Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
but how important is dental hygiene?....
VOXVENDOR
New member
Gidge...
For most people It is in the top ten list of important things
Unfortuantely It doesn't even make the top 100 in my life...
For most people It is in the top ten list of important things
Unfortuantely It doesn't even make the top 100 in my life...
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
Dental hygeine is very important.
I have been watching this thread with amused interest for quite a while. In fact, I even started a response twice, but then figured why get into it. But I do find it interesting that athiests and agnostics also have such strong feelings regarding religeon.
We all have faith in something - that is, we believe in or hope for something that cannot be seen or proven. Some of us believe in the big bang theory and evolution, and some of us believe in God and heaven. I personally hope for a life after this one, where I can be reunited with my family and meet my Savior. Do I know this is true? No. But I sure hope it is. I don't ignore other people's beliefs, and I don't ignore science. I speculate on all those things, and evaluate them. I have made a concious choice to invest my faith in the thing that brings me the greatest happiness, and I allow all other people the same privelege.
Furthermore, I think the real point of life is to learn to serve other people. Any religeon, philosphy, or way of life that teaches that prinicple is all right with me. Of course, I feel my particular denomination worships in a more appropriate way than some others, but I would never deny anyone the chance to worship (or not to) in any way they pleased.
I really think that most Christians are more like me than the dim-witted, back-woods, big-haired Bible thumpers usually portrayed in the media. But that image is what more and more people think of when they hear the word Christian now, and it's really too bad.
The other factor that I think has turned many people off to organized religeon is denominations that stronly proceletize. I can really understand how Christians would want to extend a hand and share something that brings them joy with others, but nobody likes to be hounded or badgered.
Anyway, that's my $.02.
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
http://www.aaroncheney.com
I have been watching this thread with amused interest for quite a while. In fact, I even started a response twice, but then figured why get into it. But I do find it interesting that athiests and agnostics also have such strong feelings regarding religeon.
We all have faith in something - that is, we believe in or hope for something that cannot be seen or proven. Some of us believe in the big bang theory and evolution, and some of us believe in God and heaven. I personally hope for a life after this one, where I can be reunited with my family and meet my Savior. Do I know this is true? No. But I sure hope it is. I don't ignore other people's beliefs, and I don't ignore science. I speculate on all those things, and evaluate them. I have made a concious choice to invest my faith in the thing that brings me the greatest happiness, and I allow all other people the same privelege.
Furthermore, I think the real point of life is to learn to serve other people. Any religeon, philosphy, or way of life that teaches that prinicple is all right with me. Of course, I feel my particular denomination worships in a more appropriate way than some others, but I would never deny anyone the chance to worship (or not to) in any way they pleased.
I really think that most Christians are more like me than the dim-witted, back-woods, big-haired Bible thumpers usually portrayed in the media. But that image is what more and more people think of when they hear the word Christian now, and it's really too bad.
The other factor that I think has turned many people off to organized religeon is denominations that stronly proceletize. I can really understand how Christians would want to extend a hand and share something that brings them joy with others, but nobody likes to be hounded or badgered.
Anyway, that's my $.02.
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
http://www.aaroncheney.com
VOXVENDOR
New member
Very Well Said Aaron..
Im one of the Anti-Religion guys, and I will honestly say that your post is very valid....
I feel a tear coming on.........
Im so moved, I almost want to go and brush my teeth..........
NAAAAAAAAAAA.!........
Im one of the Anti-Religion guys, and I will honestly say that your post is very valid....
I feel a tear coming on.........
Im so moved, I almost want to go and brush my teeth..........
NAAAAAAAAAAA.!........
T
tribalbeeyatch
New member
Re: Dental hygeine is very important.
Aaron,
I'm sure that it makes you feel better to think that we're all in the same boat when it comes down to it, but you're wrong here. I don't have 'faith' in anything, least of all in evolution or the big bang theory. I believe in these things because they are supported by evidence. Don't you think that your faith in God is something special and not to be diluted by semantic equivocation?
I'm glad for you that your faith brings you happiness. Honestly, I am. Unfortunately, I am not able to share your faith because after a lifetime of earnest study, I just don't find any compelling evidence for it. I could no more maintain a belief in gods than I could believe that I can fly. I really don't think that you get to choose your beliefs; you only choose what concepts and evidences you expose yourself to.
I'm glad that you are accepting of the fact that others don't necessarily believe as you do. I aspire to the same ideal myself. Were it only that everybody did, I think that the world would be a much more peaceful and cooperative place.
