Quote :

"and, btw, science is very much a religion today. I hate to break it to you."

Huh? What's your definition of a religion?

7/30/2007 11:50:39 PM

"something I want you to think is taken on faith as much as my religion, even though it really just isn't"

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 12:00:39 AM

the two share a lot of commonalities, especially with respect to how defensive people get when ANYONE questions their beliefs.

7/31/2007 12:01:27 AM

only a person who doesn't understand science gets offended when science is questioned.

however, MOST truly religious people get offended when you question their religion, and the more they understand (or "feel") their religious convictions, the more offended they become by the questioning

7/31/2007 12:05:30 AM

riiiiiiiiiiight. and that explains the righteous indignation caused when anyone question AGW, right?

7/31/2007 12:06:42 AM

Quote :

"then you aren't much of a scientist, nor do you understand how "science" works, or at least how it should work. just because you don't like the possibility doesn't mean you should reject it outright without evidence. And that's something in which creationists could use a lesson..."

Science doesn't reject possibilities without evidence, but it doesn't treat every possibility as being equally likely either. Like the possibility of God making it "seem" like the universe is old when it's not. Am I wrong?

Quote :

"false dilemma."

Enlighten me to the other options then where you can both believe and not believe in the same thing...

7/31/2007 12:06:52 AM

well, given that I am not both believing and not believing in something, then I must once again claim "false dilemma"

Quote :

"Science doesn't reject possibilities without evidence, but it doesn't treat every possibility as being equally likely either."

the question is not one of treating things equally. It's one of dismissing without evidence, which you have already done by saying "you reject" the possibility.

7/31/2007 12:11:29 AM

Quote :

"only a person who doesn't understand science gets offended when science is questioned. "

Haha cause we can just turn our backs and let the general concensus of the educated population of the world decide for us. Sure you can provide random anomalies, but the fact is probably most, like around 99% maybe, take evolution etc as a scientific fact. It's pretty much a given. Actually i'm being too nice to creationists. Instead of 1 out of every 100 scientists, i'd say more like 1 in maybe 1000 or more scientists believe in the Christian creationist theory.

So yeah i really never get that offended by someone trying to debunk evolution. Because i can always give up and let them go back to thier minority group of wakos.

Whereas religion is based upon a blind faith. You can't question your faith in regard to religion because you have no evidence to say a god does exist or doesn't. Science and religion are not that similar.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
-wiki

How are those similar? Where do you see "research" in the religion definition?

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 12:23:54 AM

Quote :

"It's one of dismissing without evidence, which you have already done by saying "you reject" the possibility."

I didn't say that, ass.

Quote :

"the two share a lot of commonalities, especially with respect to how defensive people get when ANYONE questions their beliefs."

that's not completely irrelevant or anything...

7/31/2007 12:36:49 AM

Quote :

"Instead of 1 out of every 100 scientists, i'd say more like 1 in maybe 1000 or more scientists believe in the Christian creationist theory."

consensus does not equal fact. sorry.

Quote :

"Whereas religion is based upon a blind faith."

and science does not? ha, you are a fool if you think it doesn't. At its core, faith is an assumption of something being true. Science makes its assumptions, too. The difference is that people today take science's assumptions as acceptable and "right." That's why people don't see it as a religion.

Quote :

"A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law."

often is the keyword. In other words, "it OFTEN takes form as follows." Religion does NOT have to have those things, though. If you don't see the commonalities between science and religion based on those two definitions, then you are blind. Let me spell it out for you:

Quote :

"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of[b/] acquiring knowledge [b]based on the scientific method"

Quote :

"A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law."

Quote :

"I didn't say that, ass. "

wrong, that's precisely what you said:

Quote :

"I reject the plausibility of that."

7/31/2007 12:49:26 AM

^dude you're not going the right direction with this whole "science is a religion thing". You can't make that argument at all. My friend just told me you can't argue with someone who has an invisible friend. So i'll take the advice.

