| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Fear of Women
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Fear of Women

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 23:12
All religions are a pile of man made crap piles. Religion is a tool to control the gullible and motivate the weak for war.  A tool for men to control women, Islam being the best example. A tool for the con artists to rip off the empty hearts and the lonely. The list is endless.  The opium of the people may be the only thing Marx got right.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 00:59
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain V, in re this gem:  " nonsensical stories being told about the condition of the universe that even a twelve year old student could poke holes through"

To be fair, the 12 year old, and indeed the great majority of us, would merely be stating so-called scientific facts that we have memorized from textbooks. We can no more prove our theories of the universe than our religious dogmatics can prove their point of view. Their advantage is that most of them state up front that their beliefs are faith-based. We merely sit back and assert that our sources are truer, and reason based. They may be, but for the great majority of us, the idea that the earth rotates around the sun, and that the sun is merely the center of a single universe among untold millions, is something we too learned by rote. We are neither Copernicus nor Galileo, and have far more in common with our religious contrarians than is comfortable to admit.
 
I've gone around the course with this with Omar, so I don't want to flog a dead horse (Omar slipped out of the saddle at the last moment, and made for the horizon), but I'll just offer that anecdotal evidence is not the same as scientific evidence; not by a wide margin. Your favorite uncle may tell you that smoking is good for you, and he may be trustworthy, and indeed in good health himself, but this is vastly different from looking up the thousands of studies that have been done on smoking and human health. That's not to say that there is absolutely zero possibility in the universe that smoking is good for your health, but all things are relative, and there is a point where the evidence is enough to go on, at least for the time being, with little chance of contradiction. If the latter should occur, then that too is part of the scientific method, and would be rolled into existing knowledge.  There is more to science than just memorizing that found in books. Indeed, that would be a more accurate description of religion.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 17:10
CV, I agree totally with your post, but you missed my point. You and I don't routinely go out and seek proof of the science we've been taught. We trust our textbooks. The thought occurred to me as I read of a philosopher in Vienna who took a broomstick into the street to observe the rotation of the earth for himself (or was it the roundness? In any event, he did). So, in essence, those of us who have not conducted such experiments ourselves are taking science based upon a faith. Ergo, our certainty that we hold the truth rests upon the same foundation as those arguing the contrary view. I've held many a trilobite in my hand which my textbooks tell me are millions of years old. I can easily see the same pattern in horseshoe crab. It proved to me that the Texas plains were once covered with ocean. It also raised the possibility that the trilobite is an ancestor of the horseshoe crab. But beyond that I have to take science's word regarding its age.   
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 18:33
lirelou, that is undeniably true. At base everything has to be taken on faith: even Descartes had to accept that we have to take on faith that we think.

However, the attitude doesn't get one very far. So we have to accept that we have to prefer beliefs that are more useful and reliable. Which boils down to the classic formulation that we have to prefer beliefs that we can use to predict, and therefore control, outcomes.

It doesn't matter that Aristotle's and Newton's and Einstein's assertions are all based on belief, what matters is that the utility of Einstein's is greater (more accurate, more widely appllcable) than that of Newton's, which in its turn was greater than that of Aristotle's.

If you're dealing with things that don't affect you, and therefore their utility is irrelevant, it doesn't really matter very much what you believe.


Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 23:50
I take your point lirelou that nothing is absolutely certain and carved in stone. We may be just patterns of photons inside some immense computer, or just a dream in some alien brain. I don't discount this sort of thing. We quickly dive into deep philosophical water here though, not that this is bad, however.....
 
In daily life we are faced with a choice. We can try and understand the universe, using the most useful tools at hand, or, we can take a pass on such endevors, and settle down with a good yarn. I don't denigate the latter; it's their life, and they may choose to live it however they want.
 
The most useful tool is the scientific method- not perfect certainly, but it's what we have. We may try and understand, even if what we end up with is one percent of the "total", or, we can not bother. Rome does not have to be rebuilt with every article of nature we revisit. We can verify "facts" by reading reputable material that has built on the work of past generations. We are not taking articles on faith if the logic behind them can be demonstrated (again, to a resonable degree, not to a point of philosophical perfection). This is vastly different from reading a fixed narrative that has simply been transcribed over the millenia, by contributers that may have been biased, inaccurate, or had motives unknown to us. Einstein's theories have been tested over and over again, with ever evolving technology. Religious  narrative has never been tested, and indeed in some cultures the very idea is offensive and threatening. Religion is fixed, science is dynamic. Religion is closed, science is open to new ideas.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 12:23

Yep. Did the rounds with CV over this before.

We always settle down with a good yarn CV, but what defines "good" depends on the person, the culture, and the time. I always prefer yarns with lots of mathematics.

... I didn't realise Canadians used the word 'yarn' either. I thought that was an Australianism.