Take care.
Aaron Cheney said:
Aaron,
I'm sure that it makes you feel better to think that we're all in the same boat when it comes down to it, but you're wrong here. I don't have 'faith' in anything, least of all in evolution or the big bang theory. I believe in these things because they are supported by evidence. Don't you think that your faith in God is something special and not to be diluted by semantic equivocation?
I'm glad for you that your faith brings you happiness. Honestly, I am. Unfortunately, I am not able to share your faith because after a lifetime of earnest study, I just don't find any compelling evidence for it. I could no more maintain a belief in gods than I could believe that I can fly. I really don't think that you get to choose your beliefs; you only choose what concepts and evidences you expose yourself to.
I'm glad that you are accepting of the fact that others don't necessarily believe as you do. I aspire to the same ideal myself. Were it only that everybody did, I think that the world would be a much more peaceful and cooperative place.
Take care.
E
EndlessCoda
New member
tribalbeeyatch -
I agree with you to an extent. The problem I have is that it seems like you're implying:
science and religion are opposite in that one is based on "proof" and the other is based on "faith".
But the truth is that all of these scientific theories and "compelling evidence" have been provided by people with a great "faith" in something. A faith in the idea that not everything is known (not even close). A faith that there IS something bigger than us all. What comes out of this faith are things like the big bang theory, evolution, etc. Without faith there would be no science or religion.
Ok, now I'll butt out.
<-peace->
I agree with you to an extent. The problem I have is that it seems like you're implying:
science and religion are opposite in that one is based on "proof" and the other is based on "faith".
But the truth is that all of these scientific theories and "compelling evidence" have been provided by people with a great "faith" in something. A faith in the idea that not everything is known (not even close). A faith that there IS something bigger than us all. What comes out of this faith are things like the big bang theory, evolution, etc. Without faith there would be no science or religion.
Ok, now I'll butt out.
<-peace->
J
JuliusIrvingJr.
New member
i was in a band once and everysong we made was about having sex with jesus and other offensive songs. when we played all the christians would be very upset and sometimes attempt to fight us after the show. It was not very christian-like of them. we only played three shows, then decided to call it quits before we someone killed us. this was years ago, and to this day it was the most fun ive ever had playing music.
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
My point exactly, EndlessCoda.
I understand what you're saying, tribalbeeyatch, but I think you missed my point. One does not develop faith through "compelling evidence", or I should say at least not scientifically provable "compelling evidence".
As far as diminishing my faith through "semantic equivocation" goes, my faith is sacred to me. However, I don't think that as a person I am any more or less important or special than anyone else, and I know that their forms of faith are just as important to them as mine is to me.
When I want to know if my faith is true, I live it. I conduct an experiment on it. If by practicing it I feel happiness, I conclude it is worth my effort. I could never "prove" that to anyone, but it is "compelling evidence" enough for me.
Scienctists use different terminology. Instead of calling something "faith", they call it "theory". The Big Bang Theory, for example. We know, by measuring the brightness of stars over time, that our universe is expanding. Good science tells us so. From here scientists theorize that our universe started with an explosion of some kind. But that is only a "theory". A belief in something that cannot be proven. (At least not yet, and it could be argued that perhaps a big bang was just God's recipe.) And let's not forget: a few hundred years ago good science told us that the sun revolved around the earth.
It is always fascinating to discuss religeon with other people and discover other points of view, but in the end it's almost like discussing abortion: everybody already has an opinion (usually a strong one), and no matter how long you debate, nobody's changing their mind. But I would suggest this: you should read "Contact" by Carl Sagan. It really explores the "faith in science versus faith in religeon" question (in far greater depth than the Jodie Foster movie). You might find it interesting.
That's it for me on this topic. I'm too wrapped up in trying to figure out why in the heck my GigaSampler keeps crashing! (I could really use some divine intervention now!
)
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
I understand what you're saying, tribalbeeyatch, but I think you missed my point. One does not develop faith through "compelling evidence", or I should say at least not scientifically provable "compelling evidence".
As far as diminishing my faith through "semantic equivocation" goes, my faith is sacred to me. However, I don't think that as a person I am any more or less important or special than anyone else, and I know that their forms of faith are just as important to them as mine is to me.
When I want to know if my faith is true, I live it. I conduct an experiment on it. If by practicing it I feel happiness, I conclude it is worth my effort. I could never "prove" that to anyone, but it is "compelling evidence" enough for me.
