Everyone should try to understand each others positions in faith. Remember we can't go back and cross examine any of the authors of 99% of the faiths in the world, they're all dead. This is why they call it a faith, you need to have faith that the text you are reading is truth or sound guidance, discernment is your only ally.
Many people forget the Mediterranean Sea is surrounded by more countries and cultural diversity than anywhere else in the world. Roll back 2 millennial and you had a plethora of religions all vying for dominance. Nations believed they had good crops, won wars, on the blessing of a god(s). They believed earthquakes, pestilence, floods etc. were the result of a god(s) wrath. So having a god(s) favor was pretty important back then to explain the otherwise unexplainable. They didn't have satellites, nor did they understand what caused weather patterns, lightning, lunar eclipses, or why some people suddenly fell ill and died.
I don't know what made Islam grow but I do know Christianity grew from the the message or should I say threat of Christ, for example:
Jesus Insurance
Jesus loves you unconditionally and wants you with him, however you cannot be saved and are doomed to mortality, UNLESS you get your Jesus insurance policy! You MUST have your Jesus insurance policy at all times and operate under the terms and conditions of the bible or your salvation might be canceled along with the promise of eternal life.
Car Insurance
The GEICO chameleon loves unconditionally and wants you with him, however you cannot drive without car insurance and are doomed to walking or the bus, UNLESS you get an auto insurance policy! You MUST have your auto insurance policy at all times and operate under the terms and conditions of the agreement or your policy might be canceled along with your driving privileges.
You see like auto insurance, Christianity uses a close ended sales pitch wielding the fear of loss to get you to buy, you're threatened with the uncertainty of not having eternal life. The only product available to give you certainty and returned confidence is the Jesus plan. You want to drive your car without the risk of going to jail for driving illegally don't you? Well then, you need to get this auto insurance to do that and give you the peace of mind you need.
Fear of loss is a powerful sales tool, it's up to you to decide if your going to believe the sales pitch or not. Oh Christians will say that is an unfair comparison but if you press them on the points, they will admit that is the message while trying to deny the message is a threat, but in reality it really is.
Unfortunately, there are a number of people dragging down this conversation to an unacceptable level. If you guys can't be mature about this discussion, it will have to end.
In science you really have 4 main levels in the scientific method: a statement, hypothesis, theory, and a law. So let's go through each level, shall we?
You have a statement. A statement does not require anything for it be true. It does not even need background information, or common sense. It could be absent of all logic and still be a statement. A statement is simple an idea that pops in ones head, like that spaghetti is ruling the Earth. Religion falls into this category, since it does not follow any science. It is just an idea.
Next you have a hypothesis. A hypothesis is when you start to enter the realm of science. A hypothesis takes common sense and background knowledge to make a statement plausible. A hypothesis can be taken seriously in the world of science, but it is merely a suggestion. For example, I can say that the cat is made of hair balls because whenever it spits, it spits out hair balls. This is a hypothesis.
Next, you get a theory. A theory is a non disproved hypothesis. In other words, it can be bent if there are counter evidence against it, but it widely known to be true because of overwhelming evidence for it and mathematical proof. Evolution is in this area, because it is known to be true because of fossilization records (transition and prehistoric) and genetics. Theories can be bent and changed, like it did with the geocentric theory. People back then made logical ideas and had overwhelming evidence that the Earth was at the center of the universe (though the scientific method was not around back then). However, when Galileo came around, he disproved the theory and and now in modern days, we now know that it is a natural law, which is our last step.
A natural law is something that cannot be disproved, because it is a fact. We know it is a fact because there is no way it can be not be otherwise. We know the Earth is a sphere because we have seen it with our own eyes. We know that Earth is not not at the center of the universe because of our mathematical equations and astronomical observations. A natural law is, and always is in our universe.
And this is why religion cannot be taken seriously in science, and is not being taught in our schools (public). It is merely a statement explaining the universe using magic.
Ah but as you see, if the axis was at the Earth, the entire Milky Way would be distorted, and we would be in the center of it, not on the edge. It is not possible for the Earth to be in the center of the universe. Gravity, general relativity, and almost all the other laws do not allow it to be so. (I know we are talking hypothetically, as we both do not believe so).
And I also know that the Earth is technically not a sphere, but for argument's sake, let's just say it is from now on.
Natural Laws are facts in the physical universe. We take them as granted because they undisputed and there is no question that they are not real. It is possible that evolution isn't real (very small chance), so we call it a theory. The scientific method is simple yet complex on how it works to take things into consideration. Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc know this and make sure to minimize errors.
