An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Page 5 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 14 >
Topic Options
#4260 - 09/23/09 02:24 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Gregg]
roger Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: Gregg
Originally Posted By: roger
seems to me that as long as there's a God, we'll never take responsibility.

Originally Posted By: Gregg
...responsibility for what?

Originally Posted By: roger
everything. being good to each other, and all that sort of stuff. you know, making a rum go off this whole thing called life.


So you're saying people would be more responsible if no one thought God exists? You'll have to explain the logic. I can't wrap my head around that until I can stop shaking it.


with a God, ultimately the responsibility for everything rests there, and not on us. until we say, "we need to do that which helps us all, not because someone tells us to, but because it is beneficial to life," we won't ever get there.

Originally Posted By: Gregg
How many hospitals were founded by Atheist organizations? ...many are run by Christian organizations. (Alert! unPC! ...but I know of only one other religion involved in running hospitals, on a much smaller scale, and you must know which one I'm speaking of.) Outside of my biological family, the people I've turned to for help have been caring, good people I knew from church. You must have a very different life experience!


are you saying that only through religion will people do good things? hardly. certainly churches do good things, so do lots of people who don't go to church. they just don't have a bunch of people tithing to them...

and how about those Crusades? there's some good works...
_________________________
MacBook 2.4 Ghz · 4 Gb ram · 10.7.5
stuff I'm interested in
iPhone 4s 7.0.2

Top
#4266 - 09/23/09 06:27 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: roger]
Gregg Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
No, not only through religion. I'm just saying that lots of good things are done in the name of religion. Sadly, it's also true that many use religion in a destructive way. I don't suppose pointing to those Crusades that happened yesterday, er, centuries ago gets us any closer to your utopia, does it? And pooling resources (tithing) somehow makes the good deeds less noble than if an individual is acting alone? I don't get your point.

I still don't follow your logic. (get rid of God = increased responsibility) How would you apply it in other situations? Let's see, if there was no SEC, then Wall Street would operate on principles of altruism. Yeah, now I get it. wink

There is one example I can think of that almost fits into your concept. Some places have eliminated traffic controls in congested areas. There are no rules separating pedestrians from vehicles, or giving one car the right of way over another. The result has been that people drive slower and are generally more careful. However, this behavior can be explained adequately as self-preservation!

Top
#4269 - 09/23/09 08:01 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Gregg]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: Gregg
I still don't follow your logic. (get rid of God = increased responsibility) How would you apply it in other situations? Let's see, if there was no SEC, then Wall Street would operate on principles of altruism. Yeah, now I get it. wink

That part seems to have wandered off the path somewhat, since i don't see where roger said anything about "get rid of God". [i think his slant was more like: folks tend to pass the buck, and make the "man upstairs" their scapegoat.]

Similarly, i don't quite get the SEC comparison. Due to free will, any 'regulation' of behavior down here is self-imposed. [Meaning: mankind controls mankind, by whichever "book/word" they choose.]


Edited by Hal Itosis (09/23/09 08:09 PM)

Top
#4276 - 09/24/09 08:51 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: ryck]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
The great tragedy of Science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

T. H. Huxley

Top
#4280 - 09/24/09 10:16 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: ryck]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Imagine that atheist hold a "God Didn't Make Little Green Apples" convention in Miami on Sunday, an Adam atheist enthusiastically attends. Adam's not really devote, he just likes a pretty girl there and the Spaghetti dinner she serves, so he sits in the back alone while everyone at that convention sits close to the podium. Along comes a hurricane and everyone dies but Adam. Adam stands in the aftermath of a hurricane with death and carnage all around him and says, "boy, I'm lucky to be alive"

He tries to make sense of the reason he survived and comes up with a few possibilities. It could be the obvious difference in location or the fact that he jumped up the grab the balcony, or that he was wearing inflatable underwear. He concludes that it was all those reasons because after the storm had surged he fell out of the balcony into the standing water and his underwear kept him afloat. He swears that he will always wear inflatable underwear whenever he visits Miami and will recommend them in any emergency plan, so that they may save lives in the future.