Quote The most useful tool is the scientific method- not perfect certainly, but it's what we have.

You realise there is no single scientific method right? What passes for scientific in biology wouldn't in Engineering. And even each problem requires a different method of solving it.
Quote Religious  narrative has never been tested, and indeed in some cultures the very idea is offensive and threatening. Religion is fixed, science is dynamic. Religion is closed, science is open to new ideas.

Religious narrative, and indeed all narratives, is constantly tested everyday by both the people who accept that narrative and those who reject it. You may believe that religious narrative is lacking and requiring stricter proof, and I may believe the multiverse theory is lacking and requiring stricter proof, but both of us are testing both theories according to what we know.

Originally posted by Pingo Pingo wrote:


By the way, your insistence in calling me "Pingo" show yours lack of intellectual resources to drive an argument. Just that.

'Pingo' is an affectionate diminuative. You can call me Ohmi if you want.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 01:49
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


'Pingo' is an affectionate diminuative. You can call me Ohmi if you want.



And you call call me Omar, if you want. That's my name.


Edited by pinguin - 07 Jun 2012 at 01:49
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 02:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Yep. Did the rounds with CV over this before.

We always settle down with a good yarn CV, but what defines "good" depends on the person, the culture, and the time. I always prefer yarns with lots of mathematics.

Good on 'yer mate.
 
Another Australianism that has gone global. It's a small world now.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

... I didn't realise Canadians used the word 'yarn' either. I thought that was an Australianism.
Quote The most useful tool is the scientific method- not perfect certainly, but it's what we have.

You realise there is no single scientific method right? What passes for scientific in biology wouldn't in Engineering. And even each problem requires a different method of solving it.
 
By "scientific method" I mean the overiding idea that information should not simply be accepted depending on its  personal appeal, its importance to our sense of well-being, or its current cache in society, but should pass tests that attempt to find an objective core to it. I'm not referring to specific procedures for each discipline.
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Religious  narrative has never been tested, and indeed in some cultures the very idea is offensive and threatening. Religion is fixed, science is dynamic. Religion is closed, science is open to new ideas.

Religious narrative, and indeed all narratives, is constantly tested everyday by both the people who accept that narrative and those who reject it. You may believe that religious narrative is lacking and requiring stricter proof, and I may believe the multiverse theory is lacking and requiring stricter proof, but both of us are testing both theories according to what we know.
 
Omar.......my virtual correspondent...........we have been down this road, and it is one which you chose the exit ramp for towards the final climax.
 
The Lord God is the one true God, and Mohammed is his prophet. How do you think we should test this? The Christian God spat in the mud, and fashioned a being in His image. How do you think we should test this? Actually, we have a couple of smokers online (Graham and Parnell), who likely have an excess of phelgm from their unfortunate hobby, and.......no, this wouldn't really do either, would it? The Christian bible suggests killing homosexuals. The neo-nazi parties in Germany might come up with a lively test for you, if you asked them....but you likely would not want to.
 
What we are really talking about here is existential angst- the fear of our existence: is it something? Is it nothing? What is our place in the universe? These are difficult questions, and some cannot bear to leave them unanswered. Those that cannot turn to religion. Those with more patience do not feel such a need.

Originally posted by Pingo Pingo wrote:


By the way, your insistence in calling me "Pingo" show yours lack of intellectual resources to drive an argument. Just that.

'Pingo' is an affectionate diminuative. You can call me Ohmi if you want.

[/QUOTE]
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 11:26
In passing, please note that I haven't smoked since October 1 2009. Saint
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 03:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

In passing, please note that I haven't smoked since October 1 2009. Saint
 
 
Good on y'er!
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2012 at 05:18

Quote By "scientific method" I mean the overiding idea that information should not simply be accepted depending on its  personal appeal, its importance to our sense of well-being, or its current cache in society, but should pass tests that attempt to find an objective core to it. I'm not referring to specific procedures for each discipline.

Agreed.
But worded like that it's a central tenet of Islam & Protestant Christainity too.
Quote Omar.......my virtual correspondent...........we have been down this road, and it is one which you chose the exit ramp for towards the final climax.

I made my point, no reason to go in circles. If you want you can read my first posts again and pretend I replied.
Quote The Lord God is the one true God, and Mohammed is his prophet. How do you think we should test this? The Christian God spat in the mud, and fashioned a being in His image. How do you think we should test this?

You can't. You only only evaluate it's logic and make a personal decision as to whether it's likely or not.
Just like the Multiverse theory.

I have no problem with that, or which way your decision is. You seem to be trying to justify that your decision is morally superior and somehow not religious, and that's what's wrong. All your reasoning your putting forth is based on fables and fantasy stories, and then you're trying to deny your beliefs are religious.