A natural law is something that cannot be disproved, because it is a fact. We know it is a fact because there is no way it can be not be otherwise. We know the Earth is a sphere because we have seen it with our own eyes. We know that Earth is not not at the center of the universe because of our mathematical equations and astronomical observations. A natural law is, and always is in our universe.
Imagine you lived in the pre-Einstein era. Wouldn't Newton laws be conidered natural laws? I mean, every single observation so far followed it's rules. They discovered new planets in the solar system using the Newton laws (some unexplained variations in the known planets' orbit led the scientist to realize there had to be a considerable mass nearby that caused those movements, they looked there and BANG! Neptune was discovered) And yet, they are not fact, not according any modern physics theory. It's interesting to notice that Newton's laws were the last theories baptized as "laws". No theory since then has recieved the title of "law", in fear it would also be wrong (General relativity theory, quantum theory, string theory, they are all "theories")
And also, shape depends on the observer. To someone travelling at a speed close to that of light Earth would look similar to this. So Earth is not a sphere, at least not to all observers. And mathematical equations don't disprove that Earth is the centre of the universe. It's just that there are other ways to visualize the universe that are much more practical. You could calculate anything taking the Earth as the centre of the universe, and if you do your maths correctly, you would get to the same results. It would be a pain in the ass, and really stupid to do, but it's possible.
And this is why religion cannot be taken seriously IN SCIENCE, and is not being taught in our schools (public). It is merely a statement explaining the universe using magic.
No, not in science. But science is a relatively new way to obtain knowledge, there have been plenty of others in the course of history, including religion. None of them is absolute or 100% correct, not even science.
Science is too many things to try to put it in a little box and file it away in your brain. The scientific method, which is, in my opinion, what science is, is completely independent of any established secular beliefs. It is simply a way of analyzing the world.
Then there's culturally-accepted science, the kind that's flailed in our faces as dogma. From a secular person's point of view, of course, he or she will be championing truth, and so firmly believe that their beliefs are what everyone should be forced to learn. That's the same way the Catholic Church approached it, the same way the Church of England approached it. It's still the same way every religion approaches it. If you're not religious, or don't know much about religion, you will not be able to understand this. If you think you know religion from an objective point of view, you will not be able to understand this. Until your heart bleeds for religious people, you will not understand this.
There is no objective way of viewing religion. You are either with it or against it, and the way you talk about it, the way you write about it, and the way you use umbrella terms to define the incredibly complex and diverse parts of a religion or religious groups show your bias and your inability to understand that simple fact. To a religious person, you are the same as a Crusader was to "primitive" cultures in its time. Until you understand that as a fact, you will not be able to say jack shit about religion in any objective manner.
This is not to say that I do not respect heavily-validated and tested scientific theories, or that I do not believe them as true. It simply means that most of you are viewing religion from a western, secular, scientific point of view in which religion is stupid, ignorant, and closed-minded. In their opinions, their own prophecies, their own spiritual laws, and their own spiritual observations are as concrete and heavily-validated as any scientific law, and you, the western, secular person of "scientific" belief are the ignorant, stupid, closed-minded individual.
If you read all of that and swallowed hard, you understand it. If you didn't, you still have a long way to go before you are open-minded, period. Understanding this will change your diction, your attitude, and your reverence. Not that you will be religious, or even spiritual, but that you will understand that for thousands of years, billions of people have studied, memorized, experienced, tested, validated, and even died for what they view as scientific truth. Yes, that was an ironic sentence.
So, in the same way that an art historian uses the word "primitive," I now use "science" to describe modern scientific belief.
Now, by the same token, the reverse is also true for the religious. This does not mean that it's wrong for them to try to convince you that their religion is right; let's face it, every person that believes anything wants everyone to believe what he or she does. That's only to say that equal reverence should be given to the more modern beliefs of the secular world.
I believe in science, and I support it. I believe in most of "science." I do not believe in bigotry on either part.
If someone comes up to me and says (since I'm just an American, I can't really think of any other good-bye that's religiously-related than this one, sorry), "God bless!" I will give them all the respect and admiration I would to someone who came by and said, "You should check this book out on relativity, it was mind-blowing!"
Why? Because both of them, out of the goodness of their hearts, shared with me their most intimate paradigms. I didn't have to ask for it. It was a gift and should be accepted, unwrapped, and admired as such. In their minds, they've shared with me something infinitely important, something they believe will make my life better.