Just down the street in another gathering of Church going Creationist, and Creato the creationist is attending, as he does every week, not because he's devote, but because he likes their brand of pasta and the smiling people who can sing in harmony.

Along comes the hurricane and kills everyone but Creato, and as he stands in the aftermath of death and carnage says, "thank god, god was looking out for me"
He doesn't try to figure out why he survived, it was gods will that everyone of those devote Creationist die and that he live. There is no lesson to learn, there is no action one could take, there are no preventive measures, just flow with it and fill your mind with the spirit of gods will.

Keep filling those spaces between thought until there is no room for reason, deduction or curiosity. Then fill the airwaves, and knock on doors selling god like the Fuller Brush Man so you can build a Glass Cathedral, a Vatican City or a Pyramid Tomb. Build Hospitals on tax-free prime property with donation money, fill them with Nuns working for free. Use your enormous financial wealth to leverage the bank notes and give tax loopholes to doctors who gather captive audiences of creation followers who donate time. There were and are large financial reasons for nonprofits to build medical facilities or schools subsidized by the government and donors. Capturing the creationist in their final hours also has it's benefits, the transfer of wealth to these facilities was and is enormous.

I understand that creationist get all warm and fuzzy when they think of Good, but if they studies the Good that inspires them they may begin to have doubts. Doubt at one time was called heresy and got you burnt at a stake, today you are just shunned and allotted no political power.

Noone know why there was a Big Bang, some are looking for a logical explanation, others want to feed their need with conclusions of father figures in the sky. Thinking members of our species choose to look for answers while dependent members settle for good feelings and a false sense of security.

It's an argument as old as our history and like all historical gods, this one will pass eventually.

Top
#4287 - 09/24/09 12:06 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Noone know why there was a Big Bang, some are looking for a logical explanation, others want to feed their need with conclusions of father figures in the sky. Thinking members of our species choose to look for answers while dependent members settle for good feelings and a false sense of security. It's an argument as old as our history and like all historical gods, this one will pass eventually.

Wow, you sure "know" a lot. Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?

See, from a third POV (or alternate universe)... we're not all that different.

Top
#4290 - 09/24/09 12:34 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
alternaut Offline

Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?

It looks like you could use some faith cake. tongue
_________________________
alternaut moderator

Top
#4292 - 09/24/09 12:56 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
I observe, suspect or conclude... I don't believe. The word has been captured and therefore useless in general conversation. If you have any evidence to refute my claim that "No One knows why there was a big bang", step up and present it. Instead of stating that I "know" a lot, show me what I don't know, please.

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Noone know why there was a Big Bang, some are looking for a logical explanation, others want to feed their need with conclusions of father figures in the sky. Thinking members of our species choose to look for answers while dependent members settle for good feelings and a false sense of security. It's an argument as old as our history and like all historical gods, this one will pass eventually.

Wow, you sure "know" a lot. Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?

See, from a third POV (or alternate universe)... we're not all that different.

Top
#4293 - 09/24/09 01:02 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
If you have any evidence to refute my claim that "No One knows why there was a big bang", step up and present it. Instead of stating that I "know" a lot, show me what I don't know, please.

grin ELL OH ELL

No, that part (those 8 words) wasn't the problem . . . it was everything you said *after* the comma.


Top
#4294 - 09/24/09 01:04 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: alternaut]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Thanks, well done!

"all knowledge is the hypothesis for what is examined next"

Originally Posted By: alternaut
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?

It looks like you could use some faith cake. tongue

Top
#4295 - 09/24/09 01:08 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: alternaut]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: alternaut
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?

It looks like you could use some faith cake. tongue

Looks like you misunderstood (as sandbox apparently did) which *part* of his quote i was referring to. In fact, if you got the 'equal' versus 'superior' point at the end of your vid, you'll see i have *consistently* been plugging the 'equal' portion. (So, perhaps you need to check your interpretation and reasoning in this case? -- i feel my communication has been pretty clear).

