Religio-Scientific Ethics of Cooter Burning (Split Thread)

[MrFelony]

twas a very interesting post, whered did you gather all that info from? it really makes you stop and think how lucky we are. it just seems to much of a coincidence to be random. though if there are 10 to the 180th number of planets in the universe, then maybe.

[Necromancer]

OMG you wrote a Wyrm Post. I don't want to read it.

And Felony you double-posted.

[MrFelony]

theres a difference, wyrms posts got worse and worse as he went on.

[Femto]

I saw this as a little contradictory, I could be misunderstanding you though.

If you take it out of context, yes. You missed my point completely again, even after I explained it in that other post. It's not aobut understanding it, it's about accepting it. Why do people accept god without question, yet a universe without a creator is completely impossible to you? For the record though, digging for small things that you thing contradict what I'm saying is not a good argument. Rest assured, I've given this matter a lot of thought and, while everything isn't clear as water in my head, I'd say I'm pretty consistent with the things I say.

In regards to the rest of your post, well, I honestly don't care about scientific details since I am not one myself nor do I pretend to be. However there a couple of things that I'd like to say about your post.

First of all, science searches for explanations, god doesn't. You believe in god? Well, if you follow the Bible word by word, then you know how the universe was created and even how it will end, but what can you base that on? The Bible is just a book, with no real relevance except for the people that believe in it. Science takes into account how the world works and how things have been changing to form theories on actual happenings in the world. God just explains a lot, with no real reasoning behind it.

As for our little earth, well, I think you're closing your mind off on the subject. The universe is infinite remember, and while it is hard to grasp, it's easy to understand that, if there exists an infinite number of variables regarding planets and planet conditions, then at least one of them has to be able to sustain life. Just because we happen to be it, doesn't mean that it's special. More importantly, who's to say that there isn't life on other planets? Who's to say that other life forms can function under ammonia or lead or who knows what element? What about them? I'm not saying that little aliens come to this planet to anal probe us in flying saucers, but thinking that we are alone in the vastness of the universe is, plain and simply, close-minded.

I haven't touched on a lot of other things, but your post didn't have a lot in the way of arguments.

[MrFelony]

I agree with femto for most of his last post. on the surface, it looks like he is contradicting himself, but acceptance and comprehension are completely different things, just like god. and one thing, your scientific facts aren't certain, there is just a lot more earthly data gathered that leads people to that conclusion. Who is to say that 200 years from now, most of our scientific data wont be misproven. it has happened time and time again. like religion, science is only a belief, but science is backed by a more accepted evidence, where religious belief is backed more by faith and the interpretation of events to mean that a higher being exists.

science is a study of earthly matters to explain earthly happenings, where religion is a study of heavenly matters to explain earthly happenings. if you think about it, religion and higher beings were just an early form of science heh.

bah i should think about my posts a lot more before i type them out.

It's not aobut understanding it, it's about accepting it.

oh and taken out of context you could soundlike a very religious man

[Kêthêrîc]

I haven't taken the bible word for word, I dont find it impossible that the world was created without a creator. Only part of my post was directed at the life conditions on earth, nowhere did i ever say that life doesn't exist elsewhere. In fact i strongly agree that with an infinite space there is life other than us out there. I used scientific theories because as you said, god says alot, but it doesnt have any relevance. I think you are misunderstanding me as much as i am misinterpreting you. I don't know where you stand on the subject.

Why do people accept god without question, yet a universe without a creator is completely impossible to you?

I answered this one in my last post, but again: Because when people talk about a god, laws that we have come to know do not apply. When we talk about god we are talking about someone who can do whatever they want to. Something creating itself seems more unlikely to some people, than saying "god created this."

It is not impossible for me to see both sides of the conflict, im simply playing the devils advocate for a good argument. And yes, i do believe in a god, but my beliefs are pretty different from most peoples.

good point out MrFelony. The reason i used scientific theories and facts are because usually either people believe in god, or science. (some both)
You are right though, both sides are merely guesses. Like i said before, religion is based in faith, and not being able to prove anything, and science doesn't really know enough to discredit anything religion is based on. This subject will always be at a stand still. But its fun to rehash every once in a while.

[Skullkracker]

Shit, too much to read...
no, not today, I definately won't keep up with this today...

[Buzkashi]

So for the most part im caught up with this thread. One thing I found repetative was that whenever the question of religion came up, it was always the catholic religion being talked about. There was rarely any more religious points of view.

going a lil farther back....