That's my take.
And in case you read the first sentence of my second paragraph and started burning inside with hatred for me, that was inductive. Which is to say, I ironically turned what is the norm (IE, religious dogma) on its head so you would understand what I'm saying. I was not saying that all scientific theory and law is dogma. I understand there are many here who would not think of that first time reading it, so I explained it here.
Science is too many things to try to put it in a little box and file it away in your brain. The scientific method, which is, in my opinion, what science is, is completely independent of any established secular beliefs. It is simply a way of analyzing the world.
Then there's culturally-accepted science, the kind that's flailed in our faces as dogma. From a secular person's point of view, of course, he or she will be championing truth, and so firmly believe that their beliefs are what everyone should be forced to learn. That's the same way the Catholic Church approached it, the same way the Church of England approached it. It's still the same way every religion approaches it. If you're not religious, or don't know much about religion, you will not be able to understand this. If you think you know religion from an objective point of view, you will not be able to understand this. Until your heart bleeds for religious people, you will not understand this.
There is no objective way of viewing religion. You are either with it or against it, and the way you talk about it, the way you write about it, and the way you use umbrella terms to define the incredibly complex and diverse parts of a religion or religious groups show your bias and your inability to understand that simple fact. To a religious person, you are the same as a Crusader was to "primitive" cultures in its time. Until you understand that as a fact, you will not be able to say jack shit about religion in any objective manner.
This is not to say that I do not respect heavily-validated and tested scientific theories, or that I do not believe them as true. It simply means that most of you are viewing religion from a western, secular, scientific point of view in which religion is stupid, ignorant, and closed-minded. In their opinions, their own prophecies, their own spiritual laws, and their own spiritual observations are as concrete and heavily-validated as any scientific law, and you, the western, secular person of "scientific" belief are the ignorant, stupid, closed-minded individual.
If you read all of that and swallowed hard, you understand it. If you didn't, you still have a long way to go before you are open-minded, period. Understanding this will change your diction, your attitude, and your reverence. Not that you will be religious, or even spiritual, but that you will understand that for thousands of years, billions of people have studied, memorized, experienced, tested, validated, and even died for what they view as scientific truth. Yes, that was an ironic sentence.
So, in the same way that an art historian uses the word "primitive," I now use "science" to describe modern scientific belief.
Now, by the same token, the reverse is also true for the religious. This does not mean that it's wrong for them to try to convince you that their religion is right; let's face it, every person that believes anything wants everyone to believe what he or she does. That's only to say that equal reverence should be given to the more modern beliefs of the secular world.
I believe in science, and I support it. I believe in most of "science." I do not believe in bigotry on either part.
If someone comes up to me and says (since I'm just an American, I can't really think of any other good-bye that's religiously-related than this one, sorry), "God bless!" I will give them all the respect and admiration I would to someone who came by and said, "You should check this book out on relativity, it was mind-blowing!"
Why? Because both of them, out of the goodness of their hearts, shared with me their most intimate paradigms. I didn't have to ask for it. It was a gift and should be accepted, unwrapped, and admired as such. In their minds, they've shared with me something infinitely important, something they believe will make my life better.
That's my take.
And in case you read the first sentence of my second paragraph and started burning inside with hatred for me, that was inductive. Which is to say, I ironically turned what is the norm (IE, religious dogma) on its head so you would understand what I'm saying. I was not saying that all scientific theory and law is dogma. I understand there are many here who would not think of that first time reading it, so I explained it here.
I have to comment on this.
This is perhaps one of the beautiful passages I've ever read regarding both views of intelligence. I agree with you in almost all the areas of your post (I can't find one, but if I reread it a fifth time I might find one small tiny thing). Perhaps it's because that the news nowadays views Christians as close-minded people, and we have people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ben Stein, venomfangx (famous youtube preacher), and nephilimfree (another youtube preacher), who all are extremely ignorant psychopathic people.
Yet I have seen religion do amazing things. Spiritually, it helps you feel uplifted and have motivation to life. Your morale is raised, and in those instances where depression has really left you near suicide, the motivation of living done by religion is something that science can never do.
I know that we are Western culture, where are free to think because we are not dealing with the poverty that is taking place in most of the world. However, since we are in a Western first world country, it allows, like just said, more thinking. The instability of third world countries and the constant poverty and struggle are breeding grounds for religious beliefs of all kinds. There are still tribes in Africa that believe in elemental spirits. There is no time to really stop and think "Perhaps there is no God after all..." The quality of life there has not improved since times of no modern medicine (exaggeration).