7/31/2007 1:07:51 AM

who has an invisible friend? or, who is just being an asshole? Because I know that it is pointless to argue with an asshole...

7/31/2007 1:23:29 AM

^ok i am being kind of an asshole. I'll try to stop. I couldn't help myself when you tried to prove that science could be viewed as a religion. I thought that was an old beat up debate by now. Science can never be taken as a religion. Atleast current modern science vs christianity.

7/31/2007 1:29:43 AM

Quote :

""Are you now reversing your opinion that a creationist CAN'T play that game?" i don't know what the hell you mean by that, mang..."

I said...

Quote :

""but there is definitely sufficient evidence for proof of a Big Bang.""

and posted a link to an MSNBC article about the MAP (something the typical person wouldn't know is related to big bang theory if they don't follow science).

Then you said...

Quote :

"Then provide it. All you say is "well, we get closer to it every day." I can play that game, too, and say that we get closer to proof of literal creationism every day, too, but it doesn't mean I have proved Creationism."

Then I said...

Quote :

" it's ridiculous for you to believe that creationist "science" has progressed even as much as big bang theory over the past few decades. "

Then you said, in a very hooksaw-esque style...

Quote :

"Strawman much? I never said that I believe such nonsense. In fact, I don't even believe in a literal creationist viewpoint. Rather, I was merely stating that any claims that the BB is fact are false. "

I don't care if you personally don't believe a literal creationist viewpoint, but if you are arguing from the perspective, you effectively said that they have advanced their science drastically in the past couple of decades, which is clearly false. Now you're saying you don't subscribe to that idea.

BB is a pretty massive idea, and to claim that none of it is fact is wrong. I hate to sound like Rumsfield (or was it Cheney?) but there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns WRT big bang, and really anything else in the field of science. Scientist don't try to hide or skirt this issue, it is actually the thrill of inquiring the unknown that drives many if not most scientists.

Quote :

""Except with religion, there IS no one truth. The religion is DEFINED by the beliefs of the people, not the other way around. So picking apart individual people's belief does do damage, and when it's done, it demonstrates to others how their beliefs may be wrong." that's great, but you are still picking apart individual beliefs, not the actual fact (or not) of the religion. "

I'm not sure what you mean here... religion has no actual fact. It's a human construction of things humans believe. To disprove it, you merely have to show that the believers are using flawed or irrational ideas.

Quote :

""It's true a god could do this, but it wouldn't be consistent with the doings of a Christian God in the Bible. This would be tantamount to intentional deception, which God wouldn't do." The question of would he is irrelevant to the discussion of could he. also, just because it seems deceptive to you doesn't mean that the actual intent was deception."

No, you have it backwards. For the purposes of Creationism, the question of could he is irrelevant, it's only a question of would he. They look to the Bible first, and work from there, they are wary to start with what they perceive as flawed human perceptions (maybe god made the light as-is). There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that god created the light as-is, or that god would do this. It doesn't fit with scripture.

7/31/2007 2:22:56 AM

This is pointless.

7/31/2007 8:23:48 AM

anyone who does not understand or refuses that evolution exists is immediately dismissed as having any rational scientific argument. mostly because there isn't one (against) and second if you can't comprehend this then what good are you?

you would get listened to and then laughed at if you seriously try to bring this topic up in a scientific setting, well maybe not laughed at but you would be completely ignored

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : ignored ]

7/31/2007 11:04:21 AM

haha YUP. Although according to aaronburro science IS religion so we can discuss both in the same setting.

7/31/2007 11:20:20 AM

negative, being a scientist and working in a lab i can tell you there is no god here

7/31/2007 11:45:09 AM

^oh i completely agree. aaronburro was trying to convince me otherwise earlier in the thread.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ..]

7/31/2007 11:46:55 AM

really though, who gives a fuck what he thinks?

7/31/2007 11:49:53 AM

Quote :

"Science can never be taken as a religion. Atleast current modern science vs christianity."