When talking about "everything happens for a reason" many people didnt like the idea that religion says that things will get better. I guess thats for the christain religions since that seems to be the majority here. However in Islam, God never says that things will get better for you if you are a believer. He just says that life is a test. And that try to do as best for you , and your fellow man, as is possible for you. Just thought I'd put the Islamic standpoint in it.

Also... some people said that religion has hindered scientific progress alot. However I only heard people talking about examples from the christain religions. In the late ummayad empire and earlier abassid empire Islamic learning centers where the highest in the world. For 800 years arabic was the major intellectual and scietific language in the world.

Some one earlier said that they are into astronomy alot. The arabs develped the astrolabe, and the quadrant. Building on the knowledge known in antiquity muslims dominated astronomy for over 1000 years.

These times where the golden years of the Islamic empires. It was mostly during the 9th and 10th centurys. While europe was in there dark ages, the middle east was flourishing.

The muslim empires loved the sciences. They translated many greek writings into arabic so the knowledge spread.

Some historians even argue that if the temple of knowledge in baghdad was not distroyed that these muslim empires would still exist today and would have been in space 60 years before the west had.

[Skullkracker]

A little late night history leson...I LIKE IT!

I may have slipped over it, but in christian religion I never really observed that "God promises that things will et better if you are a believer". Just that they will be different...OK, maybe seem easier. But the promise is that it won't be worse...(having to say hello to Femto at Hell's gate)...unless you screw up big time. Yes, that's good news enough.

What amazes me most about arabs is that they do't drink alcohol at all. Although they still like to get high as I've heard...

[Femto]

Nice to see this issue from the point of a non-Christian religion, Buz.

I admit, I'm basing most of my comments on catholicism because, as I've said before, that's the religion I was raised in, so that's where most of my knowledge comes from. I still think every religion is fairly similar though, so I do think my comments are valid for all of them. I don't know every religion in detail, but I do know that each one of them has its fair share of problems.

Kether: You just lost me completely man.

You don't know where I stand on the subject? I've been pretty consistent with my views man. I'm not sure if I can say the same thing for you, your posts are confusing to say the least.

[Killfile]

If you're at a point with your faith where you're trying to prove or disprove the existence of God/god/gods, you've obviously lost whatever meaning your faith had in the first place.

Faith isn't about proof, it isn't about evidence. It's about belief. Faith is belief without evidence, and without proof. I believe my wife loves me. She does things which could be attributed to love, or to enlightened self interest (she is the beneficiary of my will and life insurance policies after all). There exists no evidence that she loves me that can not also support the claim of enlightened self interest -- thus my belief that she loves me is a matter of faith. Which is, by the way, exactly as it should be.

Every argument that you extend to "prove" the existence of God is equally valid as proof that either God does not exist or that space is, as Douglas Adams puts it, big.

Some of you point to the sophisticated design of the human body as evidence that that God exists, but the human body also contains vestigial organs and endrocronological responses that are in direct conflict with what many/most religions tell us is moral. Is that the work of an intelligent designer?

Some of you point to the staggering improbability of life's existence in the first place. But does it not follow equally well that we are able to ask these questions because the dice fell in the way necessary for the question to be asked? With untold billions of stars in a galaxy and untold billions of galaxies in the Universe, isn't there bound to be at least one place that gets it right?

You can not reason someone to faith, they have to find it for themselves. Pointing to the miraculous world that surrounds us no more proves the existence of God than pointing to my wedding ring proves that my marriage is healthy and stable.

You contaminate your faith with science in an attempt to justify it in a scientific world. But faith is not of science, and your attempts to so justify it only damage it - rendering it less pure than before. Science and faith can exist side by side without conflict if only you will realize that Faith need not seek validation through science and science need not concern itself with the trappings of faith.

[Femto]

This is probably the best comment on faith I've read here, but the point you make is exactly what my problem with faith is. It's hard to put it in words, but believing in something based on absolutely nothing sounds foolish to me. Not only that, but I still don't understand how faith really helps people.

I guess that's the main difference between me and religious people.

[MrFelony]

So for the most part im caught up with this thread. One thing I found repetative was that whenever the question of religion came up, it was always the catholic religion being talked about.