However, in our Western first world country, we are comparable to the Golden Age of Athens, which allowed for much deeper philosophy (which still are taken seriously even today). We start to question that simple go to answer that is "God must have done it." We now look into a more real and scientific answer to our unknowns, or we would still be throwing people into ovens to sweat out their viruses.
I'll throw a question; what makes religious people ignore clear evidence to the contrary based on faith alone? Such as f.e. young earth creationism.
These people amuse me, a lot. I can only assume it's the defensive mechanism of rationalization taken to the extreme. I'll leave it at that so as not to offend anybody.
I'll throw a question; what makes religious people ignore clear evidence to the contrary based on faith alone? Such as f.e. young earth creationism.
These people amuse me, a lot. I can only assume it's the defensive mechanism of rationalization taken to the extreme. I'll leave it at that so as not to offend anybody.
Well most Christians believe in scientific Earth creation (6 billion years old) so that's not really a discussion here, and if it is, many of our bloods will boil so let's just stay away from that.
You know my view on it. As a Pearlistic Atheist, I have no time for Religion. Science is what ruled the Earth as round, what ruled the Earth as 4.5 billion years old, what ruled the universe to be ever expanding, and what ruled the existence of atoms, quarks, and strings.
And don't take anything I said offensively. If I mean it offensively, I'll let you know.
You know my view on it. As a Pearlistic Atheist, I have no time for Religion. Science is what ruled the Earth as flat, what ruled the Earth as 6 billion years old, what ruled the universe to be ever expanding, and what ruled the existence of atoms, quarks, and strings.
And don't take anything I said offensively. If I mean it offensively, I'll let you know.
Last I checked, the Earth is round.
(Compare and contrast, brah)
Earth is 4.5 billion years old, too. As a Pearlistic Atheist (whatever that is) you sure have a firm grasp on your science.
I prefer to talk about the origin of life as "I don't know".
I believe it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that evolution both works at all times AND that evolution was indeed the one and only possible mechanism for the origin of life.
I do not consider bacteria the same form of life, or life at all, as human, and I define life as constructs that have receptors(and I am almost never able to explain that to anybody), the presence of receptors in humans is what prevents me from believing that a more powerful being that created us does not exist, because the receptor seems to be entirely and absolutely out of scope of the physical reality we are aware of, nor does its generation at the point of creation of life as said by evolutionary theories seem logical.
In the end, I find philosophy superior to science when discussing that particular question.
I am not ditching absolutely all of evolution, or even evolution itself, merely saying that there will always be unanswered questions in it, it's impossible to prove, and it is not the only viable theory. Evolution is very easily simulated, very easily controlled as well, by anything that could have created us and our receptors.
I prefer to talk about the origin of life as "I don't know".
I believe it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that evolution both works at all times AND that evolution was indeed the one and only possible mechanism for the origin of life.
I do not consider bacteria the same form of life, or life at all, as human, and I define life as constructs that have receptors(and I am almost never able to explain that to anybody), the presence of receptors in humans is what prevents me from believing that a more powerful being that created us does not exist, because the receptor seems to be entirely and absolutely out of scope of the physical reality we are aware of, nor does its generation at the point of creation of life as said by evolutionary theories seem logical.
In the end, I find philosophy superior to science when discussing that particular question.
I am not ditching absolutely all of evolution, or even evolution itself, merely saying that there will always be unanswered questions in it, it's impossible to prove, and it is not the only viable theory. Evolution is very easily simulated, very easily controlled as well, by anything that could have created us and our receptors.
I<3 Equinox
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I prefer to talk about the origin of life as "I don't know".
I believe it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that evolution both works at all times AND that evolution was indeed the one and only possible mechanism for the origin of life.
I do not consider bacteria the same form of life, or life at all, as human, and I define life as constructs that have receptors(and I am almost never able to explain that to anybody), the presence of receptors in humans is what prevents me from believing that a more powerful being that created us does not exist, because the receptor seems to be entirely and absolutely out of scope of the physical reality we are aware of, nor does its generation at the point of creation of life as said by evolutionary theories seem logical.
In the end, I find philosophy superior to science when discussing that particular question.
I am not ditching absolutely all of evolution, or even evolution itself, merely saying that there will always be unanswered questions in it, it's impossible to prove, and it is not the only viable theory. Evolution is very easily simulated, very easily controlled as well, by anything that could have created us and our receptors.
