Well, First of all, where do I start. That IS wrong, not every sentence containing "is" IS scientific. (hehe this IS fun.)
The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. It IS meaningless? IS that scientific? Anything using "IS" IS simply a statement saying that there IS a sence of rightness to it, that it can be proven, or that it IS believed to be true. I could say there IS a soda in my fridge, and it doesn't enter into a "scientific" realm.
~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
No one IS doing any of that to my soda (except that it can be observed, but not all observable things are science), however it IS logical to assume that there IS a soda in my fridge, because I can see and feel it, but that IS not science!
Also, those people were doing the same thing as a crazed scientist. There IS nothing in the Bible that says to crusade against the muslims in God's name(though there are passages about war, but hey, it does exist, and the Bible doesn't tell others to go to war). There IS though passages that speak of peace, and respect and love for all humans. They were using religion as an excuse, but they were actually going against what their religion IS actually about.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I base my statement on the fact that you said, whenever you say "IS" you enter into science. Therefore, saying "There is a God" is apparently science, and therefore must be true. ;)
Yes, when you talk about "there is a god", you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact. It has not.
You're making a leap of faith.
Originally posted by Psydan
Anything using "IS" IS simply a statement saying that there IS a sence of rightness to it, that it can be proven, or that it IS believed to be true.
Yes, what you're describing here is basically a scientific statement.
I could say there IS a soda in my fridge, and it doesn't enter into a "scientific" realm.
Yes, you do. You have to prove with hard data that there is a soda in your fridge.
~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
I'd say that you're using experimental investigation to deduce whether or not there's something in your fridge. Observation, identification and description are prerequiresites for doing this, and the theoretical explanation for how it came to be in your fridge is that it's cold and you want it to stay cold.
(except that it can be observed, but not all observable things are science)
All observable things are science.
There are just so many things which have been observed countless of times that we simply do not care to research it anymore. Such as the fact that rocks drop when released from your hand.
Also, those people were doing the same thing as a crazed scientist. There IS nothing in the Bible that says to crusade against the muslims in God's name
What the Bible says is completely irrelevant. Fact is that a religious conviction was able to incite war. Whether it was Biblical or even Christian is of no relevance to this thread. All that matters is that it was religion, and religion alone that committed those genocides.
They were using religion as an excuse, but they were actually going against what their religion IS actually about.
The fact that the people in power were able to recruit thousands of brainwashed followers to whatever cause they saw fit is testament to the harmful effects of religion.
You can be sure it wasn't for material gain that those peasants left their crops to wither and went to war in some distant land, probably never to see their wife and kids again.
Originally posted by obi-wan13
I still want an answer for what I posted earlier. How can science explain, or anything other then God, explain my experiance?
I don't buy into that "it was a good guess" thing.....
What would it take to convince you that it wasn't God who influenced you?
A good guess is loads better than simply substituting God for whatever you can't immediately explain. This is the essence of "God-gapping", and it simply doesn't logically work.
It's like saying that "we can't explain light, so God must have done it". But we have explained light, and a good, fair load of other things that have been attributed to gods in the past.
Also god-gapping has serious negative implications on science. Take, for example, the discovery of UV (or maybe it was IR, but it doesn't really matter which):
During the earliest experiments with spectroscopy, there was a scientist who wondered how his thermometer could show a higher temperture when it was on the desk on which he conducted the experiment (but still by some distance seperated from any visible light), than when it was hanging on the wall. This is how UV (or IR) was discovered.
Now imagine that this guy had just god-gapped, and said: "God did it!"
That would be a showstopper. Too bad. Then we would have to wait until someone else noticed it, and if he also god-gapped...
Originally posted by C'jais
Yes, what you're describing here is basically a scientific statement]
No because science doesn't believe anything according to you. So it was a not scientific statement.
So, I am psychic?
:confused:
But, what if it was God, or some sort of divine intervention? Can you imagine how great a priveledge it is to do that work?
