Keeper, i didn't actually mean that the bible is the one holy book that people live there lives by. There have been countless collections over all of time. I just took the bible as more of an example, that most people would be familiar with.
I also agree with you that we still cannot comprehend nature. I dont think we ever can. But we have gained a more understanding of the physical aspects of nature like weather.
I not nessesarilly meant that people kill themselves just because religion. But it has caused lots of problems in our world at anytime.
Lots of scientists, like Astronomers have a whole different belief of the Universe. I would grantee lots of them were taught by there family and other surrounding peers that their certain religion showed that there was a god and or whatever supernatural beliefs that accustom that one life style. But they can come to believe that its all just nothing but a story. Scientific thought has progressively grown in a way to eliminate religious thought. Maybe not in a sense of taking away that life style, but what is really true. Like you said its all text and nothing of fact. Who really knows.
Check Out My Domain Page!!!
For the first, man, you totally missed my point
I know there are more holy books than the bible. The Torah, The Guran, etc. I was pinting out that faithes and religions are not limited to beleif systems that have holy books.
Wicca is no less a religion than christianity--and Wiccca has no "bible" as it were
Science doesn't sit well with me either--Most organized religions claim that anything that goes against their doctrine is wrng, a sin, and you will burn in hell if you believe it, belive in it, or practice it (in a nutshell). Science, has just as arrogantly come out any said that anything that hasn't been proven within the scientific method cannot exist--even though the foundations of a lot of beliefs are theories that cannot be definitvely proven.
Hence, They will say that things like Curved Space, Black Holes, and the like exist, but despite not concrete evidence, their theories hold them up. Kinda like religion--there's nothing that proves God's existance, however, the evidence they have portrays for them a clinching example to them that what they claim is real.
Yet at the same time, they both denounce ghosts--despite damning evidence of their existance. Why? The existance as such throws out a lot of "conventional" thought on both fronts.
As such, I trust my own sensory inputs and expierience over some of the claims--after all, who's to tell me what's real or what isn't
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Actually Keeper, Science doesn't work in that rigid or obtuse a definition. Science sets about to answer a question (ie, things fall down), by starting with a hypothesis, and working towards an expected outcome.
Generally, most scientists (I mean, retired ones that don't need to worry about hounding down grant money or stepping on peer's toes) that have the luxury of stating the facts as the stand in the data, not massaging their conclusions to fit their benefactor's intentions, would rather look at the scientific method without any preconcieved biases, and derrive conclusions from those data sets.
The scientific method does NOT inheirently exclude anything, Ghosts, Extra-Terrestrials, Dowsing and what not... It does, however, have to work within the limits of the known, and make very careful and conservative forays into the unknown. Basically, Science cannot yet prove or disprove phenomenae like the Bermuda Triangle, or crop circles, because the data is not reproducable within context. The simple thing is that science works within 3 distinct areas:
- We know it to be true because it's been proven as such
- We know it not to true because it's been disproven as such, and
- We are not sure as to whether or not it's true, because we have no way to prove or disprove it conclusively.
Religion, conversely, works in the opposite way, it works on the basis of a conclusion, and damn the process, because it relies on faith and faith only. You really can't argue that because it's belief, not fact. Some people think God is a forgone conclusion... Others believe it to be poppycock... and still others aren't sure either way... And more scientists than you'd think believe in a God of some sort, they're just not in a hurry to prove or disprove their beliefs. Either way, Science uses a method to try to prove or disprove a postulation, and if the results are not repeatable, or are not thorough enough, there is room to formulate a more comprehensive test regimen. Religion is basically a light switch, you either believe in something that you can't fully explain or prove, or you don't.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
Generally, most scientists (I mean, retired ones that don't need to worry about hounding down grant money or stepping on peer's toes) that have the luxury of stating the facts as the stand in the data, not massaging their conclusions to fit their benefactor's intentions, would rather look at the scientific method without any preconcieved biases, and derrive conclusions from those data sets.
Which you just explained WHY science in the used sense is faulty--it's not the search for knowledge, but getting the benefactor grants and not stepping on peers' toes.
which is the inherent flaw.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I can agree it has its flaws but within any kind of Scientiifc thought there is general evidence that leads to a theory of why something is. Like blackholes: Sure we proabably will never prove them real in my life time nor my childs or their childs. But there is evidence that shows that its possible. Evidence such as, unnatural movement of Terristrial objects do to a gravity source pulling it, i.e. black hole (i.e possible collapsed star).
But like u said its all faith. I still have faith for a god like i said cuz its just easier for me to submit to. So i follow religon just to guide me in my faith. Thus, what its all about, and why its worth it.
Check Out My Domain Page!!!
Keeper:
I know, it's not perfect... I read State of Fear by Michael Chricton and even though it IS fiction... it still presents some very, very interesting points about the skewing of science to further an end.
The Idea presented is that Scientific study (not just drug studys, because they are already double-blind) should be blind as to the funding sources... Just to keep the data and conclusions from being skewed.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Either way, it's means to prove a somewhat intangible end.
While both have good, both have been used for bad.
Let's face it--with human nature what it is, neither institution can be what it could be.
So the real problem is us.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
nope
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
When it comes to religion, people have fought and died for it for thousands of years. I think what my buddy greenfire is trying to say is that everyone has to believe in something, hence making them faithful to a certain idea or theory. I believe that faith in something is a state in which we all have a claim to one way or another. It's not about deifferent religions, its about faith and what you are comfortable with in your mind.
I'll have a sig someday....................
OK I dont feel like reading all this. But this is my 2 cents.
1. OK I live a happy life beleiving in GOd. I die and turns out hes not real. I turn to dust.
I still lived a happy life. SO my life was not a waiste.
2. I live a happy life beleiving in GOd. I die and he is real. I go to Heaven. Seems pretty worth it to me.
3. Or I go on not beleiveing in GOd. I die and he is real. I go to hell. I would say thats a Gamble I dont want to take.
SO I choose to beleive in God so that I dont have anything to worry about.
I am all that is man
I think you may be oversimplifying, ESB. Consider how many other aspects of the afterlife when taking other religions there are. Hell, for living your life and believing in God, if, say, Buddhism turns out right, you're reincarnated worse off then you were this lifetime.
it's not as simple as God and atheism.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Good point. But when it all boils down to it. Argument after argument. I will never stray away from the faith I have.
THis the the road I choose to take.
I just hope IM right
I am all that is man
Not asking you to stray...not in the least.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