But how can Bacteria not be life? I can understand if we are talking about bacteria of ancient times, but today's bacteria is quite advanced.
As for evolution, I don't think anyone is saying throw away the lab coats and celebrate, just that evolution is currently the best answer.
I prefer to talk about the origin of life as "I don't know".
I believe it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that evolution both works at all times AND that evolution was indeed the one and only possible mechanism for the origin of life.
I do not consider bacteria the same form of life, or life at all, as human, and I define life as constructs that have receptors(and I am almost never able to explain that to anybody), the presence of receptors in humans is what prevents me from believing that a more powerful being that created us does not exist, because the receptor seems to be entirely and absolutely out of scope of the physical reality we are aware of, nor does its generation at the point of creation of life as said by evolutionary theories seem logical.
In the end, I find philosophy superior to science when discussing that particular question.
I am not ditching absolutely all of evolution, or even evolution itself, merely saying that there will always be unanswered questions in it, it's impossible to prove, and it is not the only viable theory. Evolution is very easily simulated, very easily controlled as well, by anything that could have created us and our receptors.
yeah please explain what u mean by receptors. because bacteria have receptors, hell, even viruses have them. hell, even mad cow can be classified as a receptor.
help
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
yeah please explain what u mean by receptors. because bacteria have receptors, hell, even viruses have them. hell, even mad cow can be classified as a receptor.
Yeah it's not those kinds of receptors.
Probably the closest other word that there is to what I mean by receptor is the "soul" but I don't like using it due to the religious connotations it tends to have. It's sort of along the lines of "I think therefore I am" but I consider thinking a brain process and the receptor merely being subjected to it rather than having any control over it.
Receptors are a purely philosophical idea and is completely unprovable on the scientific level. The only person that can know receptors exist, is the person in question, and they can only know for sure that their own receptor exists. I can't prove to you that I have a receptor. From your stance I can be very good AI, and you have a receptor.
I define life vs non-life as having or not having the receptor. Without a receptor, you're a program. An organic, biological program that can reproduce and grow and fulfill all those biology 'life' requirements. I see no reason that Bacteria can't be a program. Honestly, I see no reason humans can't be a program, except the fact that I'm not a program, and I have little reason to believe that people around me are so different that they must all be programs.
If something has no receptor, it exists, it has specific responses to stimuli, and it acts a certain way, but there's nobody ever 'behind' its behavior. Because it's not alive. It doesn't feel pain because there's nothing there TO feel the pain, there's merely a brain that records stuff, calls it pain, and it sends back replies, there's no actual suffering involved there because there was never anything living to receive (hence 'receptor', maybe I should call it 'receiver') the pain. In other words, a robot cannot suffer. Someone with a receiver, someone alive, can.
Non-life can only be referred to as "it". NOBODY can ever say "I". Because there's no receiver with non-life.
Life can be referred to as "I" by the specific owner.
Does this makes absolutely any sense to you? Of course it doesn't.
ohhh i see. so when two songs are playing at the exact same time on 2 separate radio stations, its all just a glitch in the matrix...:P
no i kinda get it. you pretty much summed it up with descartes. you perceive the world through your eyes and your thoughts only type deal.
but what good does that do? theres a theory that goes something like we all wish to die from the moment we know we are alive, but we are scared of death so we avoid it. this seems almost as gloom as that. almost.
coolio.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Probably the closest other word that there is to what I mean by receptor is the "soul" but I don't like using it due to the religious connotations it tends to have. It's sort of along the lines of "I think therefore I am" but I consider thinking a brain process and the receptor merely being subjected to it rather than having any control over it.
Receptors are a purely philosophical idea and is completely unprovable on the scientific level. The only person that can know receptors exist, is the person in question, and they can only know for sure that their own receptor exists. I can't prove to you that I have a receptor. From your stance I can be very good AI, and you have a receptor.
I define life vs non-life as having or not having the receptor. Without a receptor, you're a program. An organic, biological program that can reproduce and grow and fulfill all those biology 'life' requirements. I see no reason that Bacteria can't be a program. Honestly, I see no reason humans can't be a program, except the fact that I'm not a program, and I have little reason to believe that people around me are so different that they must all be programs.