I'm sure you think i'm a nutcase, but even if it wasn't by God or something, it is still cool to know that I predicted a child's birth. THAT, is a fact.
If it was god, then it is indeed an honor to do that sort of work. Just the same, if it is some sort of latent psychic ability (hey, anythings possible), then it's simply a testament to the fact that you are a good person, god or not, and wanted to help that woman feel better. Thats the important part.
And you're right, it is pretty cool. :D
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
No because science doesn't believe anything according to you. So it was a not scientific statement.
No.
He said that which can be proven has a sense of rightness to it, which is correct. That which can be proven is science.
Originally posted by obi-wan13
So, I am psychic?
Whatever it is, it's probably not from sheer coincidence that you acted as you did.
Pheromones, compassion or psychic bonding - any guess is good, as long as you don't connect something unexplained with God for lack of an immediately better alternative.
But, what if it was God, or some sort of divine intervention? Can you imagine how great a privilege it is to do that work?
I can imagine the feeling. I can likewise imagine the feeling that Hare Krishnas get from their trancic dancing, the feeling that a painter gets from completing a masterwork, the feeling that a heroin addict gets from injecting drugs into his blood stream, and the feeling that a member of a gang gets from sharing a bond between the group.
I can imagine much pleasure. A strong sense of stimuli alone does not justify something.
I'm sure you think i'm a nutcase
No, I don't. Anyone can suspend logic and shelter himself in the glow of a diety that cares for him, protects him, and justifies his actions. It's only natural.
But what's natural is not always logical. It's the act itself that's illogical, futile and delusional. Then again, don't stall at the word "insane" - I'm braindamaged due to being lefthanded. We do many things in our daily life that could be labelled insane if actively pursued and imprinted on our forehead - such as only eating from a specific plate.
but even if it wasn't by God or something, it is still cool to know that I predicted a child's birth. THAT, is a fact.
"...then it's simply a testament to the fact that you are a good person, god or not, and wanted to help that woman feel better. Thats the important part."
Listen to Shock. He speaketh the truthe.
Take joy from knowing that you cared for the woman so much, and that you have more insight in these matters that many people do not. It is admirable.
You don't need God to be a good person, Obi. That's my belief.
LOL, this is a fun argument, arguing over whether all things using the word "is" enter into the scientific realm
IS~Third person singular present indicative of be. (dictionary definition of "is")
Well, I guess that means that all things use the word "be", "are", "is", "was", "were", "being", "been", and "am", which are all the forms. and the definition of be:
To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Used as a copula in such senses as:
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.
Also, it has been said many times, Science isn't always right, so when I "prove" something, that doesn't always make it science, it could be diproven, and therefore wrong, which many things have been.
"~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
I have observed God, through his works( along with all those in the Bible who have observed the power of God). I have Identified it as the devine power of God. I have heard God described, and his power described, I have done experimental investigation of God (yes he's always there for you, he always helps those who cry out to him, but I see what you're doing to Obi, he has "proof" for himself, you don't believe it because you haven't experienced it, well, I think that's a pretty good experimental investigation ) And There has been a theoretical explanation of God as an awsome diety that created the universe and rules it. GOD IS SCIENCE.
AND C'jais, you said "you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact" well, what about the "theory" of evolution, they are still refining the idea, because it still isn't perfect, therefore it still isn't proven right, so it isn't a fact. But it's still science, right?
Originally posted by Psydan
LOL, this is a fun argument, arguing over whether all things using the word "is" enter into the scientific realm
IS~Third person singular present indicative of be. (dictionary definition of "is")
Stop fooling around with that word. It's meant solely to objectively describe an object's placement, being or nature.
To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
That's observation and data interpretation - it's science.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
Subjective statement - not science.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
Science.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Nothing to do with science in this sense.
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
Completely subjective opinion, unless all Christians indeed were Romans.