Of course not. It's easy to say "i'm not X" when you change the definition of X to suit your needs. I took the definition of both terms given by my opponent and succinctly showed how science fits the definition of religion. The fact is, though, that science doesn't want to admit its similarity to religion, because it wants to believe that it is somehow better than religion. Kind of a "holier-than-though" attitude, also common among other religions. go figure...

Quote :

"I don't care if you personally don't believe a literal creationist viewpoint, but if you are arguing from the perspective, you effectively said that they have advanced their science drastically in the past couple of decades, which is clearly false. Now you're saying you don't subscribe to that idea."

The scary thing is that you couldn't tell that I was speaking in hypotheticals there. My point was that I could make a claim with no support and yet that claim does not serve as evidence for anything. geez, man.

Quote :

"BB is a pretty massive idea, and to claim that none of it is fact is wrong."

likewise, to claim that ALL of it is fact is also wrong. you know, the first fucking thing I said in here...

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you mean here... religion has no actual fact. It's a human construction of things humans believe. To disprove it, you merely have to show that the believers are using flawed or irrational ideas."

Question: If God truly existed but no one believed in Him, would that mean that he didn't exist? That is the essence of the point I was trying to make...

Quote :

"For the purposes of Creationism, the question of could he is irrelevant"

FALSE and FALSE and FALSE AGAIN. Are you that fucking stupid? The question is NOT "would He do so, based on our potentially flawed understandings of Him..." The question of "fact" only requires CAN HE. That's it. End of story. nothing more.

Quote :

"anyone who does not understand or refuses that evolution exists is immediately dismissed as having any rational scientific argument."

and previously, anyone who denied the existence of God was deemed a heretic and was dismissed as well. What is your point? That you can be just as intolerant and blind as those you spurn? or that science actually does share many of the qualities of religion, especially its predisposition to intolerance?

Quote :

"you would get listened to and then laughed at if you seriously try to bring this topic up in a scientific setting"

really shows how "open-minded" such people are, doesn't it? kind of like those people who burned people at the stake simply for suggesting experiments and stuff...

Quote :

"really though, who gives a fuck what he thinks?"

exactly. when you can't support your own arguments, just bury your head in the sand and join the big circle-jerk so that you don't have to have your religious beliefs questioned. It's OK, the pain of ignorance goes away if you just pretend like you are better than everyone else...

7/31/2007 10:27:18 PM

Quote :

" The scary thing is that you couldn't tell that I was speaking in hypotheticals there. My point was that I could make a claim with no support and yet that claim does not serve as evidence for anything. geez, man. "

Why would you be trying to make that point?

I wasn't making a claim with no support.

Quote :

""BB is a pretty massive idea, and to claim that none of it is fact is wrong." likewise, to claim that ALL of it is fact is also wrong. you know, the first fucking thing I said in here... "

You said it was conjecture without any qualifications. You can see why I would think you were saying it was wrong.

Quote :

"Quote : "I'm not sure what you mean here... religion has no actual fact. It's a human construction of things humans believe. To disprove it, you merely have to show that the believers are using flawed or irrational ideas." Question: If God truly existed but no one believed in Him, would that mean that he didn't exist? That is the essence of the point I was trying to make..."

This is a nice philosophical question, but has no bearing on Creationism. You do realize that Young Earth Creationism, the people who caused all the commotion in Kansas, who run the flagship creationist site "Answers in Genesis", have a very specific way of looking at things?

Some nebulous idea of God is not going to make them happy, and this is what you're promoting here.

Quote :

""For the purposes of Creationism, the question of could he is irrelevant" FALSE and FALSE and FALSE AGAIN. Are you that fucking stupid? The question is NOT "would He do so, based on our potentially flawed understandings of Him..." The question of "fact" only requires CAN HE. That's it. End of story. nothing more. "

In relation to Young Earth Creationism, you're completely wrong. Read any YEC documentation to see why. They reject much more philosophically "neat" explanations in favor of less rational contortions that fit with the bible. The only reason they would do this is because they don't care what a god MIGHT be able to do, they only care what a god WOULD do in the scope of God in the Bible.