Top
#4296 - 09/24/09 01:10 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: ryck]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST...

Originally Posted By: ryck
In the previous lounge, during one of the long and vigorous discussions that evolved into faith versus science (I think it was a thread that started out talking about nature), someone mentioned two basic scientific principles that scientists are still unable to explain and which are accepted as "that's just the way it is".

Does anyone recall what they might have been or, barring recollection, just know what they are?


Was this the old Lounge thread you meant? "Inner Life of a Cell" (Nov/23/07)

Top
#4300 - 09/24/09 01:35 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
If my observation is unacceptable then please explain to me why anyone would jump to a conclusion that a supernatural being created the big bang, built the universe, built the earth in 7 days, and is responsible for every aspect of our lives, in thought and deed. What purpose does it serve?

Just observing the language alone describes a father figure, this terminology demonstrate an authority figure watching over us from above, as it would be viewed from a child's perspective. I'm open to your suggestions.


Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Originally Posted By: sandbox
If you have any evidence to refute my claim that "No One knows why there was a big bang", step up and present it. Instead of stating that I "know" a lot, show me what I don't know, please.

grin ELL OH ELL

No, that part (those 8 words) wasn't the problem . . . it was everything you said *after* the comma.


Top
#4301 - 09/24/09 02:09 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
jchuzi Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: New York State
Wasn't all this stuff covered in The Religion Thread at MFIF? I have been lurking around this thread for awhile and it seems to me that people with different viewpoints are talking at each other (not to each other) and in the same way. I can only conclude that it is not possible to have a meeting of the minds between believers and non-believers. The mindset of each is totally incomprehensible to those of the opposite persuasion.

Just for the record, I'm a non-believer and I have decided that I don't care of someone is a believer provided that he/she leaves others alone and remains content to practice religion in private. If believing in a deity gets you through life, that's OK with me. Life is difficult enough as it is.
_________________________
Jon

OS 10.14.5, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365

Top
#4302 - 09/24/09 02:23 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
alternaut Offline

Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
i feel my communication has been pretty clear.

Well, I'm not at all sure I get what you're after and my attempts to figure that out increasingly feel like (pardon the comparison) a struggle with an eel in a bucket of snot. shocked

The Faith Cake clip was a response to a specific quote of yours (not Sandbox) and what I perceived you tried to say: i.e., that 'a belief in science requires the same amount of faith as a belief in god (it doesn't and the position is in fact self-evidently untrue), but if you intended something else with that quote I'd like to hear about it. tongue
_________________________
alternaut moderator

Top
#4303 - 09/24/09 02:39 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: jchuzi]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
Originally Posted By: jchuzi
I have been lurking around this thread for awhile and it seems to me that people with different viewpoints are talking at each other (not to each other) and in the same way. I can only conclude that it is not possible to have a meeting of the minds between believers and non-believers. The mindset of each is totally incomprehensible to those of the opposite persuasion.


Yup. My dog is better than your dog.
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#4305 - 09/24/09 03:49 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Gregg]
tacit Offline


Registered: 08/03/09
Loc: Portland, Oregon, USA
Originally Posted By: Gregg
You are equating what most religious people I know consider to be divine power with magic. The concepts might be close, but there is a distinction. Because that divine power is manifested in ways humans cannot explain or comprehend doesn't reduce it to some sort of "hocus-pocus" trick.


I'm using "magic" here to mean any supernatural force or power outside of or beyond the physical laws the govern the universe. Miracles, direct divine intervention by a personally involved god, supernatural events, and so on all qualify as 'magic' as I'm using the word.

You can substitute "supernatural divine power" for "magic" in what I wrote, if you prefer, and it still stands. One of the things I find most fascinating about religious faith is the notion that there is no awe and majesty in the universe without supernatural divine power.