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
Science.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
Science, if it's used with regards to further classification. Otherwise it's subjective.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
The first is a subjective opinion of a person. The last is an objective classification of humans. You should be able to guess which is science.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.
More subjective crap.
Also, it has been said many times, Science isn't always right
You speak of science as an unfallible concept. If something is interpreted wrongly, it's not the fault of science (which is classified as what you just wrote a few lines down) - it's the fault of the limited humans trying to do so.
so when I "prove" something, that doesn't always make it science, it could be diproven, and therefore wrong, which many things have been.
LOL. Regardless of whether it is being proven wrong, it's still science in the concept.
I have observed God, through his works( along with all those in the Bible who have observed the power of God).
Science doesn't care about God, as he can't be tested, observed or identified rationally. He is only in your mind, as far as science is concerned.
All of which you wrote isn't rational. It solely your subjective opinion and projecting of "God" unto things which cannot logically be attributed to "him".
AND C'jais, you said "you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact" well, what about the "theory" of evolution, they are still refining the idea, because it still isn't perfect, therefore it still isn't proven right, so it isn't a fact. But it's still science, right?
I've wrote this a thousand times before: Evolution is a theory and a fact. It can be proven wrong, which makes it science. The theory is not perfect for logical reasons, but that doesn't stop it in any way from being fact.
Originally posted by C'jais
Science doesn't care about God, as he can't be tested, observed or identified rationally. He is only in your mind, as far as science is concerned.
As is "dark matter" which is needed to fill the theory of the Big Bang. It hasn't been observed, tested or identified rationally.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
As is "dark matter" which is needed to fill the theory of the Big Bang. It hasn't been observed, tested or identified rationally.
It has, as Templar explained to you specifically a short while back.
Originally posted by C'jais
It has, as Templar explained to you specifically a short while back.
Where? I can't seem to find it. It was in this thread right?
It was in the abortion thread:
"I don't know the Big Bang theory very well, but there is observational evidence that suggests the existence of Dark Matter (movement of stellar bodies that could not be explained with conventional Newtonian dynamics, ect). So it can be 'seen' by our measurement instruments."
-C'jais
Originally posted by C'jais
You don't need God to be a good person, Obi. That's my belief.
Oh, I agree completely. I know several atheists who would give you the shirt off of their back.
One quick note though, when you found the response to Reborn Outcast, (the big bang theory thingy), you could have just posted the reply instead of just editing his post. He'd be more likely to see it if it is another reply.
Originally posted by obi-wan13
One quick note though, when you found the response to Reborn Outcast, (the big bang theory thingy), you could have just posted the reply instead of just editing his post. He'd be more likely to see it if it is another reply.
Yeah, I though about that as well.
He could, however, just have run a simple search in this forum.
Just wanted to add my opinion about this.
Originally posted by obi-wan13
I have seen things that Science cannot explain. I have felt things that science cannot explain. I have even gone so far as to prophisy(sp?) the birth of a child. One night, during service at my church, the preacher's wife was crying and nealing at the alter, and praying for something. For some reason, I got up, walked to her, touched her on the shoulder, and said: "Don't worry, sister, you will have your Baby."
Surely enough, nearly three days later, she was diagnosed pregnant. Three days.
I would chalk this up to empathy or pheromes. For starters, your statement "Don't worry, sister, you will have your Baby." implies that she knew she was pregnant and was distraught over losing it, and you were reassuring her. That wouldn't make it a prophecy, as the pregnancy was already known. Also, to further point out that she knew, you said she was "diagnosed" as pregnant 3 days later. Women know when they are pregnant. They may not tell another soul, but they know. That is why women go and get pregnancy tests in the first place. Women who either know, or think they are pregnant, are the only ones who go and get pregnancy tests. There is no reason to go get a test otherwise. But to explain how you would know? I dunno, maybe that she would have been pregnant for some time before a test would show it, and that may support the pherome detection.
I'd just say that you know people.