When talking about "everything happens for a reason" many people didnt like the idea that religion says that things will get better.

i agree with you here, im not catholic, so i dont see why i have to argue for the catholic standpoint on stuff. It seems arguments against religion are being done so against a catholic religion, most UCC and liberal christian religions are different from conservative and catholic beliefs.

and for everything getting better, i meant things get better after you die if you are follower of the religion.

some little scripture fun:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put you finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do no the faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Oh and thanks buz for giving us the neglected islamic view I have a lot of respect for Islam, and actually thought about converting for a while, though i intend to study it one day.

[Libaax]

This is probably the best comment on faith I've read here, but the point you make is exactly what my problem with faith is. It's hard to put it in words, but believing in something based on absolutely nothing sounds foolish to me. Not only that, but I still don't understand how faith really helps people.

I guess that's the main difference between me and religious people.

Well Faith based on absolutly nothing as you said is what faith really is since people believe in god or whatever they wanna believe in cause they wanna believe in something.

I know i felt better and didnt think much about if there is a god or not when i believed fully in my religion.

[MrFelony]

some little scripture fun:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

Dark matter apparently accounts for up to 90% of the matter in the universe. (matter that we can't see because it has no light) Scientists believe dark matter supplied sufficient gravitational pull to allow galaxies to form. If the universe really isn't made up of alot of dark matter then the universe will stop expanding and recede on itself (killing everything eventually).

I found that interesting

EDIT: hmm i sorta misread Kêthêrîc's part but i still find it interesting though the meaning isnt exactly what ithought it was.

[Kêthêrîc]

Sorry if anyone gets my stuff confused, it's hard to put into words what i want to say sometimes.

to Killfile: I am a firm believer in god, whatever you want to call it (lord, allah, blah blah). The reason i was trying to point to scientific facts is because most people who don't believe in god believe that through science they can explain how things exist. I was not using science to validate my own belief in god, just trying to point out facts to others that say "show me evidence that god exists."

To buz: thanks for the viewpoint. Interesting stuff that I never knew before.

To Femto: I don't mean for anything to get personal, I just love to argue and debate. ( a good thinking session) What I meant by I dont know where you stand on the subject is that you don't support a theory of a god, but at the same time you don't really support the scientific facts either. Most people are for one or the other, I'm just not sure what your beliefs are.

To Felony: I guess you could almost call dark matter a creator if you think about it...... There are 2 different kinds if i remember correctly, but I'll let you do the research

Science and faith can exist side by side without conflict if only you will realize that Faith need not seek validation through science and science need not concern itself with the trappings of faith.

Oh come on, don't avoid conflict, thats what this whole thread is about

[Killfile]

[quote]Oh come on, don't avoid conflict, thats what this whole thread is about[/quote]

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm pointing out that you're all wrong

Faith and Science are seperate ideas. Science has nothing to do with faith and faith has nothing to do with science.

That exclusionary principle extends beyond what you belive though - if you want to retain any shread of intelectual honesty.

You can argue about the existance of God until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change anything and it doesn't harm or help anything. But when you start trying to incorporate psudo-scientific hooks for your faith into scientific contexts, you've crossed a line. You've gone from just making an ass of yourself to lieing to people -- all too often children.

Want an example of that? Check out Kansas and Intelligent Design. A perfect example of the bastard child of science and faith -- all the failings of both and none of the merits of either.

Not an attempt at a thread jack, but if ya'll are divided on this, it'll turn out to be one.

[MrFelony]

actually faith and science arent totally seperate. using science to prove yourfaith is hypocritical, but i see nothing wrong with trying to understand what your creator made and continues to make (god didnt just make the world and stop, he continues to make things everyday). the universe if a very complicated thing and trying to understand the magnifigance that god made isnt wrong in my view. Its much like analyzing a poem or book. though some follow the beliege that analyzing a flower destroys its beauty.

[Ayanami]

This is probably the best comment on faith I've read here, but the point you make is exactly what my problem with faith is. It's hard to put it in words, but believing in something based on absolutely nothing sounds foolish to me. Not only that, but I still don't understand how faith really helps people.

To Femto: I don't mean for anything to get personal, I just love to argue and debate. ( a good thinking session) What I meant by I dont know where you stand on the subject is that you don't support a theory of a god, but at the same time you don't really support the scientific facts either. Most people are for one or the other, I'm just not sure what your beliefs are.