Originally Posted By: "Hal Itosis"
Wow, you sure "know" a lot. Or, are those perhaps just beliefs you hold... which similarly provide good feelings and some type of security (true/false/whatever)?


The distinction between beliefs based on faith and beliefs that are not faith-based is that beliefs that are not based on faith are not taken with no evidence to support them.

The fact that we do not yet know everything there is to know does not justify faith-based beliefs; this is merely the 'god of the gaps.' A stone-age society might have two people arguing about what the sun is; Ogg might argue that the sun is a god, and Gronk might argue that even though he doesn't know what the sun is or what the sun is made out of, it's a natural phenomenon and not a god.

Ogg could say that he and Gronk have beliefs that are based on faith...but Ogg would be wrong. And, as knowledge progesses, Ogg's sun-god shrinks away, until finally Ogg's far descendents realize that Ogg was absolutely, totally wrong.

The problem with the god of the gaps is that that god gets smaller and smaller every day. Every day, we learn more; every day, there becomes less room to say "We don't know what caused X, so it must be some sort of god."

Originally Posted By: "gregg"
So you're saying people would be more responsible if no one thought God exists? You'll have to explain the logic. I can't wrap my head around that until I can stop shaking it.

How many hospitals were founded by Atheist organizations?


Many.

The "How many hospitals were founded by atheists?" trope pops up on Fundamentalist Web sites all the time, with the implied answer of "none," but the people who ask the question don't really know the answer.

The first hospital in the US, founded before the country was even a country back in 1658, was established in New Amsterdam (now called New York) by Jacob Hendrickszen Varrevanger. He was not a religious person; it was not a religious hospital.

The oldest hospital still in use in the US, Bellevue Hospital in New York, was founded as a secular institution by the New York government in 1736.

Benjamin Franklin, known for his non-theist religious beliefs, founded several hospitals in the US and in France.

Today, only about 13% of all US hospitals are religious or connected to religious organizations, primarily the Catholic Church. There were as of 1999 a total of 604 hospitals in the US founded by ir on affiliation with religious organizations, out of a total of 4,573 hospitals.

How many hospitals were founded by atheist organizations? Seven and a half times more than were founded by religious organizations! smile

Originally Posted By: "jchuzi"
Just for the record, I'm a non-believer and I have decided that I don't care of someone is a believer provided that he/she leaves others alone and remains content to practice religion in private. If believing in a deity gets you through life, that's OK with me. Life is difficult enough as it is.


That would be fine, if that's all there were.

The problem is that there is no major organized faith that does not tell its adherents that it is the only "true" faith. We see from history and from modern politics that, even despite resource competition and political power grabs and land wars and all the other stressors that can lead to violence, people fracture along religious lines more readily than along any other.

Faith--believing things with no proof for no reason other than that the believer wants them to be true--leads inevitably to atrocity. Science flies us to the moon; faith flies us into buildings.

We live in a society whose politics, public policy, foreign relations, and laws are all shaped and distorted by faith. George Bush invoked religion as a supporting reason to invade Iraq. Beliefs about the soul led to the ban on stem cell research. The Reagans consulted astrologers before making policy decisions; the Bushs consulted ultra-fundamentalist Christian pastors.

There is no "practice your faith by yourself in your own home." Never has been.

_________________________
Photo gallery, all about me, and more: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Top
#4306 - 09/24/09 04:10 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
jchuzi Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: New York State
Originally Posted By: tacit
Faith--believing things with no proof for no reason other than that the believer wants them to be true--leads inevitably to atrocity.
While I can't disagree with your point in general, I don't think that "inevitably" is quite accurate. I have yet to see the Quakers or the Unitarians commit violence. My impression of Buddhism is that it is quite peaceable. Still, you are right in too many instances. I know of no instances in which atheists killed for their (non) beliefs.
_________________________
Jon

OS 10.14.5, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365

Top
#4311 - 09/24/09 05:57 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: jchuzi]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
Originally Posted By: jchuzi
I know of no instances in which atheists killed for their (non) beliefs.


Um... Stalin? Mao?
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#4315 - 09/24/09 06:25 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
jchuzi Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: New York State
I stand corrected. blush
_________________________
Jon

OS 10.14.5, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365

Top
#4316 - 09/24/09 06:41 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
Gregg Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Originally Posted By: tacit

The first hospital in the US, founded before the country was even a country back in 1658, was established in New Amsterdam (now called New York) by Jacob Hendrickszen Varrevanger. He was not a religious person; it was not a religious hospital.

The oldest hospital still in use in the US, Bellevue Hospital in New York, was founded as a secular institution by the New York government in 1736.

Benjamin Franklin, known for his non-theist religious beliefs, founded several hospitals in the US and in France.

Today, only about 13% of all US hospitals are religious or connected to religious organizations, primarily the Catholic Church. There were as of 1999 a total of 604 hospitals in the US founded by ir on affiliation with religious organizations, out of a total of 4,573 hospitals.

How many hospitals were founded by atheist organizations? Seven and a half times more than were founded by religious organizations! smile


I'm not buying that. You are trying to imply that all hospitals not founded or operated by a religious organization are "Atheist Hospitals". No way! Oh, but I'm sure you can demonstrate that's true for each of the nearly 4,000 institutions.

You're also equating secular with atheistic. Not valid. Just because religion is not highlighted in an organization does not mean it's run by people who are not religious, must less anti-religious.

Ben Franklin also was not an atheistic organization. wink

Organizations name things after themselves. My son was born at Lutheran Hospital. Others are named Saint this or that. Others are called Community Hospital, or Memorial Hospital. I've yet to run across one named for an atheistic organization.

I don't intend this small side issue as a proof of something. I'm just pointing out that many religious organizations are on the forefront of altruism. It was just a counterpoint.


Edited by Gregg (09/25/09 05:59 AM)

Top
#4317 - 09/24/09 07:52 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
If my observation is unacceptable then please explain to me why anyone would jump to a conclusion that a supernatural being created the big bang, built the universe, built the earth in 7 days, and is responsible for every aspect of our lives, in thought and deed. What purpose does it serve?

Just observing the language alone describes a father figure, this terminology demonstrate an authority figure watching over us from above, as it would be viewed from a child's perspective. I'm open to your suggestions.

But i have no wish to take up *that* argument either way. As i've said (this makes the 3rd? time): believe what you want (about the Big Bang or whatever)... but at least admit it's a belief/opinion, no better than any other.

Step by step then...
  • >> Noone know why there was a Big Bang, <<

    Right. (or, at least i agree)
     
     
  • >> some are looking for a logical explanation, others want to feed their need with conclusions of father figures in the sky. <<

    "Feed their need"? Sounds condescending.

    Any interest in the subject (whether logical or mystical) could be considered 'feeding a need'. Only those who don't give a hoot can (possibly) claim to not be feeding a need. [but perhaps they too are feeding a need by being ignorant/indifferent.]
     
     
  • >> Thinking members of our species choose to look for answers while dependent members settle for good feelings and a false sense of security. <<

    Oh yeah? ["settle"? - "false"?] How do you know it's false? Is that a fact you can prove... or is that just your belief/opinion? Religious fanatics and scientific snobs are no different in my book (belief/opinion), because they sometimes attack each other's views (beliefs/opinions) without adequate reasoning. The existence of a God/Creator has neither been proved *or* disproved, AFAIK.
     
     
  • >> It's an argument as old as our history and like all historical gods, this one will pass eventually. <<

    Will pass? Again... you "know" this how? [sounds more like faith (to feed a dependency and provide false security perhaps?).]
See now... all i was doing was pointing a mirror at you. Nothing heavy.