And did you know that E=Mc^2 is not the complete equation? :D There were a couple of scientists who did something on this, I'll see if I can find the article...
duh i think everyone knows that.
Without being an expert on either satire or physics, I'd say that they were joking... And it was an extremely funny joke.
But the way I always understood E=mc^2, was that energy could be transformed to matter, and vice versa... But they don't even need to go as far as matter anyway, because the concept of infinte energy is just as paradoxical.
BTW, you guys may want to disable your sigs when writing one-liners. I've taken as my policy to cut the sig if the post is shorter than the sig, but that's up to you.
Now, to get back on topic:
1) A religion is a group of people sharing similiar beliefs.
2) In order for a group of people to share similiar beliefs, these beliefs must be invented (or defined, if you like that word better), as they cannot be documented.
3) In order for the beliefs to be fairly uniform (crossref: pnt 1), they must be defined by a relatively small group of people.
4) Since the decisions made by this group of people concerns faith, they must be taken unquestioningly, on face value (questioning them/trying to prove them would be an application of rationalism, which would mean that the end result would be deviod of faith, regardless of the outcome).
5) Since any group of people will, over time, work to obtain greater power (crossref: Social classes), the priesthood will, over time, consolidate its position at the top of society*, unless another class keeps them from getting to the top of society (ie: Keeps them at the bottom of society).
*Remember that there is no way that you can talk back to them without being branded a heretic (crossref: pnt 4)
6) Any class which is allowed to consolidate its position at the top of society unopposed will, over time, become permanently reactionary (if you're at the top, you desire a status quo, (crossref: pnt 5)).
7) Since the priesthood will become permanently reactionary over time, if they are at the top of society, society will become permanently reactionary over time.
8) Any permanently reactionary society is a totalitarian society.
9) Totalitarian regimes survive on the ignorance of the people.
Therefore:
All religions will become totalitarian unless they are kept at the bottom of society, ie: Are being oppressed.
And
All religions promote ignorance, as it serves the dual role of making people more suceptible to their preachings, thereby making it harder to oppress said religions, and enforcing totalitarian ideologies once in power.
q.e.d.
I believe that there is a word for this kind of situation: Touchй!
Sigh... no offense but.. amateurs!
*longs for the days of the "God Thread" and all its glorious civilized and interesting debate*
One thing, you want proof that atheists can be equal opportunity oppressors? "Stalin."
I'm convinced it's not what you say you believe that truly matters, it's how you live.
Originally posted by Kurgan
One thing, you want proof that atheists can be equal opportunity oppressors? "Stalin."
I have heard that a lot. And I have given identical replies. Atheism did not cause Stalin to go bananas. Stalin was a Communist. He founded his own religion: Communism (actually Leninism). On the other hand, we have adequately proven Religion to be bad.
I have heard that a lot. And I have given identical replies. Atheism did not cause Stalin to go bananas. Stalin was a Communist. He founded his own religion: Communism (actually Leninism). On the other hand, we have adequately proven Religion to be bad.
Wrong, and wrong. Communism isn't a religion anymore than capitalism or republicanism, it's a political ideology (and economic system). And it does have a wide spectrum within that ideology. All communists are not murderers. But, some of the worst murderers in history have happened to be communists (and atheists).
"Communism" as we know it was founded on Lenin's interpretation of the writings of Marx (and Engles). If you study history you'll see that Marx really didn't "invent" it so much as popularize it and give it direction into a philosophy of history and plan for social revolution.
Marx wrote that religion was the opiate of the masses, teaching that it was a device invented by the ruling class to enslave the masses, thus all Communists dedicated themselves to atheism and the suppression of religion. About the only real progress away from that is seen in the People's Republic of China, where religion is okay if it acknowledges the sovereignty of the state to control it (witness the treatment of the Fulon Gong and the Tibetan buddhists... the People's Patriotic Catholic Association, etc). On a side note there is "Liberation Theology" that incorporates some Marxist theories of revolution into Christian thinking... and it has been widely denounced by mainstream Churches as being self-contradictory and dangerous.