Quote What we are really talking about here is existential angst- the fear of our existence: is it something? Is it nothing? What is our place in the universe? These are difficult questions, and some cannot bear to leave them unanswered. Those that cannot turn to religion. Those with more patience do not feel such a need.

Islam doesn't answer any of those questions. Or even attempt to.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2012 at 00:43
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote By "scientific method" I mean the overiding idea that information should not simply be accepted depending on its  personal appeal, its importance to our sense of well-being, or its current cache in society, but should pass tests that attempt to find an objective core to it. I'm not referring to specific procedures for each discipline.

Agreed.
But worded like that it's a central tenet of Islam & Protestant Christainity too.
Quote Omar.......my virtual correspondent...........we have been down this road, and it is one which you chose the exit ramp for towards the final climax.

I made my point, no reason to go in circles. If you want you can read my first posts again and pretend I replied.

You did not go in circles, but in a straight line- one that petered out and was abandoned. You promised proof for your ideas before the thread was out, but did not manage to come up with any. Not that I expected it, as there is no proof for religious narratives. There are some good psychological explanations for why so many cling to them, but the narratives themselves are transparent and insubstantial.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The Lord God is the one true God, and Mohammed is his prophet. How do you think we should test this? The Christian God spat in the mud, and fashioned a being in His image. How do you think we should test this?

You can't. You only only evaluate it's logic and make a personal decision as to whether it's likely or not.
Just like the Multiverse theory.

I have no problem with that, or which way your decision is. You seem to be trying to justify that your decision is morally superior and somehow not religious, and that's what's wrong. All your reasoning your putting forth is based on fables and fantasy stories, and then you're trying to deny your beliefs are religious.

Morals really have nothing to do with it. It is a question of do you want to see what's out there, or do you not care- or would you rather turn away even if the universe presents itself.
 
It is easy to look at the imperfections of knowledge, give a waive of the arms, and say it's all crap so I'll just stick with my personal story, which is at least comfortable. But that's the reality we live in. There are vast unknowns. But discounting logic, and turning to magic is only going backwards, to a place that will be ultimately unsatisfactory, because we know there is more, even if it is not obtainable at the present time. I could say for example, climate change is too much to contemplate. It's vastly complicated, potentially threatening, so I will just say it's God's will. That's the quick and easy way, but where does it leave us?
 
What both you and lirelou are strenuously denying is that there is a difference between intellectual rigour in trying to understand the world, and no rigour, ie: choosing something that sounds nice, and leaving it at that. In everyday life, clearly this is not the case. All except the mentally ill accept the basic laws of science (not jumping out of windows because of a disbelief of gravity, etc). It is on the fringes, at the distant, cosmological levels that knowledge is thin, and so open to mystical interpretation. It is there, and on the level of psychological need that religion operates.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote What we are really talking about here is existential angst- the fear of our existence: is it something? Is it nothing? What is our place in the universe? These are difficult questions, and some cannot bear to leave them unanswered. Those that cannot turn to religion. Those with more patience do not feel such a need.

Islam doesn't answer any of those questions. Or even attempt to.
 
Oh but it does Omar. It provides a way of living, answers to vexing questions about life, and promise of presents and good times after death. What more questions could one have, and what more to ask for? Fireworks on New Years, or and extra shot of rum on Saturday? It is a complete system that sooths and explains life's awkward realities. Or at least it does for those who don't want to venture too far from the campfire.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2012 at 01:14
By the way, converting science in a religion is a mistake.

Science is not a religion, and it is not the carrier of the "truth". Science is simply an empirical method to make models of the physical world. However, whether you like it or not, there are more things science ignores than those which really knows. For instance, science can't explain what conscience is or HOW it works. In certain fields science may look wise, and the carrier of extraordinary "truths", but looking closer we find out what they have is just a preliminary model which will certainly change with time

Science can't answers what man is, why is here in the world, what is the universe for, what is the destiny of mankind, what is justice, why there is so much suffering in the world, is there life beyond death, was there life before been born, what is right and what is wrong, etc. etc. These questions are endless and science won't answer them and it will never do.

So, what's wrong if certain peoples what to believe in God? It is even possible that something we can't imagine today exist beyond ours limited spatial borders. Who knows. I don't know and you don't know.

I am an agnostic, but I hate when atheists try to put science as a sort of religion. Every time that has happened disaster has arisen. Comte's positivism and Nazi darwinism are two examples on how science could contribute to pseudoscience.

Besides, sacred books may not contain the final truth (God), but they have something very valuable for people: advice, sympathy, humanity. If you don't know that, try to read the Bible once, perhaps the Psalms, and I bet you will find there knowledge that you never suspected. You will find the same kind of knowledge in the Vedas, the Torah, the Koran, and even in the traditional folk religious traditions all over the world.



