User Tag List

First 412131415 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 150

  1. #131
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mallow View Post
    debate (noun) The art of dangling an argument in front of someone's nose and hoping they will take de bate.
    Haha thank you for this. <3 puns.

  2. #132
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I have often thought this myself. Part of why science and religion are compatible is that they satisfy different needs. One addresses the heart, and one the mind. But neither is happy unless they are the explanation for everything. Science, for all its truth and utility, is as much a religion as religion is. Because it is relied upon as a worldview instead of a tool.
    Disagreed, and heavily. Science doesn't attempt to explain the unexplainable; on the contrary, its followers are typically annoyed with people who try to do that. If you'd seriously say something like "science is just as much a religion as a religion is," I think it's likely that you lack an understanding of the exact differences between science and religion:

    --Science changes. It makes no assumptions about anything until it has observed evidence for them, and even then it simply makes tentative statements about possible rules of the universe based on patterns it has observed repeatedly. The certainty of science functions in degrees, like a parabolic curve in geometry. The more evidence we gather the closer and closer it gets to becoming certain, but it never quite actually makes that last step to 100% certainty. If new information arises that calls into question the validity of our previous scientific explanations, we must investigate--and sometimes, we will discover that we were previously wrong (or at least, not exactly right) and amend our belief system accordingly. If science were anywhere near as rigid as religion, we would still be insisting that Newtonian physics explains everything in our physical world perfectly, even though quantum mechanics has since arisen and shown evidence that Newtonian physics laws break down at the quantum level. Science is inductive reasoning.

    --Religion does not change. At least not until a conflicting scientific view becomes so widespread that continuing to argue against it would threaten the Church's membership by making them appear so stupid that no one wants to associate with them any longer. So they bend over backwards, backpedal, bullshit, claim that God has intentionally deceived us in order to test us, etc.; anything to attempt to reconcile this new information with their utterly inflexible dogma. (See Copernicus and Galileo.) Religion starts from an arbitrary premise, creates arbitrary explanations for observable phenomena and then attempts to force the two to fit together in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Religion claims absolute certainty that it is correct on all of its points, and not only is it hostile toward any attempts to claim otherwise, it historically has repeatedly, actively attempted to squelch any ideas which may contradict its dogma, for purposes of keeping the masses from discovering the logical contradiction. Religion wants to be deductive reasoning, and is very uncomfortable with any degrees of certainty less than 100%.

    It is, of course, quite possible to misuse science as a dogmatic, deductive form of reasoning and try to rely upon it as an absolute worldview (Dawkins comes to mind.) This is rather silly. Any true scientist knows that his worldview is incomplete and is not only open to new and conflicting information, but in fact thrives on it.

  3. #133
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    I've heard that too, and I've even repeated it. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure it's really true. Science isn't really just about explaining how -- it's about increasing reliability in what we understand, and both the WHY and the HOW is part of our understanding. So, if you make a claim about the "why," you should ensure that your claim is reliable, just for accuracy's sake. Science is compatible with asking why as long as we're still interested in reliability. If we choose to relinquish reliability, and instead take things on faith, then science becomes irrelevant.

    The failure of science to answer questions about why the universe exists isn't really a failure, imo. It's more of a discovery, namely, that there is no reason for existence that people are privy to. I think it's rather illuminating.
    Brilliant! This is the best phrasing I've seen of this concept by most anyone. Kudos to you, sir.

  4. #134
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    The thing is, God could settle the debate with an appearance, but then he'd defeat his purpose. Catch 22. Once he [or we] prove him empirically, we destroy faith too, and thus the point of religion in the first place.
    And this doesn't strike you as very, very convincing that the whole "God" thing is probably just made up in the first place? (KEYWORD PROBABLY)

  5. #135
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    By the way, can someone tell me what exactly it means to be "spiritual"?

    I am reminded of a Daniel Tosh (comedian) quote:

    Girls in Los Angeles like to say, "I'm not religious, but I'm SPIRITUAL!" I like to reply, "I'm not honest, but you're interesting!"

    So what is the difference between spirituality and religion? An "Om" tattoo on your back? A bunch of cheap knick-knacks from your local crystal ball shop? (A socially advantageous method of convincing people that you're more interesting than you actually are?)

  6. #136
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    It's pointless to debate about the literal existence of God. But it's not pointless to discuss whether or not one should believe in God, and what the implications of believing in God are.

    I think believing in God leads to ridiculous consequences, so I don't. The "there's no evidence against" argument does nothing for me, because we could apply that to lots of things that no one in their right mind would believe in.

  7. #137
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Isn't this as ptG said? In the past, the church is our fountain of knowledge... now science is replacing its role. Sometimes based on the stuff I hear from people, science has became the new "religion". Instead of quoting passages from the bible, people are now quoting the current big thing in science as the be all and end all "truth". When science is just the process of discovery.

    The failure of science isn't in its methodology... but the public's view of science. The question of why the universe exists, or the meaning of life... you can't answer using science. But the public doesn't see it. They still try to throw science at every darn problem they face. And that's where the failure lies.
    Great point! I'd also like to point out that any problem which cannot be solved through observation, reasoning and experimentation cannot, in fact, be solved at all. Sorry! The human brain is incredibly annoyed when it can't complete the conceptual picture, have closure and explanations for why everything is the way it is, etc., and that's why it invented God: to answer that which cannot be answered in any credible or reasonable way. Me? I'm all right with just not being sure, honestly. Some things are beyond my ability to understand fully and that's never going to change.

    "You woke up and you knew that you knew it all
    You knew because you said so
    You woke up and you knew that you knew it all
    A shame that's all that you knew
    And I think I'm all right with not being sure I got everything I'll ever need..."

  8. #138
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    First you fell back on the old "separate providences" argument. When I countered that, you moved on to questioning the role of ration in the scientific endeavor. When I countered that, you moved on to questioning my definition of science.

    Parry, parry, parry, never taking a stance.

    Now you resort to splitting semantic hairs. (A tactic I can't help but note that ENTPs seemingly universally share a fondness for.)

    I'm satisfied with my definition. Those who will take it will take it, those who will leave it will leave it.
    Lawlz. That was such an INTJ response, and I really like it.

    But you see, it's not so much the actual splitting of the semantic hairs that we enjoy so much, but rather the examination round your factification that convinces us so wholly and completely that these supposedly "semantic" hairs cannot actually be "split", per se, in terms of common metaphysical knowledge. Anyone who can't see that is just STUPID.

    Hahahah. We're very good at bullshitting complete nonsense too, see?

  9. #139
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    I think, therefore I am. Regardless of whether our consciousness are individual identities or part of one big thing, we can safely say we exist. To define what exactly is consciousness, humanity and higher powers though is a different issue. There is no solution as of this point.

    I forgotten where I've read it from... but a theorist envisioned consciousness and cognition to be like a hologram. There are no "memories" stored... there's just the whole. And the individual details "recalled" are synthesized on the fly. Therefore consciousness is not an object, but a process. The self-awared thermostat which turns itself on or off depending on its monitored state. The act of self-regulation is consciousness.
    Awesome ideas. I really like the thermostat analogy.

  10. #140
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Sounds good. I definitely subscribe to both in equal parts. What's the problem?
    There is no problem. I'm just pointing out they are mutually exclusive.

Similar Threads

  1. Does The Thought of God Not Existing Terrify You?
    By serenesam in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 02:46 PM
  2. The irrefutable existence of God
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  3. Hologram theory and the existence of fate and/or God
    By Valiant in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:05 AM
  4. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  5. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO