Religion

[Alex]

All I was saying was just that requiring proof before you believe something is an unreasonable requirement that ultimately prevents you from believing virtually anything. Science only comes up with theories and disproves theories and hypotheses.

That's not 'only' what science does.. You're not exactly using the terminology correctly either. A theory is something that has already been proven and verified by different individuals and groups not directly related. Whereas an hypothesis or more or less an educated guess.

 

Actually I think you're confused.  A theory does not imply fact, it is merely and explanation or proposal based on principles and other known facts, the theory itself is not proven, rather accepted.  Although I do agree that a hypothesis is the lesser of the two, but are commonly used synonymously.

If they're used synonymously they're also being used incorrectly. A single individual can not create a theory, they can only come up with a hypothesis. As by definition a theory is something that has been proven multiple times by multiple unrelated individuals.

 

@CV: There established laws that state why gravity exists, how it works, etc. That's like saying "THERES NO PROOF WE'RE NOT INSIDE OF A COMPUTER", so that means it must be seriously considered? No, there are truths that you must believe, but they make sense logically, and they can be proven from any angle. Whereas religion, not so much.

[Daniel0]

AlexWD, science cannot prove anything (though it can disprove). Call your local university, ask to talk to any science professor, it doesn't matter which one because all of them will tell you that.

 

You are right, there are no proof that gravity exists because proving things in science is literally impossible.

 

A law (in science) is synonymous with a theory. The "law of gravity" is a theory describing how we currently believe that two objects attract each other, the so called gravitational force. A theory is the highest status anything can get in science, but even then new information could be unveiled that disproves a theory, any theory. You can show that something is true n times, but unless you can show that it is true the 1+nth time you haven't proven anything. That is the nature of induction. Which n is high enough to say that you've proven it? 1, 10, 50, 10,000,000?

 

Acceptation of a theory is based on inductive reasoning, and that is why it cannot be proven true. We can only accept it as true based on the things we currently know.

 

Science isn't even about proving things. Each time you make an experiment you try to disprove it. Either you fail at it or not. If you fail at disproving it you've shown that in your experiment, the theory was true, but you haven't shown that it's true for all possible experiments.

 

there is proof that it works. there is no proof on HOW it works.

 

Actually, no, there is not proof that it works/exists either.

[waynewex]

Why not turn this one into a poll I'm kinda curious about what results would be for PF users.

I myself was raised as Hindu. However I am atheist as I need proof before I can "believe" something.

 

 

Done.

[waynewex]

I was raised a Catholic, now an Atheist. I just can't picture God existing. I do "practise" my religion on certain occasions. Funerals and weddings etc. And I usually keep it to myself. I dislike Atheists who live just to bash religion. To me, that's  like somebody constantly bad-mouthing their ex while simultaneously proclaiming that they're "over them." I never really debate the subject much because I have the foresight to realise that a debate on religion and faith won't achieve anything. If I get married, it'll be in a church, and I'll do the whole religion routine because I know that it's important to those around me. If I have a child, I'll raise the child a Catholic and let him/her find his/her own way on the matter. I'm strongly opposed to religious organisations having control over government/law etc. Debating about/trying to prove whether God exists or not is pointless because religion is about faith, not facts. It's about what you can't prove, but still believe in. You either have that faith or you don't. I don't.

[Alex]

So you'd say that Science hasn't taught us anything besides what is not?

 

Even though things might not be absolutely proven to be true (as you say is impossible..) there's a certain point where you have to accept it as truth. You can say that if you throw a ball up it might fly up into space, but how would you sound then? Though technically it could, it's well established that it won't, everyone knows this. Society can't function without truths, so in theory you may be correct, but it's not really practical.

[Daniel0]

You're making up things. I never said I rejected gravity (or any other scientific theory). I just said that it cannot be proven true. On the contrary, I accept gravity as a valid theory because of the vast amount of evidence that supports it.

