Religion Religions and rudeness.

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
In other words you believe in the god of the gaps principle, much like people from long long ago eg. they couldn't explain natural phenomena like earthquakes, floods, plagues, lightning etc.. so they concluded that the gods must be angry.

The gap for god to fit into is getting smaller and smaller. Unlike believers science admits when they don't know and puts up hypotheses and later scientific theories for peer review. Religion claim they know but offer no proof, they just say trust me.

Faith- strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Faith needs no science..science needs science.. you can’t question me for faith by using science and then you’re using faith about science .. which isn’t supposed to be about faith


For example.. one plus one equals two.. we can prove it...that’s mathematics science...


Faith is about mystery.. I think we are both looking at mystery.. both faith. Your faith is in science..


Which is actually humorous and not logical...


I don’t believe that everything should be logical.it might be abstract,,etc... but I can prove how science should be sciencentific and not mysterious..


This is where we differ.. I’m actually more logical..

You should find a scientist and ask him questions.. some will surprise you and be religious.. and those that are not have no answers and they admit it! I’m not sure how u don’t get that!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Posts
15,160
Likes
27,341
Location
Omnipresent.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fortitude Valley Diehards. Chelsea.
so they don’t know .. the scientists.. you keep waiting on them.. lol

You’re starting to get weird.. this is science and logic.. nastiness when asked to explain science..

No proof no science mate.. keep


As for touchiness... scientists have a reason for this also...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ex-abusers-those-who-dont-study-a7378911.html





https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-science-reveals-about-pedophilia


Science mate... and I can show u scientists doing bad things too...


But let’s stay with the facts... do u have any that might sway me.? Facts,!
So you are equating pedophilia with consenting sound of mind adults having a sexual relationship?

Can you show where I have been nasty, I am of the opinion that I have been posting and replying with respect to your views.

I know scientists do bad things too, there are good and bad in every group of people eg. the clergy abusing children and the church hierarchy actively covering it up.

As I have said earlier, very hard if not impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on people who make extraordinary claims to provide the evidence eg. Flat Earthers, Elvis is still alive, Yeti's, creators.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
16,328
Likes
13,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
What if what makes us truly happy comes at the expense of another's happiness? Surely, given that we are hoping to be becoming moral beings, this option in pursuit of that all-pervasive happiness is not a path available to us...

...Happiness seems to be a thing which is much-vaunted but rarely closely examined. When examined more closely, it is as hollow as my head and as deep as a kiddies' swimming pool. Barely worth a thought, because, while your luxuriating in that feeling, the rest of life, with all its unexpected vicissitudes, lies ignored, yet omnipresent. Happiness is certainly not the ground upon which one can base a life...
A REALLY good post in general, but on these two points...

The first - absolutely my happiness should not come at the expense of others (except when Geelong beats Hawthorn - that is ALWAYS to the good, no matter how many become miserable as a result. Sorry, but not sorry at all :) ). I try to be as moral as I can be in the pursuit of happiness, and just hope that this subjective state spreads through those around me, just as the general 'good vibes' of others makes me happy.

The second - I think 'happiness' is so rarely examined because its so subjective. A fair slew of happiness indicators come from levels of the 'heirarchy of needs' being fulfilled

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


but there are others that are highly individualised, maybe even unique from person to person according to their situation.

Hawthorn supporters won't share my joy of earlier today, for example.
 

western royboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
10,274
Likes
10,533
Location
Western Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Faith...in the words of The Boss...Bruce Springsteen, blind faith will get you killed, blind faith in religion...draw your own conclusions...one of my favourite Icehouse tracks is “Don’t Believe Anymore” not because I was abused in a religious setting, because of what I found out when I delved deep into the institution
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,587
Likes
4,143
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
Faith needs no science..science needs science.. you can’t question me for faith by using science and then you’re using faith about science .. which isn’t supposed to be about faith


For example.. one plus one equals two.. we can prove it...that’s mathematics science...


Faith is about mystery.. I think we are both looking at mystery.. both faith. Your faith is in science..


Which is actually humorous and not logical...


I don’t believe that everything should be logical.it might be abstract,,etc... but I can prove how science should be sciencentific and not mysterious..


This is where we differ.. I’m actually more logical..

You should find a scientist and ask him questions.. some will surprise you and be religious.. and those that are not have no answers and they admit it! I’m not sure how u don’t get that!