If something has no receptor, it exists, it has specific responses to stimuli, and it acts a certain way, but there's nobody ever 'behind' its behavior. Because it's not alive. It doesn't feel pain because there's nothing there TO feel the pain, there's merely a brain that records stuff, calls it pain, and it sends back replies, there's no actual suffering involved there because there was never anything living to receive (hence 'receptor', maybe I should call it 'receiver') the pain. In other words, a robot cannot suffer. Someone with a receiver, someone alive, can.
Non-life can only be referred to as "it". NOBODY can ever say "I". Because there's no receiver with non-life.
Life can be referred to as "I" by the specific owner.
Does this makes absolutely any sense to you? Of course it doesn't.
But then, would you consider something like a deer to be alive? It doesn't have the deepness to understand "I think therefore I am" or other such philosophical stuff. It feels pain, it knows hunger, but it doesn't have the deep thoughts that we humans do.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Many people forget the Mediterranean Sea is surrounded by more countries and cultural diversity than anywhere else in the world. Roll back 2 millennial and you had a plethora of religions all vying for dominance. Nations believed they had good crops, won wars, on the blessing of a god(s). They believed earthquakes, pestilence, floods etc. were the result of a god(s) wrath. So having a god(s) favor was pretty important back then to explain the otherwise unexplainable. They didn't have satellites, nor did they understand what caused weather patterns, lightning, lunar eclipses, or why some people suddenly fell ill and died.
I don't know what made Islam grow but I do know Christianity grew from the the message or should I say threat of Christ, for example:
You see like auto insurance, Christianity uses a close ended sales pitch wielding the fear of loss to get you to buy, you're threatened with the uncertainty of not having eternal life. The only product available to give you certainty and returned confidence is the Jesus plan. You want to drive your car without the risk of going to jail for driving illegally don't you? Well then, you need to get this auto insurance to do that and give you the peace of mind you need.
Fear of loss is a powerful sales tool, it's up to you to decide if your going to believe the sales pitch or not. Oh Christians will say that is an unfair comparison but if you press them on the points, they will admit that is the message while trying to deny the message is a threat, but in reality it really is.
Thread locked.
Diablo III Analyst
SC2Mapster
Here is my view on evolution:
In science you really have 4 main levels in the scientific method: a statement, hypothesis, theory, and a law. So let's go through each level, shall we?
You have a statement. A statement does not require anything for it be true. It does not even need background information, or common sense. It could be absent of all logic and still be a statement. A statement is simple an idea that pops in ones head, like that spaghetti is ruling the Earth. Religion falls into this category, since it does not follow any science. It is just an idea.
Next you have a hypothesis. A hypothesis is when you start to enter the realm of science. A hypothesis takes common sense and background knowledge to make a statement plausible. A hypothesis can be taken seriously in the world of science, but it is merely a suggestion. For example, I can say that the cat is made of hair balls because whenever it spits, it spits out hair balls. This is a hypothesis.
Next, you get a theory. A theory is a non disproved hypothesis. In other words, it can be bent if there are counter evidence against it, but it widely known to be true because of overwhelming evidence for it and mathematical proof. Evolution is in this area, because it is known to be true because of fossilization records (transition and prehistoric) and genetics. Theories can be bent and changed, like it did with the geocentric theory. People back then made logical ideas and had overwhelming evidence that the Earth was at the center of the universe (though the scientific method was not around back then). However, when Galileo came around, he disproved the theory and and now in modern days, we now know that it is a natural law, which is our last step.
A natural law is something that cannot be disproved, because it is a fact. We know it is a fact because there is no way it can be not be otherwise. We know the Earth is a sphere because we have seen it with our own eyes. We know that Earth is not not at the center of the universe because of our mathematical equations and astronomical observations. A natural law is, and always is in our universe.
And this is why religion cannot be taken seriously in science, and is not being taught in our schools (public). It is merely a statement explaining the universe using magic.
And I also know that the Earth is technically not a sphere, but for argument's sake, let's just say it is from now on.
Natural Laws are facts in the physical universe. We take them as granted because they undisputed and there is no question that they are not real. It is possible that evolution isn't real (very small chance), so we call it a theory. The scientific method is simple yet complex on how it works to take things into consideration. Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc know this and make sure to minimize errors.