[waynewex]

Science isn't perfect, but in my opinion, it is more likely to find a "truth". Science constantly looks at itself. If it finds that a certain theory was incorrect, it'll admit that and move on, making any necessary changes to said theory. Religion on the other hand is pretty static. A belief is a belief and that's all there is to it.

[.josh]

So you'd say that Science hasn't taught us anything besides what is not?

 

Even though things might not be absolutely proven to be true (as you say is impossible..) there's a certain point where you have to accept it as truth. You can say that if you throw a ball up it might fly up into space, but how would you sound then? Though technically it could, it's well established that it won't, everyone knows this. Society can't function without truths, so in theory you may be correct, but it's not really practical.

 

At no point do you have to accept it as truth, because it cannot be proven.  Realistically, at the end of the day, even though it cannot be proven, you say fuck it and accept it as truth...which sounds suspiciously like faith.

 

Science isn't perfect, but in my opinion, it is more likely to find a "truth". Science constantly looks at itself. If it finds that a certain theory was incorrect, it'll admit that and move on, making any necessary changes to said theory. Religion on the other hand is pretty static. A belief is a belief and that's all there is to it.

 

Now you're just being biased.  If anything, religion is stereotyped for interpreting things differently as the situation suits them. 

[waynewex]

Now you're just being biased.  If anything, religion is stereotyped for interpreting things differently as the situation suits them. 

 

Religion doesn't really change its interpretation that often, does it? It usually sticks to its core beliefs and doesn't sway. Look at the Pope roaming around Africa telling devout followers NOT to use a condom in a day and age when AIDS is practically wiping out entire families.

[cags]

Religion doesn't really change its interpretation that often, does it? It usually sticks to its core beliefs and doesn't sway. Look at the Pope roaming around Africa telling devout followers NOT to use a condom in a day and age when AIDS is practically wiping out entire families.

 

I personally wasn't aware the Pope was doing such a thing. But isn't it gratifying to know that a nation that can't afford to feed it's people, has plenty of Durex machines that the Pope can beg believers to stear clear of.

 

P.S. Thats a joke, I don't mean to offend anybody.

[Alex]

So you'd say that Science hasn't taught us anything besides what is not?

 

Even though things might not be absolutely proven to be true (as you say is impossible..) there's a certain point where you have to accept it as truth. You can say that if you throw a ball up it might fly up into space, but how would you sound then? Though technically it could, it's well established that it won't, everyone knows this. Society can't function without truths, so in theory you may be correct, but it's not really practical.

 

At no point do you have to accept it as truth, because it cannot be proven.  Realistically, at the end of the day, even though it cannot be proven, you say fuck it and accept it as truth...which sounds suspiciously like faith.

So if you believe anything that's faith?

 

I have faith echo "Hello World"; will output Hello World

[nrg_alpha]

I predict this thread is going to hell (pardon the religious pun) sooner rather than later. Any bets on how long it takes before it degenerates to the point of lockdown? 

[PugJr]

I'm strongly opposed to religious organisations having control over government/law etc.

 

I am as well, and I happen to be a religious person. Although I think your idea on Christians might be going towards "They are people who are wanting control". Thats largely true for Catholicism with their hierarchy and what not. Catholicism seems to have an interesting paradox. Bible says humans are all created equal, yet pope is considered closer to God than your average Catholic. (Not so much now as back then when the whole Protestant Vs Catholicism was a big thing.)

 

 

Nrg_alpha, on any "normal" forum, this topic would have been locked about after lets see...First post is neutral, second post is one side, third post is another side, fourth post is flaming one of the other two for having their views. So after the fourth post, it would be locked. Making it to post 30 or so without a flame war is pretty impressive.

[.josh]

So you'd say that Science hasn't taught us anything besides what is not?

 

Even though things might not be absolutely proven to be true (as you say is impossible..) there's a certain point where you have to accept it as truth. You can say that if you throw a ball up it might fly up into space, but how would you sound then? Though technically it could, it's well established that it won't, everyone knows this. Society can't function without truths, so in theory you may be correct, but it's not really practical.