I think your understanding of science is a little off. Science doesn't need science - that's circular logic, a tautology. Science needs evidence in order to build models to explain how things work.

Faith requires no evidence. Science does.

This is where the two conflict and the concept of probability comes into the equation. It is possible God created the universe. But the evidence suggests the probability of this occurring is incredibly low, given how much evidence there is for a non-supernatural creation of the universe. Also consider the stories that appear in various religious texts - there is no evidence that any of the stories in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Hindu texts, etc actually occurred. In fact, evidence suggests many of the stories were made up or at least pinched from other sources (eg The Epic of Gilgamesh).

Are there religious scientists? Yes there are. But there are plenty of scientists that do have answers to the questions and research continues on a daily basis to find more evidence to support those models.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Well you call religious people as stupid..

You’re generalising that religious peeps are fascinated by genetalia.. and I can show u people from any line doing the same stuff...

Thirdly science included those studies that pedo is normal but acting upon them isn’t.. that’s like saying a pedo is normal and if he doesn’t get caught and nobody knows it’s ok.. because wasn’t caught...

When 8n fact the thought is terrible.. if someone is looking at a child.. somebody’s child in a house .. in a very creepy way but doesn’t act upon it in that situation.. it’s kin
I think your understanding of science is a little off. Science doesn't need science - that's circular logic, a tautology. Science needs evidence in order to build models to explain how things work.

Faith requires no evidence. Science does.

This is where the two conflict and the concept of probability comes into the equation. It is possible God created the universe. But the evidence suggests the probability of this occurring is incredibly low, given how much evidence there is for a non-supernatural creation of the universe. Also consider the stories that appear in various religious texts - there is no evidence that any of the stories in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Hindu texts, etc actually occurred. In fact, evidence suggests many of the stories were made up or at least pinched from other sources (eg The Epic of Gilgamesh).

Are there religious scientists? Yes there are. But there are plenty of scientists that do have answers to the questions and research continues on a daily basis to find more evidence to support those models.
then if science doesn't need science it's religion

lol

I think you've misunderstood science not me

if you can't prove something in science it's not science

you can wear your white lab coat but if you can't prove something.. it's not true!



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ng/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/amp/


when science can't prove something it doesn't need to!

great narrative..

but then it becomes religion where you follow scientific priests who are not really into morals but nothing narratives that don't say anything real


you fall into that trap

The Forbes article syndrome
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,587
Likes
4,143
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
Where did I say religious people are stupid?

I didn't and acknowledged that there are scientists who are religious.

To say your argument went off the deep end with the genitalia and pedo references would be an understatement.

Science never "proves" as I quite explicitly stated in my post. It provides evidence.

The article you posted speaks exactly to my point that science is based on the concept of probability. There is no thing as scientific proof - yet that is what you were claiming. There is evidence and the more credible evidence there is, the higher the probability that the model is correct.

Quite clearly you do not understand what science is.

BTW I reckon I have a pretty good grasp of what science is, given you know I hold a degree in science and have been involved in research for over 20 years.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
If u understand science you then must understand the difference between theory unproved and law proved..

And you must also know that in science to be law it must be proven.. and that is how we arrive to scientific conclusions.. through methodology that leads to proof...


You cannot assume something without having facts and proof to conclude something is facts and scientific law.. I think you’ll agree with me on that?
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,587
Likes
4,143
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
If u understand science you then must understand the difference between theory unproved and law proved..

And you must also know that in science to be law it must be proven.. and that is how we arrive to scientific conclusions.. through methodology that leads to proof...


You cannot assume something without having facts and proof to conclude something is facts and scientific law.. I think you’ll agree with me on that?
I think we're at loggerheads regarding "proof" and "evidence". As the article you posted noted, science doesn't deal with "proof". It deals with evidence and currently re-evaluates itself based on that evidence. So yes, you need facts (which I've called evidence) but proof is not part of the scientific process.

Theory and law are two very different beasts in science. A theory is an attempt to explain how (and possibly why) a phenomenon occurs. A scientific theory is backed up by evidence to the point where the scientific consensus is the theory explains the phenomenon being studied.

A law is simply a description of something that happens every time (eg water boils at 100 degrees Celsius). Of course, this law doesn't always hold - we know air pressure plays a role in water boiling and there are instances where it doesn't boil at 100 degrees. Which is a clumsy attempt by myself to show that scientific law constantly changes. A better example would have been Newtonian physics not holding at the quantum level which has seen the laws of physics being rewritten in the face of the evidence brought to light.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
yeah you're into science and scientific methodology but not proof

that's a cop out!

proof in science is vital

The rest is research

research doesn't always get proof and law

which means everything is uncertain so therefore not true science

if I'm researching stuff and never prove anything am is scientist too?


my biggest pet hate is narratives and how easily people who call themselves educated can by into them...