Also, YECers (and Christians) view the Bible as the unerring word of God, and they recognize that human "interpretations" are flawed, but that a literal interpretation is making deference to God's unerring word. The stupidity in this is obvious, but that's the belief of YECers. So the question they ask is "would He do so, based on our potentially flawed understandings of Him God's unerring word in the Bible...".

8/1/2007 2:30:30 AM

Quote :

"Why would you be trying to make that point?"

because the original claim was untenable. How does one measure "how close we are to proving the BB?" Is there some progress bar somewhere that tells us how close we are? We might wake up tomorrow and have aliens land on earth that tell us exactly how the universe formed, and it might have absolutely no resemblance to BB. How close, then, were we actually getting to "proving" something that was false? obviously, the alien thing is ridiculous, but I brought it up just to show the sillyness of saying "we are getting closer to proving x..."

Quote :

"You do realize that Young Earth Creationism, the people who caused all the commotion in Kansas, who run the flagship creationist site "Answers in Genesis", have a very specific way of looking at things?"

Yes, I do understand that. But simply poking holes in their belief system doesn't disprove the fundamental claim of literal creationism, namely that the god attributed to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims created everything in 7 days about 6000 years ago. I can't think of what logical fallacy that is, but I know it is one. Claiming that one point is false because an unrelated claim made by the same person is false.

and forgive me, but NOONE said "YEC is patently false." someone said "literal creationism is false." In the context of that post, I think it is a fair assumption to take it as "literal creationism," though maybe someone mentioned the specific group earlier in the thread... Furthermore, in the context of bitching about the nature of "fact," this is the first time any reference has been made to that group...

8/1/2007 11:56:09 PM

you're very silly, aren't you?

8/2/2007 12:02:06 AM

Quote :

"you're very sillytrolly, aren't you?"

fixed it for you

8/2/2007 12:05:56 AM

no, you're silly

8/2/2007 12:07:56 AM

no, you're a towel

8/2/2007 12:10:01 AM

Quote :

"because the original claim was untenable. How does one measure "how close we are to proving the BB?" Is there some progress bar somewhere that tells us how close we are? We might wake up tomorrow and have aliens land on earth that tell us exactly how the universe formed, and it might have absolutely no resemblance to BB. How close, then, were we actually getting to "proving" something that was false? obviously, the alien thing is ridiculous, but I brought it up just to show the sillyness of saying "we are getting closer to proving x..." "

Science is mostly about observations, not statements. Observations can't be wrong unless you have bad equipment. Analyses however can be wrong, based on insufficient observations, or just bad thinking. Our observations become more complete as time goes on though, and on this basis, we're getting closer. There might be some point in the future where some new observations turns things on its head, but science would gladly accept that. Science isn't trying to "prove" big bang, but big bang is currently what fits with our observations, and these observations only get better over time.

Quote :

"Yes, I do understand that. But simply poking holes in their belief system doesn't disprove the fundamental claim of literal creationism, namely that the god attributed to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims created everything in 7 days about 6000 years ago. I can't think of what logical fallacy that is, but I know it is one. Claiming that one point is false because an unrelated claim made by the same person is false."

I feel like we're talking about different things here. Are you saying that poking holes in someone's belief of YEC doesn't disprove that belief? I'm not saying that Creationism is wrong because Jesus can't physically walk on water, or something like that. The only specific argument I think i've referenced so far is that white hole theory or "light created as-is" can't be right in accordance to a literal interpretation of the bible, which does have a direct bearing on Creationism.

Also, considering how interconnected the Bible is, and the view of YECers that the Bible is the unerring word of God, pointing out contradictions would have to do damage to their beliefs, or else their belief really isn't based on any type of rational ideas, as they like to claim.