 

At no point do you have to accept it as truth, because it cannot be proven.  Realistically, at the end of the day, even though it cannot be proven, you say fuck it and accept it as truth...which sounds suspiciously like faith.

So if you believe anything that's faith?

 

I have faith echo "Hello World"; will output Hello World

 

Actually, yes.  Can you honestly say you know every single thing at work and involved and working together to do something as simple as even that? Or do you, like everybody else, just take for granted and not even think about  all those abstracted layers of software and then hardware are doing what they are 'supposed' to be doing, and then throwing into the mix some random other thing doesn't somehow interfere. 

[Alex]

So you'd say that Science hasn't taught us anything besides what is not?

 

Even though things might not be absolutely proven to be true (as you say is impossible..) there's a certain point where you have to accept it as truth. You can say that if you throw a ball up it might fly up into space, but how would you sound then? Though technically it could, it's well established that it won't, everyone knows this. Society can't function without truths, so in theory you may be correct, but it's not really practical.

 

At no point do you have to accept it as truth, because it cannot be proven.  Realistically, at the end of the day, even though it cannot be proven, you say fuck it and accept it as truth...which sounds suspiciously like faith.

So if you believe anything that's faith?

 

I have faith echo "Hello World"; will output Hello World

 

Actually, yes.  Can you honestly say you know every single thing at work and involved and working together to do something as simple as even that? Or do you, like everybody else, just take for granted and not even think about  all those abstracted layers of software and then hardware are doing what they are 'supposed' to be doing, and then throwing into the mix some random other thing doesn't somehow interfere.

I was just trying to make a point. But that wasn't the best example. The point I'm trying to make is that this logic can't really be used successfully in many aspects of daily life. Say you're taking a test.. You get a question as follows (Just an example to prove a point):

 

"You throw a ball up; what will happen?"

A) The ball will eventually fall

B) The ball will hover

C) The ball will disappear

D) The ball will turn into a particle accelerator

 

Are you going to say "It's impossible to know, any of those could happen", or you are going to assume (for at least that moment) that gravity exists and it will pull the ball down?

[.josh]

Yes, you can 'logically' say it is impossible to know, any of those could happen.  However, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked in favor of the widely accepted answer.  But that doesn't make it true, that just makes it accepted as true, for 'practicality' sake.

 

Let me give you a hypothetical question, and it's rigged on purpose so don't bother crying foul:

 

Let's say you were standing in line for something.  There are say, 1000 people ahead of you.  or 1 million.  Long fuckin' line, you can't even see the end.  Waiting to get on the next roller coaster ride, pay your bill; doesn't matter what it is. You're just standing in line and know people are moving forward occasionally.  All of a sudden you see people way ahead of you start to leave.  Then the people behind them start walking off, too.  More people are walking off.  It's taking a while to get anywhere near you, so you have plenty of time to think. 

 

At what point in time do you start thinking about all the different reasons people could be leaving?  At what point in time do you assume regardless of what happened at the beginning of that line, no point in sticking around, may as well leave, too? 

 

Saying "I'm too curious, I'd go see what happened" is not an option.  If you find that you can reasonably say that, then restart the scenario in your head, only adding more people.  When you get back to the question, if you still find yourself thinking that's a reasonable answer, wash rinse and repeat until you stop thinking that's a reasonable answer.  This is the rig, meant to simulate "convenience" and "practicality;" just accept it already and move on.

 

Congrats, welcome to level 2!

 

Now that you have figured out that after seeing X amount of people walk off, you're willing to also walk off, regardless of why, let me ask you this: The "widely accepted" answer is the 'practical' thing to do, but does that make it the truth?  You know, looking from the outside-into this thought experiment, that it is not the truth, and yet it is accepted as such.  The truth is, you accepted on faith that regardless of whatever the reason people left was, it wasn't worth standing in line for, and followed the masses. 