I want to comment on this:
Imagine you lived in the pre-Einstein era. Wouldn't Newton laws be conidered natural laws? I mean, every single observation so far followed it's rules. They discovered new planets in the solar system using the Newton laws (some unexplained variations in the known planets' orbit led the scientist to realize there had to be a considerable mass nearby that caused those movements, they looked there and BANG! Neptune was discovered) And yet, they are not fact, not according any modern physics theory. It's interesting to notice that Newton's laws were the last theories baptized as "laws". No theory since then has recieved the title of "law", in fear it would also be wrong (General relativity theory, quantum theory, string theory, they are all "theories")
And also, shape depends on the observer. To someone travelling at a speed close to that of light Earth would look similar to this. So Earth is not a sphere, at least not to all observers. And mathematical equations don't disprove that Earth is the centre of the universe. It's just that there are other ways to visualize the universe that are much more practical. You could calculate anything taking the Earth as the centre of the universe, and if you do your maths correctly, you would get to the same results. It would be a pain in the ass, and really stupid to do, but it's possible.
No, not in science. But science is a relatively new way to obtain knowledge, there have been plenty of others in the course of history, including religion. None of them is absolute or 100% correct, not even science.
Then there's culturally-accepted science, the kind that's flailed in our faces as dogma. From a secular person's point of view, of course, he or she will be championing truth, and so firmly believe that their beliefs are what everyone should be forced to learn. That's the same way the Catholic Church approached it, the same way the Church of England approached it. It's still the same way every religion approaches it. If you're not religious, or don't know much about religion, you will not be able to understand this. If you think you know religion from an objective point of view, you will not be able to understand this. Until your heart bleeds for religious people, you will not understand this.
There is no objective way of viewing religion. You are either with it or against it, and the way you talk about it, the way you write about it, and the way you use umbrella terms to define the incredibly complex and diverse parts of a religion or religious groups show your bias and your inability to understand that simple fact. To a religious person, you are the same as a Crusader was to "primitive" cultures in its time. Until you understand that as a fact, you will not be able to say jack shit about religion in any objective manner.
This is not to say that I do not respect heavily-validated and tested scientific theories, or that I do not believe them as true. It simply means that most of you are viewing religion from a western, secular, scientific point of view in which religion is stupid, ignorant, and closed-minded. In their opinions, their own prophecies, their own spiritual laws, and their own spiritual observations are as concrete and heavily-validated as any scientific law, and you, the western, secular person of "scientific" belief are the ignorant, stupid, closed-minded individual.
If you read all of that and swallowed hard, you understand it. If you didn't, you still have a long way to go before you are open-minded, period. Understanding this will change your diction, your attitude, and your reverence. Not that you will be religious, or even spiritual, but that you will understand that for thousands of years, billions of people have studied, memorized, experienced, tested, validated, and even died for what they view as scientific truth. Yes, that was an ironic sentence.
So, in the same way that an art historian uses the word "primitive," I now use "science" to describe modern scientific belief.
Now, by the same token, the reverse is also true for the religious. This does not mean that it's wrong for them to try to convince you that their religion is right; let's face it, every person that believes anything wants everyone to believe what he or she does. That's only to say that equal reverence should be given to the more modern beliefs of the secular world.
I believe in science, and I support it. I believe in most of "science." I do not believe in bigotry on either part.
If someone comes up to me and says (since I'm just an American, I can't really think of any other good-bye that's religiously-related than this one, sorry), "God bless!" I will give them all the respect and admiration I would to someone who came by and said, "You should check this book out on relativity, it was mind-blowing!"
Why? Because both of them, out of the goodness of their hearts, shared with me their most intimate paradigms. I didn't have to ask for it. It was a gift and should be accepted, unwrapped, and admired as such. In their minds, they've shared with me something infinitely important, something they believe will make my life better.
That's my take.
And in case you read the first sentence of my second paragraph and started burning inside with hatred for me, that was inductive. Which is to say, I ironically turned what is the norm (IE, religious dogma) on its head so you would understand what I'm saying. I was not saying that all scientific theory and law is dogma. I understand there are many here who would not think of that first time reading it, so I explained it here.
I have to comment on this.
This is perhaps one of the beautiful passages I've ever read regarding both views of intelligence. I agree with you in almost all the areas of your post (I can't find one, but if I reread it a fifth time I might find one small tiny thing). Perhaps it's because that the news nowadays views Christians as close-minded people, and we have people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ben Stein, venomfangx (famous youtube preacher), and nephilimfree (another youtube preacher), who all are extremely ignorant psychopathic people.
Yet I have seen religion do amazing things. Spiritually, it helps you feel uplifted and have motivation to life. Your morale is raised, and in those instances where depression has really left you near suicide, the motivation of living done by religion is something that science can never do.