I feel were dumbing down kids and if natural selection is true.. kids are going to be turning into comps and then fish before they disappear

why don't kids get taught philosophy and then that can work on the narratives they get taught

if a child said I don't believe in Darwin's THEORY that child will be made to feel humiliated

this is how society is indoctrinated to belong in the consensus!

as Pablo Escobar would offer
' Plata o plomo?"

Silver or lead?

do you want to be humiliated or not?

do you want that job or not?

do you want that promotion or not?

do you want to be cool or not?


sometimes you need to not go with the silver and go with courage

Silver usually doesn't require courage

going against the grain often does

you can see that with Assange or with Israel Folau

you'll get taken apart if you don't belong to the consensus

and yet in the consensus there's no greatness

The greatness in society is often found on the rats tails of outside of the consensus

otherwise everybody would be great but we know that's not true!

when you hush down or humiliate that person not in your consensus you might be giving plomo to the next great doctor or artist

only to remain with the mediocrity of the consensus
atheist culture for example
a big unremarkable architectural blob

creativity is rarely found in the consensus

so always ask questions and have the courage to follow YOUR instincts rather than what the narrative creates for you
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
I explained consensus and how it works above!

it means nothing without proof!

just an echo chamber

needs to be totally ripped apart and critiqued

I offered that and I'm no scientist

The consensus on these theories still need to know they're only theories!

you can look at them any way you want but they're theories and will remain theories because they're easily knocked around

think about consensus v critical thought

and how consensus is formed

sometimes true sometimes not

wasn't long ago everybody believed in Freud's rubbish!

The psychology fraternity certainly found that consensus until they realised they were fkng people's heads with total rubbish

nobody does anymore

consensus of theory v proof
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,929
Likes
73,467
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
I'm sure you won't mind if I take this as a question meant generally, rather than specifically for Geelong Sicko. Everything I write is sometimes my opinion. Other times it's the opinion of others I've thought useful for the sake of argument (I call it stealing). Sometimes I acknowledge this theft, other times not. It depends on how the whim takes me.

First of all, why should the acquisition of happiness be the or even a determinant of a successful life for us? What is happiness, other than a mere transitory 'feeling'? It's not a thing in itself, though some think it to be an attainable state. One wonders if we ever really reach such a state of happiness. One further wonders whether, even if we did reach this state, we would recognise this tremendous occasion. If we do recognise a moment of happiness are we, unerringly, able to translate that into a state of happiness?

What made me happy when I was twenty y.o. no longer does . This is because, for instance, at 70 y.o., I am not physically capable of even attempting to do what once gave me pleasure back when. Waits for the ribald laughter to subside. I am no longer physically able to play footy or cricket, which gave me so much pleasure during my youth and later. So, it would seem that happiness is not a universal in our lives, and that it seems to be infinitely changeable, depending, among other things, on our current interests and capabilities.

Even transitory things, like our moods, have a profound effect on our happiness. From one moment to the next, we humans are infamous for our wanton changeability. Happiness is an elusive thing in itself. It's also a thing which is different for everyone. (In this rant, for the sake of argument, you'll note me making the inherent assumption that there exists such a thing as happiness.)

How do you define happiness? It seems to be difficult to put into words. Words which might provide the same definition for everyone. It seems that happiness is elusive, just about for everyone. Nobody is constantly, even most of the time, truly happy. Rather, even though it is regularly, obsessively, and occasionally to the exclusion of all else, so desperately sought, this provides no guarantee of its attainment. There is nothing deterministic about the possibility of owning this wonderful thing called, 'happiness'.

We recognise happiness as occurring at various stages of our lives, but not as a constant. This makes happiness a state which is transitory. It depends on circumstances which occur over time, short, long or medium as that might be.

To meet for the first time people who seem to be happy, is a great thing. It's not until you get to know them over time that you find out that they, like you, are at times less than ecstatic. It's an unavoidable way of being for us humans.

What if what makes us truly happy comes at the expense of another's happiness? Surely, given that we are hoping to be becoming moral beings, this option in pursuit of that all-pervasive happiness is not a path available to us.