Scienctists use different terminology. Instead of calling something "faith", they call it "theory". The Big Bang Theory, for example. We know, by measuring the brightness of stars over time, that our universe is expanding. Good science tells us so. From here scientists theorize that our universe started with an explosion of some kind. But that is only a "theory". A belief in something that cannot be proven. (At least not yet, and it could be argued that perhaps a big bang was just God's recipe.) And let's not forget: a few hundred years ago good science told us that the sun revolved around the earth.
It is always fascinating to discuss religeon with other people and discover other points of view, but in the end it's almost like discussing abortion: everybody already has an opinion (usually a strong one), and no matter how long you debate, nobody's changing their mind. But I would suggest this: you should read "Contact" by Carl Sagan. It really explores the "faith in science versus faith in religeon" question (in far greater depth than the Jodie Foster movie). You might find it interesting.
That's it for me on this topic. I'm too wrapped up in trying to figure out why in the heck my GigaSampler keeps crashing! (I could really use some divine intervention now!
)Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
Last edited:
db51
New member
A few hundred years ago 'science' was religious beliefs, dictated by the Church. There was no 'science' free from religion.
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Aaron Cheney said:
Aaron, that's not quite right.
Like I said in an earlier post, science does require faith. But it's a much more fundamental kind of faith than religion. It's the faith that there is order to the universe and that this order is at least vaguely interpretable into human understanding. Scientific theories emerge from the practice of this basic faith and can be proven within it's context. If a theory eventually fails or is improved upon, it is abandoned. Accepted theories are not faith. They are statements of "this is the best we know so far" according the tenants of our faith in an orderly universe.
Any good scientist will admit her faith. That said, of course, the picture of the universe that science paints up to this point casts an extremely doubtful light on the tenants of religious faith. I would maintain that the concept of God is a theory within the more the basic scientific faith. You start out with the basic notion that the universe (or "cause" of the universe) is orderly. Then you can ask what is the nature of that order? One theory is that it's a thinking feeling God.
But theories based on the scientific faith are accepted by scientists because the theories seem to be required in order to explain observable phenomenon. Certainly up to this point gods are not required to explain anything we observe going on in the world. Even life, which religions often like to regard as something "metaphysical", obeys all the known laws of physics. This is why scientists reject the theory of God. So far it's unnecessary. And there doesn't appear to be any need for it on the horizon.
So yes, scientists most definitely do have faith (difficult to imagine a way of being without it). It's just that scientific faith is much more fundamental and firmly grounded in experience than faiths in anthropomorphic gods. And scientific faith tends to trump religious faith in gods because it simply renders them, at best, irrelevant.
barefoot
VOXVENDOR
New member
Quick... someone break up the fight........ One guys beating the other over the head with a bible, and the others doing the same with a science text......
.........
Unfortuately the Science text is thicker and heavier.....
.........Unfortuately the Science text is thicker and heavier.....
A
atomictoyz
New member
Since the topic has shifted a bit, I thought I poke my head in again.
Not all Scientists Reject God. Sorry, buts its ust not true. Some do..Some Don't.
Can anyone define the word faith? Then can anyone give resolution to faith in regards to "evidence" and "observation"?
Peace,
Dennis
barefoot said:
Not all Scientists Reject God. Sorry, buts its ust not true. Some do..Some Don't.
Can anyone define the word faith? Then can anyone give resolution to faith in regards to "evidence" and "observation"?
Peace,
Dennis
T
tribalbeeyatch
New member
EndlessCoda said:
This is exactly the sort of equivocation that I was talking about. Do you really think that expecting the sun to rise tomorrow is the same sort of thing as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns? To label both of these as 'faith' is to gloss over a glaring and obvious distinction.
Now of course science is built upon axioms -- name a system of thought that isn't -- but it is built upon a minimilist and necessary set of axioms (constancy of physical laws, reliability of sensory feedback, blah, blah). Religion operates on these same axioms, then adds a whole bunch more.
Regarding this "faith that not everything is known", don't you think that this is evidenced every time that something new is learned? I know that not everything is known because I make new discoveries all of the time. If you want to call that faith, then we're going to have to come up with a new word for the sort of faith that is bandied about in religious circles.
T
tribalbeeyatch
New member
Aaron Cheney said:
I think that you're missing my point. I'm not saying that I have a faith that's built upon compelling evidence. I'm saying that I don't rely on faith at all; instead I rely on evidence. If it's the axioms of science that you are calling faith, then again I would have to point out your equivocation on the word 'faith'. Goedel taught us that axioms are unproveable from within a system, but that doesn't mean that scientific axioms are unevidenced.