I think Femto addressed your question right there. And also, you can't bust out any type of scientific evidence to prove that god does not exist. Like I said to MrFelony before, you can't prove something does not exist, it is a logical fallacy. I agree with Killfile on a lot of things he has posted, but not all. What I do agree with completely is that Faith should not cross over to the study of the real world, aka science. Keep your faith to yourself, that is my motto.

[MrFelony]

by the faith not crossing over to the study of the real world, do you mean to prove your faith? cause then i agree with, but try to do everyday, man kind is engineered to doubt so its hard not to heh

[Kêthêrîc]

This is probably the best comment on faith I've read here, but the point you make is exactly what my problem with faith is. It's hard to put it in words, but believing in something based on absolutely nothing sounds foolish to me. Not only that, but I still don't understand how faith really helps people.

To Femto: I don't mean for anything to get personal, I just love to argue and debate. ( a good thinking session) What I meant by I dont know where you stand on the subject is that you don't support a theory of a god, but at the same time you don't really support the scientific facts either. Most people are for one or the other, I'm just not sure what your beliefs are.

I think Femto addressed your question right there. And also, you can't bust out any type of scientific evidence to prove that god does not exist. Like I said to MrFelony before, you can't prove something does not exist, it is a logical fallacy. I agree with Killfile on a lot of things he has posted, but not all. What I do agree with completely is that Faith should not cross over to the study of the real world, aka science. Keep your faith to yourself, that is my motto.

In regards to the rest of your post, well, I honestly don't care about scientific details since I am not one myself nor do I pretend to be.

That's why i posted what i said. I'm gonna sit back and chill for a while on this thread because i think alot of you are misunderstaning my posts. (especially you killfile).

You can argue about the existance of God until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change anything and it doesn't harm or help anything.

Kind of like how this post has added nothing to the conversation?

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm pointing out that you're all wrong

An argument without facts is a worthless argument

[Femto]

Don't sit back on this Kether. It is sometimes hard to explain oneself when dealing with big subjects like these (I'm not doing a good job myself based on your previous post), but we should still give it a shot.

I'll post comments on the last few posts later tonight, I have to shower and get my ass to work soon.

[Killfile]

An argument without facts is a worthless argument

A worthless argument? We're arguing about the metaphysical here. By definition there are no facts. The entire thread is conjecture, supposition, and theorization. There are no facts here. By your own logic the thread itself is worthless.

So I expect your most recent post to be your last on this thread -- at least if you intend to maintain any semblance of intellectual integrity.

To others, let me clarify. When I say that science and faith should not be mixed, I'm not implying that those of faith should not study science and vise versa but simply stating that these separate mindsets seek mutually exclusive explanations for the events of our universe.

Science seeks natural, reproducible, testable, falsifiable causes for events in the world. Science points to thunderbolts and explains them as static discharges in the upper atmosphere.

Faith seeks supernatural explanations for events. Those explanations may not necessarily be reproducible as they rely upon the intentions of a supernatural and sentient being that may or may not want to co-operate. By definition these explanations are not falsifiable and are not testable. Faith points to a thunderbolt and explains it as the expression of an angry God.

Now both of these explanations might be right, but we can only test one of them. We can prove that thunderbolts are, in fact, static discharges. We can't rule out the possibility that an Angry God arranged circumstance to make those discharges happen. With every step back we take in the progression of events we continue to introduce new unknowns until the beginning of the Universe. In each of those unknowns, the faithful will find evidence of divine intervention.

But this faith based interpretation does not address in any way the secular explanation and it does not detract from it. But more importantly, the complexity of the events required to make a lightning bolt does not add to or detract from the supposition that these bolts are the expressions of an angry God.

The two methods of explanation explore different aspects of a phenomena, different ways of seeing them. They are mutually exclusive.

As I see it, and you're all welcome to argue this if you like, the mixture of science and faith begins and ends with Pascale's Gambit. It goes something like this.

Suppose an Infidel and a Believer are to die. If the Infidel is right and the Believer wrong, then after death they will be equal. But if the Believer is right and the Infidel wrong, then after death the state of the Believer will be superior.

Unfortunately, Pascal failed to take into consideration that there exists more than one faith that says that, if you don't buy into our dogma, you're going to hell.

Believe what you like, but don't try to prove it with science. Science doesn't address faith.

[Devil_Dante]

too long

+1

[psi29a]

too long

+1

Perhaps a bit long winded, but was a very good post none-the-less. Worth the read, especially if you have something to say about the current discussion and not just spam.