--

Before you get too riled up, know that i have an engineering degree and only go to church twice a year (Catholic on probation). I also play guitar and much of the music i like might sound to some like it was written by the devil (monster cut there). If you want to blast Pope what's-his-face for locking up Galileo, i'll join you in that chorus in a nanosecond. Likewise the Spanish Inquisition -- major sicko stuff.


--


But this thread seems to be degenerating into a battle of base/extremist viewpoints, which is an endless (unprovable) dispute. What's the matter? Were the many [scientific] schools *interpreting* quantum mechanics too challenging mentally? Because that was the most fascinating discovery (for me anyway) so far. There we have some of the most brilliant minds on the planet, all looking at the same data and -- when trying to answer: what does it say about "reality" -- they have at least seven varying conclusions.

Wow.

Another Einstein quote is in order perhaps:
    “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
      and as far as they are certain... they do not refer to reality.




Edited by Hal Itosis (09/24/09 07:57 PM)
Edit Reason: add link to Meshuggah

Top
#4318 - 09/24/09 08:21 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: tacit
The distinction between beliefs based on faith and beliefs that are not faith-based is that beliefs that are not based on faith are not taken with no evidence to support them.

Fine. Please see to it that your comments don't wander too far afield of that premise.
[i've already pointed out at least one example of *your* faith... so don't knock it.]


Originally Posted By: tacit
The fact that we do not yet know everything there is to know does not justify faith-based beliefs;

Hmm, I wasn't aware that 'faith-based' beliefs required any justification.
And justify to whom? Who will be the judge of metaphysical unknowns?


Edited by Hal Itosis (09/24/09 08:23 PM)

Top
#4326 - 09/25/09 06:11 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: ryck]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Just for one instance, try to imagine the brainpower wasted on prayer throughout history. Let's say 20 billion people throughout the life of our species believed in one form of Flying Spaghetti Monster or another. Their individual lives averaged 40 years of which they spent 30 years following the strands of pasta to nowhere.

30 years, 365 days, 8760 hours/5840 waking hours

20 billion people from age 10 have wasted 11,680,000,000,000 hours creating or following tangled strands of spaghetti that lead nowhere. That's the mistake that I suspect should be addressed. Imagine what the world would be if all that brainpower was used on fact based reasoning.

Top
#4328 - 09/25/09 08:04 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: ryck]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
I'm not trying to be condescending, needs are what we all fulfill.

False, would be determined by outcome. Have we as a species found more or less evidence to validate the claims that are taught by faith based endeavors? From my perspective there is a constant flow of data to refute most Abrahamic theory for example. That in itself would demonstrate to a review board, board of directors, council, whatever, that to expend resources on the pursuit of this theory was a waste.

In the logical world this line of study would be discounted for lack of evidence and common sense. There is plenty of documentation of failed mystical theory going back to the Titans, Caves, or Pagans when the Gods were feminine.

If I were to invest in a project today that promised to cure the common cold, it would have to be fact based. A prayer, incantation or a round at the Stations of the Cross with Sister Mary St. Jude would not attract my time or capital.

If a potential client discovered that my solution to their problem was to join a faith based organization rather than pursuing a reasoned strategy I doubt that 99% of the population would find my service useful.

The issue needs to be addressed because science is causing the edges to fray, and we need to have a logical plan to deal with it as it unravels.

The theory builds armies and discounts women, while trying to capture the moral high ground. New initiatives to correct the course educates woman, and in turn reduces population growth. It doesn't feed people on unsustainable lands to a point where they are just healthy enough to produce more offspring, and turn them into fertilizers 6 months later when the milk dries up. With all due respect to Mother Theresa.

The issue, as I see it, was that faith base reasoning and "Belief" is a mistake. And in demonstrating why it is and then showing what can be done to reverse the mistake would make this thread useful. In spite of what people want to believe, the belief is nothing more than active gray matter. The affect of the out of control gray matter upon life is what really needs to be addressed.



Top
Page 5 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 14 >

Moderator:  alternaut, cyn