Scientists don't just use different terminology, we use different methodology for arriving at conclusions too.
Aaron, you're now conflating theories with faith, too. Theories are not "belief
Oh, and it is a STRENGTH of science that it incorporates self-correcting mechanisms, not a weakness. Where science is wrong, it at least can (and given enough time, will) correct itself. Where religious dogma is wrong, it will always be wrong because it is presented as the immutable word of an unchanging deity.
I've read it, but thanks for the recommendation anyway. It's interesting that you got a "faith in science" message out of it. I can't say that I did. It read to me very much like an expression of Sagan's 'hopeful agnosticism'. That is, he couldn't find any evidence for there being more to life than was revealed to him by science, but he remained hopeful that he was wrong and that there was something magical and special that he was somehow missing. I think that this is a common feeling, and it's likely one that compells many people to religious belief. Take care.
T
tribalbeeyatch
New member
atomictoyz said:
Quite right about not all scientists being atheists (I couldn't bring myself to type "reject" what with its attendant connotations).
I think that the dictionary has a perfectly good definition of faith:
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
I might soften it a bit, though, to:
"firm belief in something for which there is no objective evidence"
A
atomictoyz
New member
tribalbeeyatch said:
I wouldn't go as far as to say no proof, proof comes in many forms. Faith closely resembles hope, its hope in the unseen, not necessarily hope in the unprovable. When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he had hoped that there would be a plethora of transitional fossils that man would uncover to strengthen his theory. Eldridge and Gould noticed this lack of transitional fossils and wrote a theory called "Punctuated Equilibria". Punk Eek in many senses, is based on data supported by a large number of paleoentologists while Darwins wasn't. But for Punk Eek, they hope that no transitional fossils are found, because nobody likes to wrong, especially in the scientific community. Creationists and Evolutionists all hope to find the smoking gun, each has faith in the unknown, its just what kind of unknowns.
Do all scientists have to have a Phd?
What is a scientist?
Why is gravity a theory?
Why is evolution a theory?
I though Carl was a Gnostic?
Can anyone quote Karl Poppers definition of Scientific Theory?
Peace,
Dennis
barefoot
barefootsound.com
atomictoyz said:
Well, we all wear different caps depending on the circumstances. It's true that some are scientists by profession but don't practice that faith in all aspects of their lives. In this case, I would say they are not scientists with respect to their personal beliefs.
I don't think I could manage that sort of schizophrenic dichotomy.
barefoot
T
tribalbeeyatch
New member
atomictoyz said:
That's why I offered the softened version of the word 'faith'. Proofs are for philosophy and geometry and have limited utility in the real world.
Ummm...I would disagree with that. Darwin predicted that, if his hypothesis were correct, then the fossil record would demonstrate this. And it has, thus demonstrating the predictive nature of science in general and the theory of evolution in particular.
Ummm...again I have to disagree. Eldridge and Gould didn't notice a lack of transitionals, they noticed that the fossil record showed evidence of saltation. This is what led to their formulation of the PE hypothesis. The supposed "lack of transitional fossils" is an oft-repeated fallacy.
"[E]specially in the scientific community"? What makes you think that? I would say that scientists are just like any other people, and, as such, they dislike being wrong no more or less than anybody else. Again, Gould and Eldridge predict that the fossil record will show long periods of minor modifications puctuated by short bursts of rapid change. They are well aware that many transitional fossils have been found.
And Creationists shouldn't be included in a discussion of science. Creationism is a socio-political movement, not a scientific one.
Do all scientists have to have a Phd?
No.
What is a scientist?
One who engages in the pursuit of knowledge through formalized inductive and deductive processes.
Why is gravity a theory?
Why is evolution a theory?
Gravity and evolution are theories because they have both held up to intense scientific scrutiny, and, as such, have been elevated beyond the realm of hypothesis.
I though Carl was a Gnostic?
Nope.
Can anyone quote Karl Poppers definition of Scientific Theory?
Do you mean the Popperian Criterion of Falsifiability?
[edited to add]
I see that you're in Seattle, atomictoyz. You aren't at the UW by any chance?
A
atomictoyz
New member
Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
The supposed "lack of transitional fossils" is an oft-repeated fallacy. This is still an open issue in the origins debate, so Ill save this for later. I have some material, but not on hand, from known paleoentologists who do not agree with the interpretations of the data.
"[E]specially in the scientific community"? What makes you think that? Again, Gould and Eldridge predict that the fossil record will show long periods of minor modifications puctuated by short bursts of rapid change. They are well aware that many transitional fossils have been found.