I know that we are Western culture, where are free to think because we are not dealing with the poverty that is taking place in most of the world. However, since we are in a Western first world country, it allows, like just said, more thinking. The instability of third world countries and the constant poverty and struggle are breeding grounds for religious beliefs of all kinds. There are still tribes in Africa that believe in elemental spirits. There is no time to really stop and think "Perhaps there is no God after all..." The quality of life there has not improved since times of no modern medicine (exaggeration).
However, in our Western first world country, we are comparable to the Golden Age of Athens, which allowed for much deeper philosophy (which still are taken seriously even today). We start to question that simple go to answer that is "God must have done it." We now look into a more real and scientific answer to our unknowns, or we would still be throwing people into ovens to sweat out their viruses.
These people amuse me, a lot. I can only assume it's the defensive mechanism of rationalization taken to the extreme. I'll leave it at that so as not to offend anybody.
Well most Christians believe in scientific Earth creation (6 billion years old) so that's not really a discussion here, and if it is, many of our bloods will boil so let's just stay away from that.
Btw, what's your guys' view on Evolution?
And don't take anything I said offensively. If I mean it offensively, I'll let you know.
Last I checked, the Earth is round.
(Compare and contrast, brah)
Earth is 4.5 billion years old, too. As a Pearlistic Atheist (whatever that is) you sure have a firm grasp on your science.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
I believe it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that evolution both works at all times AND that evolution was indeed the one and only possible mechanism for the origin of life.
I do not consider bacteria the same form of life, or life at all, as human, and I define life as constructs that have receptors(and I am almost never able to explain that to anybody), the presence of receptors in humans is what prevents me from believing that a more powerful being that created us does not exist, because the receptor seems to be entirely and absolutely out of scope of the physical reality we are aware of, nor does its generation at the point of creation of life as said by evolutionary theories seem logical.
In the end, I find philosophy superior to science when discussing that particular question.
I am not ditching absolutely all of evolution, or even evolution itself, merely saying that there will always be unanswered questions in it, it's impossible to prove, and it is not the only viable theory. Evolution is very easily simulated, very easily controlled as well, by anything that could have created us and our receptors.
I<3 Equinox
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I thought you were banned.
Pity.
But how can Bacteria not be life? I can understand if we are talking about bacteria of ancient times, but today's bacteria is quite advanced.
As for evolution, I don't think anyone is saying throw away the lab coats and celebrate, just that evolution is currently the best answer.
help
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Probably the closest other word that there is to what I mean by receptor is the "soul" but I don't like using it due to the religious connotations it tends to have. It's sort of along the lines of "I think therefore I am" but I consider thinking a brain process and the receptor merely being subjected to it rather than having any control over it.
Receptors are a purely philosophical idea and is completely unprovable on the scientific level. The only person that can know receptors exist, is the person in question, and they can only know for sure that their own receptor exists. I can't prove to you that I have a receptor. From your stance I can be very good AI, and you have a receptor.
I define life vs non-life as having or not having the receptor. Without a receptor, you're a program. An organic, biological program that can reproduce and grow and fulfill all those biology 'life' requirements. I see no reason that Bacteria can't be a program. Honestly, I see no reason humans can't be a program, except the fact that I'm not a program, and I have little reason to believe that people around me are so different that they must all be programs.
If something has no receptor, it exists, it has specific responses to stimuli, and it acts a certain way, but there's nobody ever 'behind' its behavior. Because it's not alive. It doesn't feel pain because there's nothing there TO feel the pain, there's merely a brain that records stuff, calls it pain, and it sends back replies, there's no actual suffering involved there because there was never anything living to receive (hence 'receptor', maybe I should call it 'receiver') the pain. In other words, a robot cannot suffer. Someone with a receiver, someone alive, can.
Non-life can only be referred to as "it". NOBODY can ever say "I". Because there's no receiver with non-life.
Life can be referred to as "I" by the specific owner.
Does this makes absolutely any sense to you? Of course it doesn't.
no i kinda get it. you pretty much summed it up with descartes. you perceive the world through your eyes and your thoughts only type deal.
but what good does that do? theres a theory that goes something like we all wish to die from the moment we know we are alive, but we are scared of death so we avoid it. this seems almost as gloom as that. almost.
coolio.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yes, yes, I know, I misspoke. Or rather, I miswrote. Now go find some traffic to play in.
But then, would you consider something like a deer to be alive? It doesn't have the deepness to understand "I think therefore I am" or other such philosophical stuff. It feels pain, it knows hunger, but it doesn't have the deep thoughts that we humans do.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?