 

You may not know what the truth is; for all you know the ride could have broken.  Store could have been closed.  Company could have started offering waivers on your bill if you jerk them off.  Who knows?  You can't prove what the truth is, but how is what you opted to do any better?  I maintain that in fact, it is worse, but I'm fine with you at least accepting it is not any better, because now you understand that it is not the truth, nor can you prove it. 

 

Faith is believing in something without seeing.  Everybody has faith in something.  Writing it off as 'widely accepted' or 'practical' does not make it remove the element of faith.

[waynewex]

Although I think your idea on Christians might be going towards "They are people who are wanting control".

 

I have no problem with the Christian faith whatsoever. I just have a problem with institutions such as the Catholic Church. Building mass cathedrals pimped out to the last with every ornament and painting you can think of, while people in the world are starving, suffering from diseases that could be cured etc. And I think everyone wants control. Control is something that everybody wants.

[KevinM1]

<-- atheist.  I don't generally have a problem with people who are spiritual.  I consider them delusional, but mostly harmless (notable exception being fundamentalists).  I do have problems with the idea of organized religion.  It's just absurdly illogical, and more than a bit creepy IMO.

 

I do take joy in needling believers now and then.  I love this story, so I figure I might as well share, if I haven't already:

 

When I was in college/university, there would always be a group of local Bible pushers hanging around campus at the start of each semester.  Most were nice, but some were annoying.  Being the egotistical, sarcastic jerk that I am, I decided to screw with one of them on my way to class.  Now, to get the full impact of the joke, you have to understand that I'm physically disabled and use an electric wheelchair to get around.

 

So, I'm on my way to class and one of the pushers standing on the sidewalk asks, "Do you want a Bible?"

 

I reply, "No thanks.  Your god broke my legs" and continue to drive on.

 

The look on the kid's face was priceless.

[corbin]

At least he didn't say some "God does everything for a reason!" crap.  I hate that answer to questions.

 

 

But seriously, I think 99.99999% of people would've been quite flustered.

[PugJr]

Although I think your idea on Christians might be going towards "They are people who are wanting control".

 

I have no problem with the Christian faith whatsoever. I just have a problem with institutions such as the Catholic Church. Building mass cathedrals pimped out to the last with every ornament and painting you can think of, while people in the world are starving, suffering from diseases that could be cured etc. And I think everyone wants control. Control is something that everybody wants.

 

I must unfortunately agree with your later statement. Although poverty is because of poor government, not because of lack of donations. Even if they did donate their things to poor people, how much will get lost to dictators and the "middle men"?

[.josh]

yeah because the catholics are the only rich people in the world not helping out the poor.

[waynewex]

yeah because the catholics are the only rich people in the world not helping out the poor.

 

Didn't say that.

[.josh]

didn't say you did.  That was my way of pointing out that even though religion does not corner the market on that sort of thing, for some strange reason the only time I personally see it brought up is when referencing religion.

[KevinM1]

At least he didn't say some "God does everything for a reason!" crap.  I hate that answer to questions.

 

 

But seriously, I think 99.99999% of people would've been quite flustered.

 

True, but I like getting that look from people.  It's incredibly fun behaving in a way that goes against the stereotype.  My college career - aside from my studies and homework - was an exercise in trying to get a rise out of random people.  It was a damn funny portion of my life.

[.josh]

At least he didn't say some "God does everything for a reason!" crap.  I hate that answer to questions.

 

 

But seriously, I think 99.99999% of people would've been quite flustered.

 

True, but I like getting that look from people.  It's incredibly fun behaving in a way that goes against the stereotype.  My college career - aside from my studies and homework - was an exercise in trying to get a rise out of random people.  It was a damn funny portion of my life.

 

hmm...so if you are saying that your response is not the (stereo)typical response, what is the (stereo)typical response?