The word predict means there was an assumption made in the process of developing the theory, I can argue that a prediction is tightly bound to hope.
The "especially in the scientific community" comment reflects the financial aspects of research and govermental funding. Punk Eek (PE) deals with Stasis, long periods of nothing happening morphologically to a species. The nature of fossils typically do not reveal any genetic information to prove or disprove changes that are not morphological. This actually is a debate between Gradualists and Punk Eekers that continues on everyday. The molecular Biologists get frustrated because PE from a genetics standpoint is unprovable, with the deleterious mutation tolerance being so low in observed experiments for a vast number of species. One thing I discovered in doing research in the origins debate is the total lack of recognizing we only have a miniscule amount of data to analyze over such a short period of time. To say something is consistant or reliable is risky at best. Id lose my job if a made an assumtion that required an inverted extrapolation<spell check>over a theoretical amount of time nearing infinity minus 1. Speculation is fun anyhow.
Do you mean the Popperian Criterion of Falsifiability?
I will say yes to keep the answer simple:0)
I see that you're in Seattle, atomictoyz. You aren't at the UW by any chance?
Nope, I have a sister and an Aunt who work there. I have a few friends who are practicing scientists with Phd's and an Uncle who works for the Government as a Phd in Geology.
I got my scientific training in special schools and have been involved in origins debate for 8 years or so. I used to believe evolution was fact, I have a library of books. I also have a pretty good selection of "creationism" books. Im a thorn in the side of both creationist and evolutionists. Bad science is bad science, its becoming more and more of a problem, just recently some Washington State scientists got busted for tainting and National Geographic is in its second frying pan this year for improperly representing data and doctoring images. What do you expect from the media right? I hope I didn't forget something here, its easier when Im at home with all my stuff.
Peace,
Dennis
The supposed "lack of transitional fossils" is an oft-repeated fallacy. This is still an open issue in the origins debate, so Ill save this for later. I have some material, but not on hand, from known paleoentologists who do not agree with the interpretations of the data.
"[E]specially in the scientific community"? What makes you think that? Again, Gould and Eldridge predict that the fossil record will show long periods of minor modifications puctuated by short bursts of rapid change. They are well aware that many transitional fossils have been found.
The word predict means there was an assumption made in the process of developing the theory, I can argue that a prediction is tightly bound to hope.
The "especially in the scientific community" comment reflects the financial aspects of research and govermental funding. Punk Eek (PE) deals with Stasis, long periods of nothing happening morphologically to a species. The nature of fossils typically do not reveal any genetic information to prove or disprove changes that are not morphological. This actually is a debate between Gradualists and Punk Eekers that continues on everyday. The molecular Biologists get frustrated because PE from a genetics standpoint is unprovable, with the deleterious mutation tolerance being so low in observed experiments for a vast number of species. One thing I discovered in doing research in the origins debate is the total lack of recognizing we only have a miniscule amount of data to analyze over such a short period of time. To say something is consistant or reliable is risky at best. Id lose my job if a made an assumtion that required an inverted extrapolation<spell check>over a theoretical amount of time nearing infinity minus 1. Speculation is fun anyhow.
Do you mean the Popperian Criterion of Falsifiability?
I will say yes to keep the answer simple:0)
I see that you're in Seattle, atomictoyz. You aren't at the UW by any chance?
Nope, I have a sister and an Aunt who work there. I have a few friends who are practicing scientists with Phd's and an Uncle who works for the Government as a Phd in Geology.
I got my scientific training in special schools and have been involved in origins debate for 8 years or so. I used to believe evolution was fact, I have a library of books. I also have a pretty good selection of "creationism" books. Im a thorn in the side of both creationist and evolutionists. Bad science is bad science, its becoming more and more of a problem, just recently some Washington State scientists got busted for tainting and National Geographic is in its second frying pan this year for improperly representing data and doctoring images. What do you expect from the media right? I hope I didn't forget something here, its easier when Im at home with all my stuff.
Peace,
Dennis
S
synergy
New member
It is obvious that many here are bound to the chains of logic and reason. Why can't you accept the notion that there is a force that is bigger than you and you are not capable, much less ready to understand how and why things happen? I know that it is hard for us, with all our technology and our modern science, to come to terms with this. What makes you think that the most hailed theory of science today will not fall flat on its face, just as Ptolemy's geocentric universe did way back when. History repeats itself. From the words of Morpheus, "Free Your Mind".