Quote :

"and forgive me, but NOONE said "YEC is patently false." someone said "literal creationism is false." In the context of that post, I think it is a fair assumption to take it as "literal creationism," though maybe someone mentioned the specific group earlier in the thread... Furthermore, in the context of bitching about the nature of "fact," this is the first time any reference has been made to that group... "

literal creationism and YEC are practically the same thing (i've been taking them that way at least). The general idea of creationism (a god/gods created the universe) is different that YEC or literal creationism, and is a more valid idea (specifically because it's more vague).

8/2/2007 2:18:37 AM

Quote :

"Also, considering how interconnected the Bible is, and the view of YECers that the Bible is the unerring word of God, pointing out contradictions would have to do damage to their beliefs, or else their belief really isn't based on any type of rational ideas, as they like to claim."

I think this is an important point. It would be a logical fallacy to say "since christians believe some things that are untrue, everything they believe is untrue!"

However, I don't think anyone's saying that.

The important point is this:

- The bible claims it is the infallible word of god
- Most who believe that the bible is the infallible word of god use that as their reasoning for believing in YEC or not believing in evolution. There's no evidence for creationism, only a lack of evidence for evolution. That means that the bible is basically the only reason to believe in creationism.
- The bible has many, many, many flaws. Therefore, it is not infallible. It isn't therefore PROVEN that YEC is false, but it does mean that the reason for believing it is true is incorrect, making the whole idea very circumspect.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 12:10:37 PM

Quote :

"- The bible claims it is the infallible word of god"

Well, not really. I think Timothy claims that all scripture is "God breathed" or something like that. A) that's kinda vague, B) it would only apply to the Old Testament, since the NT wasn't "scripture" at the time Timothy was written. There isn't much else in regards to literal interpretations.

The fundamental issue is that they believe that if any part of the Bible's untrue, for all practical purposes, the entire thing's untrue.

I realize this is ridiculous, but I've heard it said in many non-denominational evangelical Christian type churches on many occasions.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 12:26:56 PM

if it doesn't specifically say it, it's what many believe.

after all, if they don't believe that, why do they believe anything in the book? just "because" ?

sadly, I guess that is the case for many.

8/2/2007 12:28:52 PM

I've found a good way to counter this type of reasoning.

"There's not a single infallible source on George Washington.

Yet I still believe that George Washington existed and was the POTUSA.

I'm sure you do, too."


It's not confrontational, it's simple, and although it probably won't sway their mind, they can at least understand where you're coming from.

8/2/2007 12:37:02 PM

but george washington isn't the same thing as the bible. we have written accounts of him, paintings of him, and evidence of his existence that is actually first-hand from the time when he lived

we have none of that about the bible, minus some geographical and royal histories, etc

8/2/2007 5:43:31 PM

Quote :

""- The bible claims it is the infallible word of god" Well, not really. I think Timothy claims that all scripture is "God breathed" or something like that. A) that's kinda vague, B) it would only apply to the Old Testament, since the NT wasn't "scripture" at the time Timothy was written. There isn't much else in regards to literal interpretations. "

It depends on your branch of religion, sure, but for YECers, the people who believe in Creationist Science (trying to use science to support their beliefs), their trust in the unerring bible goes deeper than that. http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=bible+infallible&site=default_collection#q=bible%20infallible&site=default_collection

8/3/2007 1:41:42 AM

Science is a religion. An extremely dynamic religion which changes when we discover something new and have the facts to back it up.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc are all statics religions. They have one established source of material which cannot be disputed, questioned or changed.

8/3/2007 2:00:12 AM

Quote :

"Science is a religion."

I don't know where you people get this idea but it's COMPLETELY wrong.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/ScienceFaith.htm

Science is missing the MAJOR things that make a religion. You can test/observe everything that science tells us in one way or another.

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. -AHD

super-natural:Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. -AHD

science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. -AHD

Two COMPLETELY different things here people. Religion is trying to explain a super-natural power through story telling and myths. Science is proving natural phenomena through the close study of evidence and facts that support that phenomena.