Edited by pinguin - 10 Jun 2012 at 01:18
Back to Top
DrewTheDude View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Location: NFL, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrewTheDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2012 at 03:38
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

All religions are a pile of man made crap piles. Religion is a tool to control the gullible and motivate the weak for war.  A tool for men to control women, Islam being the best example. A tool for the con artists to rip off the empty hearts and the lonely. The list is endless.  The opium of the people may be the only thing Marx got right.

I seriously hope you're joking....
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2012 at 07:50
".... A mob of hundreds of men assaulted women holding a march demanding an end to sexual harassment Friday, with the attackers overwhelming the male guardians and groping and molesting several of the female marchers in Cairo's Tahrir Square...."
 
Did I say counselling may help? Maybe drugs...
 
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/egypt-march-to-end-sexual_0_n_1582062.html?ref=world
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 01:33

CV, I can reply to your entire post in one sentence:

The way I see it, that's what your doing.


Despite trying to go through this with you, you still seem to struggle to grasp what I believe let alone why. You might say, I agree with all your reasoning and reject all your conclusions. You really didn't address any of the points I made in my last post. If you want to continue this discussion (which I'm happy to do) then go back to my last post, re-read it and carefully think about each and every sentence and why I may have written that sentence. When you write your reply, remember this: 8 hours a day 5 days a week I work at the cutting edge of my science. You are never going to convince me by appealing to science.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 16:53
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

CV, I can reply to your entire post in one sentence:

The way I see it, that's what your doing.


Despite trying to go through this with you, you still seem to struggle to grasp what I believe let alone why. You might say, I agree with all your reasoning and reject all your conclusions. You really didn't address any of the points I made in my last post. If you want to continue this discussion (which I'm happy to do) then go back to my last post, re-read it and carefully think about each and every sentence and why I may have written that sentence. When you write your reply, remember this: 8 hours a day 5 days a week I work at the cutting edge of my science. You are never going to convince me by appealing to science.

 
Omar, I sense you edging towards the back door- again! When one's arguements take on the flavour of Tis so! Tis so! I suspect retreat is imminent. A careful rereading of the posts shows replies to your points- although not ones you might like to hear. At any rate, let's revisit it.
 
You use the word fantasy in order to emphasize your point- summed up above- that there is really no difference between science and religion- ulitimately, they are just stories that one can pick and choose, depending on personal taste. But the definition of fantasy is a notion or a production of something clearly not real- made up. If you build a bridge, do you produce something curious and fantastic in shape, but not something that will stand traffic? Of course not- you rely on the science generations before you have developed. There is endless evidence that the products of scientific enquiry are actually real. And again, I mean this in a pragmatic sense- I accept the philosophical musings that we may not really be here at all, etc. I'm not rejecting philosophy as a discussion, but arguing the case of trying to see the universe as it actually is, to the best of our ability.
 
It is disingeneous to accept the vast amount of knowledge science has proved in our immediate environment, but then argue that that still outside the bubble must be magic. In ancient times lightning was outside the bubble, and thought to be magic. To argue that today would bring scorn and sanction. Today the exact workings of the universe are still outside the bubble, yet as knowledge advances, magic retreats in precise lockstep. See a pattern here? As humans, we feel a need to fill in the blank spaces, so as to feel more comfortable. The fillings inevitability reflect human projection, but as more objective evidence arises, we find that the universe just is as it is- often much more fantastic than previously concieved, and often quite divorced from human needs or desires. Some theories have been relatively well documented. You are not going to walk into a nuclear reactor without some radiation protection- very few would dispute the findings of science here, and religious regulation is, of course, silent on the subject. If one accepts the methods here, but rejects them when the issue is more tenuous, although the  methodology the same, one has to ask if personal bias is coming into play. Science itself allows that some theories are more solid than others- no reputable scientists would argue that your "multiverse" theory is beyond reproach, although some may well offer evidence that is open to criticism and review.
 
By the way Omar, unless you are working in a research function, you are not doing science per se, but working in the technology sector, as very many others are today. In either case, what we are talking about here is very basic principle: rational enquiry versus mysticism. It's a topic I'm sure many on this forum, and elsewhere, are familiar with.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 09:56

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:


You use the word fantasy in order to emphasize your point- summed up above- that there is really no difference between science and religion- ulitimately, they are just stories that one can pick and choose, depending on personal taste.
... And again, I mean this in a pragmatic sense- I accept the philosophical musings that we may not really be here at all, etc


No no no! That is the exact opposite of my point.

My point is that religion and science are totally unrelated. Like fish and a floor tile.
They are not opposites, it's not one or the other, they are not the same, they are not in conflict. In the very rare case they overlap, we can use science to better understand religion.

Assuming I've been consistant, I've only ever mentioned science in two contexts:
1) To debunk a religious belief you have about science.
2) In philosophical musings about how people learn - which was lirelou's point that I'd be happy to ignore for the moment to avoid confusion.