Atheism didn't make Stalin crazy, no, but many of the murders he and his fellow communists committed were to suppress religious belief. He killed more people than Hitler, after all.
Sigmund Freud believed that religion was a psychological disorder... a neurosis. Of course most of his ideas today (while interesting from a sociological viewpoint or historical curiosity) are regarded as pseudoscience.
How many people did Mother Teresa murder? Pope John Paul II? Ghandi? MLK Jr?
There have been plenty of good and bad people who had religion and plenty of good and bad people who didn't have religion.
My point in all this is to give you examples of why you can't say "religion is bad, wipe it out" or that atheists are more moral than people who believe in a god (the reverse of what some atheists resent religionists for... the claim that they are more moral).
Belief systems (or lack of them) alone won't determine whether you are moral or not.
The only way to get rid of religion would be to commit mass murder and enslavement (as the Communists did). And anyway, all that would do is drive it under-ground.
Why not just let people believe what they want and judge conduct instead?
Wrong, and wrong. Communism isn't a religion anymore than capitalism or republicanism, it's a political ideology
Nice recap of the history of Communism. I knew that already, though.
It is totalitarian. Which brings me to the second part of my point:
1) Totalitarism is based on irrationality (Nazis saying that they are the ьbermenchen, Commies saying that wheat planted in a cornfield will become corn over a few generations, because all that matters to your development is you environment, not your inheiritance (no wonder they ended up starving)).
2) Since it is irrational, it cannot be proven, and so must be believed.
3) Religion is the organised preaching/adherance to irrational beliefs.
4) Pts 2) and 3), when put together, lead, logically, to the following conclusion: Totalitarism is always religious.
Thus Stalin was a religious person. q.e.d.
Originally posted by Kurgan
How many people did Mother Teresa murder? Pope John Paul II? Ghandi? MLK Jr?
PJP has a lot of blood on his hands, for not allowing abortion and condoms. But that's different story. Basically, you can't use such stand-alone examples, because in order to get a statistically significant amount of data, you'd have to put so much data here that the forums would go down.
Still, I cite such people as bin Laden, Urban II, Whatever-moronic-pope-ordered-the-Inquisition, and a quick flip throught any half-decent history book will give you more names. The blokes who preach hatred in Northern Ireland, for example (can't remember their names right now). Ariel Sharon for another. The bloke who murdered Gandhi. Mohammed Atta.
There have been plenty of good and bad people who had religion and plenty of good and bad people who didn't have religion.
My point in all this is to give you examples of why you can't say "religion is bad, wipe it out" or that atheists are more moral than people who believe in a god (the reverse of what some atheists resent religionists for... the claim that they are more moral).
Look, I can't remember seeing anyone except you labeling 'all-this-and-that' as bad people in this thread (but I'll admit that it's a long time since I last posted here, so I may have forgotten).
My point is not that Skepticism is a fail-save against becoming a psycotic mass murderer. Rather the point is that Skepticism has never been proven do make anyone murder anyone else. Religion has (the current pope, anyone).
Belief systems (or lack of them) alone won't determine whether you are moral or not.
Not alone. But they do contribute. As most everyone else will tell you.
The only way to get rid of religion would be to commit mass murder and enslavement (as the Communists did). And anyway, all that would do is drive it under-ground.
Get rid of it, yes. But my sights are lower set. I'd settle for suppression. Make damn sure that religion answers to the state, and the state alone. Additionally, we should tell the real story about religion: That it murdered (relative to population size) more people than Communism, Nazism, and Fascism combined. That it's as totalitarian as the above three combined, too.
Why not just let people believe what they want and judge conduct instead?
I'll answer this in an E-mail, if you want me to... I'm not posting my thoughts on that subject here, because that would get me banned, I'm afraid.