This brings me to a perfectly inadequate attempt to answer your question, "... what makes you happy?" I don't know what it is to be happy, for all of us humans. I'm not even sure about what makes me happy. Happiness is such a movable and seemingly ill-defined concept to one as ill-qualified as I. The question becomes why would you depend on such a transitory, ill-defined mood to determine the way in which you value and/or conduct your existence.

Happiness seems to be a thing which is much-vaunted but rarely closely examined. When examined more closely, it is as hollow as my head and as deep as a kiddies' swimming pool. Barely worth a thought, because, while your luxuriating in that feeling, the rest of life, with all its unexpected vicissitudes, lies ignored, yet omnipresent. Happiness is certainly not the ground upon which one can base a life

I find what works for me is to be prepared to address every situation as it arises, in the best way I can. Oh, and I must be able to live with myself in regards to the quality of my thought, as determined by me, in that precious and often unrecognised moment before reflection (this moment also precedes action).

Sorry for all the (what may seem like) jargon, but the question you asked required some thought. Happiness would never be the only goal in my life. My life means more to me than that, and that meaning is exclusively mine.

Edit: Regarding your question about "meaningful connections", I recall experiences I've sometimes had with someone I love. That is to wake up in the morning, in another's arms, without any memory of how or when this intertwining took place. I found that to be a meaningful connection. Other meaningful connections can be experienced through sharing the beauties of a piece of music. Making love to someone who unequivocally and obviously loves you is another variation on the theme. (Here, I'm assuming that such a thing as 'love' exists).

You're operating at a level of genuine introspection that is a form of alien language for this contemporary society.

 
Last edited:

Seeds

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Posts
28,697
Likes
24,771
Location
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Faith needs no science..science needs science.. you can’t question me for faith by using science and then you’re using faith about science .. which isn’t supposed to be about faith


For example.. one plus one equals two.. we can prove it...that’s mathematics science...


Faith is about mystery.. I think we are both looking at mystery.. both faith. Your faith is in science..


Which is actually humorous and not logical...


I don’t believe that everything should be logical.it might be abstract,,etc... but I can prove how science should be sciencentific and not mysterious..


This is where we differ.. I’m actually more logical..

You should find a scientist and ask him questions.. some will surprise you and be religious.. and those that are not have no answers and they admit it! I’m not sure how u don’t get that!
This is pure gibberish. Ramblings of a crazy person.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Science does prove like biological science proves.. quantum science doesn’t..most of quantum science theory has no proveable evidence.. no different to religion..

As for the rest of what you’re saying I agree.. we’re all guessing..
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Posts
586
Likes
1,114
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Science does prove like biological science proves.. quantum science doesn’t..most of quantum science theory has no proveable evidence.. no different to religion..

As for the rest of what you’re saying I agree.. we’re all guessing..
WHAT?!

How can you compare any sort of science to religion?

We are not ‘all guessing’. Science is aiming to discover and understand based on evidence. Religion arrogantly assumes it already has all the answers and dismisses evidence (and common sense).

It staggers me that in 2019 people are still taken in by this utter claptrap.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,929
Likes
73,467
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
WHAT?!

How can you compare any sort of science to religion?

We are not ‘all guessing’. Science is aiming to discover and understand based on evidence. Religion arrogantly assumes it already has all the answers and dismisses evidence (and common sense).

It staggers me that in 2019 people are still taken in by this utter claptrap.

Actually, you could compare a lot of the contemporary social sciences with religions.

Most of their stuff is based on little more than "belief".
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
WHAT?!

How can you compare any sort of science to religion?

We are not ‘all guessing’. Science is aiming to discover and understand based on evidence. Religion arrogantly assumes it already has all the answers and dismisses evidence (and common sense).

It staggers me that in 2019 people are still taken in by this utter claptrap.
science without proof?

any quantum scientist will tell you there's no proof in that kind of science

it's no different but without the morals
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,977
Likes
1,162
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Where are you going with this?
I am merely pointing out science is not the answer in this situation.. it brings up more questions than it answers.. and yet people want proof in a creator.. and choose science that answers with nothingness..

which is why Dawkins talks about aliens and they might have created everything

he knows something created everything.. he puts his faith in aliens and not God!

but who created Dawkins' aliens?

nothing has existed without something that created it.. even Dawkins'scientific explanation of aliens!

anyway his answer is less satisfactory than God!
 
Top Bottom