They are definitely not stories that you can just pick & choose. If I've attacked you on a point about science it's because what you were saying was not scientific, it was religious.

Quote It is disingeneous to accept the vast amount of knowledge science has proved in our immediate environment, but then argue that that still outside the bubble must be magic.

I agree with most of what you say in this paragraph. It's a case of "I agree with all your reasoning and reject all your conclusions".
My point of contention is something that you implied as given and didn't say. Basically, your paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Your concept that religion is a magical explaination for things outside the bubble could not be further from what I believe.
I do not believe in a 'God of the gaps', and to do so would be a heresy. Allah is a permeating, creative force, fully integrated into the natural world that is present in all things (& non-things) known and unknown. Every decision, every idea, every stone, every formula, every event whether deterministic, random, or stochastic. In your free will, in the decay of every atom, in your choice to wait 5 minutes. In everything. Divorced from human needs or desires.
I reject supernatural magic as superstition. I reject intelligent design as both unscientific and heresy.
Quote As humans, we feel a need to fill in the blank spaces, so as to feel more comfortable.

This is the bit I don't agree with. Because it is a unscientific religious belief (See point 1 above).

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 10:17
Maybe it'd be easier if you think of me (& orthodox Islam) as an atheist + a permeating, natural, creative force rather than religious.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 11:11
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I reject supernatural magic as superstition. I reject intelligent design as both unscientific and heresy.
 
Just be aware of that the concept of heresy is just an unscientific way to dismiss thoughts or teachings that you do not like, or that you disagree with. Heresy is a limiting concept that can lead to cesorship and limitations of the free thought. 

Quote As humans, we feel a need to fill in the blank spaces, so as to feel more comfortable.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

This is the bit I don't agree with. Because it is a unscientific religious belief (See point 1 above).
 
It does not have to be so. There is something called psycology which can explain (or at least tries to expalin) some of our beliefs and behaviours.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 11:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Science can't answers what man is, why is here in the world, what is the universe for, what is the destiny of mankind, what is justice, why there is so much suffering in the world, is there life beyond death, was there life before been born, what is right and what is wrong, etc. etc. These questions are endless and science won't answer them and it will never do.
 
Well, science can at least provide some credible hypotheses that can explain many of these phenomena. Some of those hypotheses are more credible than old religious stories.


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Besides, sacred books may not contain the final truth (God), but they have something very valuable for people: advice, sympathy, humanity. If you don't know that, try to read the Bible once, perhaps the Psalms, and I bet you will find there knowledge that you never suspected. You will find the same kind of knowledge in the Vedas, the Torah, the Koran, and even in the traditional folk religious traditions all over the world.
 
At the same time sacred books also limits peoples thoughts and imagination and can lead to opression.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 17:33
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Well, science can at least provide some credible hypotheses that can explain many of these phenomena. Some of those hypotheses are more credible than old religious stories.
No it can't. I'm guessing you do not understand what science is, as otherwise you wouldn't make the statement. You can't actually test any of those things and thus it's not scientific to speculate about the answers.< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 17:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:


You use the word fantasy in order to emphasize your point- summed up above- that there is really no difference between science and religion- ulitimately, they are just stories that one can pick and choose, depending on personal taste.
... And again, I mean this in a pragmatic sense- I accept the philosophical musings that we may not really be here at all, etc


No no no! That is the exact opposite of my point.

My point is that religion and science are totally unrelated. Like fish and a floor tile.
They are not opposites, it's not one or the other, they are not the same, they are not in conflict. In the very rare case they overlap, we can use science to better understand religion.

Assuming I've been consistant, I've only ever mentioned science in two contexts:
1) To debunk a religious belief you have about science.
2) In philosophical musings about how people learn - which was lirelou's point that I'd be happy to ignore for the moment to avoid confusion.

They are definitely not stories that you can just pick & choose. If I've attacked you on a point about science it's because what you were saying was not scientific, it was religious.

 
But science and religion do come into conflict. The limited, pre-science societial view of the universe has been continuously pushed back by new information, very often to the extreme discomfort and even anger of the religious establishments of the day. When one says that in some cases, it is acceptable to just believe whatever is written, but in others one must be rigorous in testing, there is clearly going to be areas of conflict.
 
You view my concept of science as religion, but it is actually the polar opposite. Look at it this way. If some religious scholar announced that all this business about Mohammed and God has been overturned by new evidence, so stop those latest editions of the Koran, because they may be going into the waste bin, how do you think this news would be taken- in Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh? Anger and rage would explode, because what we are really talking about here is subconscious need, not detached curiousity about the universe. Yet this sort of reversal goes on all the time in the scientific community.
 
When I say science, I don't mean some dogmatic slavery to some worldview, but the attempts, using the best methods available, to really see the universe as it is, imperfect as they may be.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote It is disingeneous to accept the vast amount of knowledge science has proved in our immediate environment, but then argue that that still outside the bubble must be magic.

