchies of priests or scribes or bishops. Science doesn't even require an explicit form of donation (or tithes). (or maybe taxes if I go into conspiracy LOL)

I'll go back to my initial question, can man/woman be separated from science? Does science still exist if it was devoid of the interactions of man/woman? The answer seems like an obvious "Yes" because the sun will still shine and the earth revolve around it even if humankind became extinct off the face of the earth. All these scientific processes still continue to happen without the influence of humankind. True, in this manner, science is separate from man, if you would call all that "science". But science is just a label we put on all these things we have discovered under the scientific process/movement, they already operated before without any label.

And so with this distinction, science is but another pair of glasses that we look upon the world around us. It is in the same manner when we use religion. The methods may be different, science has a more rigorous style of vindicating its findings thru a series of experiments and physical evidences, but religion back in the days does that too, although not strictly relying on physical evidence and more on some wild superstitions. People gather together and rejoice in their common understanding of the nature around them and attribute it to a divine entity for lack of better words.



Ghost147
Yet again, you are over simplifying a word, in this case Preaching. You're using it in the correct way, as in saying that they are delivering a speech, but you're also implying that it has some religious context to it. Which it doesn't. They are not delivering a sermon, they are simply giving a speech about some facts. Once again, does this make Mathematics religious? or any other form of speech religious because it could, from an obscure distance, be compared to religious preaching? Not at all.


Actually, yes it does. It is in the same manner that when a preacher starts talking; To the preacher, what he preaches he claims as facts, hoping that the listener will believe in it. He is offering his own perspective, how he formulated it, how he has come about it, it may not be as evident and rigorous as a scientific thesis, but the aim is still to convey to the listener: this is what I've seen and done, this is how I have described what these things are. The listener doesn't actually believe in it at first until he can verify for himself under similar experiences of what has been described. And when he goes through that experience, I'm 100% sure you've just won yourself a believer. Or in the case of science, you've just convinced someone else the validity of your hypotheses or findings. And then you belong to that "religion", an inclusive one at that, but nonetheless still another form of religion. The god is invisible, almost non-existent, but its still there working the mechanics of its universe. But you can also say that a universe can exist without a god having to create or operate it. It's really up to you how you relate with the universe around you or the divine from within...

From the very core to its peripherals, it's all a matter of time for you to notice when similar structures or activities happen with that in science as it did in religion.

---
If I may add, in the same manner, it is like that too in Mathematics. God is the number. Everything, the whole universe is viewed through numbers, the devotion through such perspective is astounding, so astounding that some mathematicians have gone insane when they have encountered the infinite.

Or you could just say that they were crazy to begin with LOL

edit: added last sentence for humorous effect..

edit on 282014022014America/Chicago723 by tomoe723 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join