I agree with most of what you say in this paragraph. It's a case of "I agree with all your reasoning and reject all your conclusions".
My point of contention is something that you implied as given and didn't say. Basically, your paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Your concept that religion is a magical explaination for things outside the bubble could not be further from what I believe.
I do not believe in a 'God of the gaps', and to do so would be a heresy. Allah is a permeating, creative force, fully integrated into the natural world that is present in all things (& non-things) known and unknown. Every decision, every idea, every stone, every formula, every event whether deterministic, random, or stochastic. In your free will, in the decay of every atom, in your choice to wait 5 minutes. In everything. Divorced from human needs or desires.
I reject supernatural magic as superstition. I reject intelligent design as both unscientific and heresy.
 
 
The Arc Angel Gabriel descended from  heaven to reveal the important bits about the universe to Mohammed. Yes of course, happens all the time. Gabby was around here just the other day, to have a word about my blasphemy, and the size of my grog ration.
 
Some of Gabriel's buds were sent down from heaven to scoop up some dirt, and bring it back to God so he could fashion the first human from it (in present day form, of course). This mud-man (and woman) were placed in paradise, but they disobeyed Him, and so were chucked out. Pretty thin skinned for an all knowing, omnipotent being, was it not? Counsellors would call that external gratification- the dependence on others for one's own sense of well being.
 
If life skills are not God's strong point, clearly productivity is. He created the world in six days. If only GM could land Him as a consultant.
 
We could go on here Omar, but here is the thing: If one subscribes to religion, they subscribe to magic. One can either come clean with it, or do what so many do in modern times, and rationalize endlessly. They will say- yes the Bible/Koran/Torah says this, but what God really meant to say was this- and then they will update said narratives in light of modern scientific thought, and accepted modern cultural norms. Rather arrogant really, isn't it? To profess to know the mind of God better than those that wrote the book? And to alter those sacred texts?
 
Magical thinking is the process of accepting that outside of reasonably known reality for the purpose of gratifying existential needs. Many, many people do it, for various reasons.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote As humans, we feel a need to fill in the blank spaces, so as to feel more comfortable.

This is the bit I don't agree with. Because it is a unscientific religious belief (See point 1 above).
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2012 at 22:11
Originally posted by DrewTheDude DrewTheDude wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

All religions are a pile of man made crap piles. Religion is a tool to control the gullible and motivate the weak for war.  A tool for men to control women, Islam being the best example. A tool for the con artists to rip off the empty hearts and the lonely. The list is endless.  The opium of the people may be the only thing Marx got right.

I seriously hope you're joking....

When I'm joking, you will know it.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 10:20

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:


But science and religion do come into conflict. The limited, pre-science societial view of the universe has been continuously pushed back by new information, very often to the extreme discomfort and even anger of the religious establishments of the day. When one says that in some cases, it is acceptable to just believe whatever is written, but in others one must be rigorous in testing, there is clearly going to be areas of conflict.

In your worldview and your religion, this may be true. But for the vast majority of people in the world I can't say anything other that this simply isn't true.

Historically the positioning of science and religion as opposites came out of the religious wars of 17th century Europe. There were those who, quite rightfully so, saw the atrocities of the 17th century conducted in the name of the various churches as appaling. They turned to science as a way arriving at a secular truth that was niether Catholic nor Protestant. This idea has propagated and grown through the last 3 centuries, but remains confined to those European & descendent cultures that were affected by those wars. To different cultures, the idea that science and religion conflict is entirely perplexing.

I started this argument in the orginal thread because you made a broad sweeping comment belittling the religious beliefs of cultures other than your own on the basis of a pseudo-scientifc (or religo-scientific) psycological explaination. I don't hope and wouldn't try to change your religious beliefs, but it would be nice if you recognised that your views of science and religion are basically a quirk of white cultures and everyone else, be they Chrisitan Africans, Muslims, or Hindus, doesn't buy into the conflict thesis.

Quote You view my concept of science as religion, but it is actually the polar opposite. Look at it this way. If some religious scholar announced that all this business about Mohammed and God has been overturned by new evidence, so stop those latest editions of the Koran, because they may be going into the waste bin, how do you think this news would be taken- in Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh? Anger and rage would explode, because what we are really talking about here is subconscious need, not detached curiousity about the universe. Yet this sort of reversal goes on all the time in the scientific community.

Who cares? Science is not religion. They operate differently.
Quote The Arc Angel Gabriel descended from  heaven to reveal the important bits about the universe to Mohammed. Yes of course, happens all the time. Gabby was around here just the other day, to have a word about my blasphemy, and the size of my grog ration.
 
Some of Gabriel's buds were sent down from heaven to scoop up some dirt, and bring it back to God so he could fashion the first human from it (in present day form, of course). This mud-man (and woman) were placed in paradise, but they disobeyed Him, and so were chucked out. Pretty thin skinned for an all knowing, omnipotent being, was it not? Counsellors would call that external gratification- the dependence on others for one's own sense of well being.
 
If life skills are not God's strong point, clearly productivity is. He created the world in six days. If only GM could land Him as a consultant.
 
We could go on here Omar, but here is the thing: If one subscribes to religion, they subscribe to magic. One can either come clean with it, or do what so many do in modern times, and rationalize endlessly. They will say- yes the Bible/Koran/Torah says this, but what God really meant to say was this- and then they will update said narratives in light of modern scientific thought, and accepted modern cultural norms. Rather arrogant really, isn't it? To profess to know the mind of God better than those that wrote the book? And to alter those sacred texts?
 
Magical thinking is the process of accepting that outside of reasonably known reality for the purpose of gratifying existential needs. Many, many people do it, for various reasons.

Magic is merely science we do not understand.

If you take any story or fact, reduce it to a cartoonish form, ignore all the key elements of that story, and then scrutinise it, no wonder it sounds silly. If you applied a bit of scientific displine, if I may use the term, to your analysis and critism you'll discover that very little of what you wrote stacks up to historical scrutiny. The only religious doctrines that have been challenged by science are some radical protestant views that are pretty new anyway. In the case of Islam, the original teachings stack up freakishly well. Indeed, the accuracy of the original teachings in light of modern science is a primary reason cited by many converts for their conversion.

Nevertheless, we do believe in things that can't be measured "Believe in the Unseen". It is a key part of our faith. You believe in magic too, you just don't recognise it and pretend it's science when it's not. At least I'm honest with myself.

And please, either provide proof for this existential need crap or stop talking about it. Otherwise I'll start explaining away your beliefs with pseudo-scientific explainations too.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 14 Jun 2012 at 10:24
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 10:25
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I reject supernatural magic as superstition. I reject intelligent design as both unscientific and heresy.
 
Just be aware of that the concept of heresy is just an unscientific way to dismiss thoughts or teachings that you do not like, or that you disagree with. Heresy is a limiting concept that can lead to cesorship and limitations of the free thought. 
True actually.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 12:12
Magic doesn't contrast with science. Magic contrasts with engineering (technology if you like). Magic and engineering have the same goals but different techniques.

Religion contrasts with science. Both have the same goals, but different techniques.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 12:35
The same goal? Science doesn't care for human spirit, life after death or anything humans care. Science cares about the military industry, the price of the medicine they are developing, the Nobel prize, the next academic contract and how good looks the statue of Saint Einstein.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 15:06
I assume that's not serious.

Science and religion both seek understanding, relief from uncertainty, an alternative to chaos. Both provide emotional satisfaction and sense of community.

That's what they seek, not of course necessarily what they achieve.

Magic and engineering (including such areas as medicine) both seek to control the environment. On the whole engineers do better than wizards.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 02:07
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:


But science and religion do come into conflict. The limited, pre-science societial view of the universe has been continuously pushed back by new information, very often to the extreme discomfort and even anger of the religious establishments of the day. When one says that in some cases, it is acceptable to just believe whatever is written, but in others one must be rigorous in testing, there is clearly going to be areas of conflict.

In your worldview and your religion, this may be true. But for the vast majority of people in the world I can't say anything other that this simply isn't true.

Historically the positioning of science and religion as opposites came out of the religious wars of 17th century Europe. There were those who, quite rightfully so, saw the atrocities of the 17th century conducted in the name of the various churches as appaling. They turned to science as a way arriving at a secular truth that was niether Catholic nor Protestant. This idea has propagated and grown through the last 3 centuries, but remains confined to those European & descendent cultures that were affected by those wars. To different cultures, the idea that science and religion conflict is entirely perplexing.

I started this argument in the orginal thread because you made a broad sweeping comment belittling the religious beliefs of cultures other than your own on the basis of a pseudo-scientifc (or religo-scientific) psycological explaination. I don't hope and wouldn't try to change your religious beliefs, but it would be nice if you recognised that your views of science and religion are basically a quirk of white cultures and everyone else, be they Chrisitan Africans, Muslims, or Hindus, doesn't buy into the conflict thesis.

 
Perplexing? That science would question the idea of an all powerful being, that sounds all too human (see my reference to thin skinned above), and is presumably male- an odd coincidence coming from male dominated societies eh? And one that created the universe in a few days, and created all life in a similarly productive fashion, with no reference to evolution. Evolution wasn't understood at the time of writing the narratives in question, but of course apologists will no doubt update the word of God in order to keep abreast. You're trying to dump this all onto Christians, who are guilty, but they are not alone in this sort of thinking.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote You view my concept of science as religion, but it is actually the polar opposite. Look at it this way. If some religious scholar announced that all this business about Mohammed and God has been overturned by new evidence, so stop those latest editions of the Koran, because they may be going into the waste bin, how do you think this news would be taken- in Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh? Anger and rage would explode, because what we are really talking about here is subconscious need, not detached curiousity about the universe. Yet this sort of reversal goes on all the time in the scientific community.

Who cares? Science is not religion. They operate differently.
 
 
They certainly do. But the reason you should care is that nothing is fixed, and clinging to fixed ideas that originated centuries ago is not likely to lead to an understanding of the universe, or a rational view of our role, if we have one, in it. Human imperitives will continue, even if debate is stifled. Without transparency and attempts to understand the rationale behind things, narratives can be hijacked for dysfunctional purpose. In fact, this has pretty much been the history of religion.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The Arc Angel Gabriel descended from  heaven to reveal the important bits about the universe to Mohammed. Yes of course, happens all the time. Gabby was around here just the other day, to have a word about my blasphemy, and the size of my grog ration.
 
Some of Gabriel's buds were sent down from heaven to scoop up some dirt, and bring it back to God so he could fashion the first human from it (in present day form, of course). This mud-man (and woman) were placed in paradise, but they disobeyed Him, and so were chucked out. Pretty thin skinned for an all knowing, omnipotent being, was it not? Counsellors would call that external gratification- the dependence on others for one's own sense of well being.
 
If life skills are not God's strong point, clearly productivity is. He created the world in six days. If only GM could land Him as a consultant.
 
We could go on here Omar, but here is the thing: If one subscribes to religion, they subscribe to magic. One can either come clean with it, or do what so many do in modern times, and rationalize endlessly. They will say- yes the Bible/Koran/Torah says this, but what God really meant to say was this- and then they will update said narratives in light of modern scientific thought, and accepted modern cultural norms. Rather arrogant really, isn't it? To profess to know the mind of God better than those that wrote the book? And to alter those sacred texts?
 
Magical thinking is the process of accepting that outside of reasonably known reality for the purpose of gratifying existential needs. Many, many people do it, for various reasons.

Magic is merely science we do not understand.
 
No, science we do not understand may appear to be magic, but it is not. It simply is what it is; something that may cause awe and wonder in us, but is simply a part of the universe we do not understand.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

If you take any story or fact, reduce it to a cartoonish form, ignore all the key elements of that story, and then scrutinise it, no wonder it sounds silly. If you applied a bit of scientific displine, if I may use the term, to your analysis and critism you'll discover that very little of what you wrote stacks up to historical scrutiny. The only religious doctrines that have been challenged by science are some radical protestant views that are pretty new anyway. In the case of Islam, the original teachings stack up freakishly well. Indeed, the accuracy of the original teachings in light of modern science is a primary reason cited by many converts for their conversion.

 
What stacks up? That the world was created in six days? Or that humans were created from different colored bits of dirt, delivered to God by angels? I reduced nothing, but merely produced outtakes from the Koran. What has changed, and is continuing to change, is the religious narrative that is being updated by contemporary adherents so that it doesn't sound completely ludicrous in light of present day knowledge. And while we are on the subject of stacking up, women are not allowed to officiate at religious institutions in Islam, is this not so? Women must cover up and not show their bodies, yes? Pork- we don't want to talk about that, or see it on the table. All  this also stacks up with scientific knowledge? These are of course rhetorical questions, because all these beliefs stem from mythology and pre-scientific beliefs, as do the creation myths.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
Nevertheless, we do believe in things that can't be measured "Believe in the Unseen". It is a key part of our faith. You believe in magic too, you just don't recognise it and pretend it's science when it's not. At least I'm honest with myself.
 
 
Now you are starting to come around Omar! Of course the religious must believe in the unseen, because if they demanded reasonable evidence, the house of cards would start to shift dangerously.
 
Of course there are things unseen, and perhaps things unmeasureable by the way we understand that term now. But here is the difference between  religion and science: the former uses the unknown to project human fears and needs, creating a human-centric mythology that is satisfying and comprehensive, although not grounded in reality to any great extent. Science acknowledges the unseen is there, and says, let's try and see it if possible. If not, we don't need to write a novel.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

And please, either provide proof for this existential need crap or stop talking about it. Otherwise I'll start explaining away your beliefs with pseudo-scientific explainations too.

 
Here is the easy part. Go down to your local library or university book store, and ask for a psych 101 text book. There should be something there on the topic. Or better yet, go down to your local used car dealership, and ask a salesman about the tactics he uses to get people to visualize all the things they need. He (or she) may not have the scientific terms for it, but if a good salesman, will have some applications down pat. People have deep rooted fears and desires, and over time these have been tapped with extraodinary success by salesmen, politicians, advertisers, and....the church.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.