Every single definition of religion consists of a supernatural, unexplained being or power and science would NEVER fit into the definition of what religion is.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 9:03 AM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 8:42:04 AM

Religion = belief in powers regarded as the creator of the universe.......hmm, ok, I choose my powers to be weak nuclear , strong nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity.

8/3/2007 9:03:04 AM

NOOOO YOU MESSED UP THE DEFINITION! You can't TAKE out words! You took out the TWO MOST IMPORTANT words of the definition so it would FIT your claim. That's no way to have a debate.

Quote :

"Religion = Belief in and reverence for a super natural power regarded as the creator of the universe.......hmm, ok, I choose my powers to be weak nuclear , strong nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity."

weak nuclear , strong nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity != super natural. i'm sorry.

^But we've seen examples, observed, or proven all of those things, and we take them as science. Completely different than religion. Religion has a SUPER NATURAL power that can not be explained, whereas science explains phenomena.

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. -AHD

super-natural:Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. -AHD

science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. -AHD

I can't put it more simply than to look up any definition of either and unless you find a VERY descriptivist definition of religion or science, then they're NEVER going to be the same.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 9:06:11 AM

really? Explain where gravity comes from.

8/3/2007 9:17:28 AM

Quote :

"exactly. when you can't support your own arguments, just bury your head in the sand and join the big circle-jerk so that you don't have to have your religious beliefs questioned. It's OK, the pain of ignorance goes away if you just pretend like you are better than everyone else..."

ahahaha

i'm a biologist, have 7 years of religious studies on top of it.

if anything i'm probably the only one really qualified here to even begin to explain things....

nothing you say or attempt to say will cause me to seriously question my beliefs, mostly because I've heard it before, many times before, you say nothing new and nothing important, so there is very little point in me responding to your pitiful arguments.

and I am most certainly not close minded, and neither is most of the scientific community, the problem is with your arguments. they have not changed in many years. since they have long been countered there is very little point to continually keep extolling the same point over and over again.

honestly I have yet to see a reasonable argument against evolution.

but I'm sure rather than providing one in a thoughtful discourse you will, instead, attempt to take snippits of what I have posted and attempt to use those... which is a nice misdirection from your argument by the way.

8/3/2007 9:23:34 AM

^^

Quote :

"really? Explain where gravity comes from."

Gravity has been studied, observed, and theorized about. Just because we can't say EXACTLY where it comes from, doesn't make it not science. You have to understand that not all science is FACT. That's why we say THEORY of evolution, or THEORY of gravity.

science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. -AHD

Scientific Theory:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. -AHD

The bible or religion is NEVER put through the scientific method because it would fail horribly. That's what makes it religion and makes you have faith.

^Arab13 you believe science is a religion?

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ,]

8/3/2007 9:27:43 AM

gravity is a effect of mass.


is the simple way to describe it.

as of yet no particle has been detected accounting for gravitational force.

8/3/2007 9:32:06 AM

right.

science is NOT a religion. however,there are some branches of science that are very religion-like, such as string theory. there are TONS of ideas in string theory that border on, if not fall into, the same category as religion for me.

multiple dimensions, the strings themselves... all of these are believed firmly by string theorists without a shred of proof. the particles, strings, and different dimensions fit the holes in the observations, so they say that they're true.

this isn't ALL string theorists, but it describes alot of them, like brian greene.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 2:24:57 PM

i wouldn't call it religious

i would call it a myopic drive in the field of work in which they've already spent the majority of they're life

but, whatever, it's good to work and think

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 2:29:19 PM

well, if we go by this definition

Quote :

"Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

the word supernatural is stupid, because nothing is supernatural - to exist is to be natural,

but the strings/alternate dimensions with absolutely no proof, and considering the strings are said to be the building blocks of the universe and that our universe was possibly created when 2 superdimensional branes collided... I'd call it religious

8/3/2007 2:52:44 PM

^^^,^the very fact that they call it theory throws a wrench into that. also, i've read some brian greene, and he certainly doesn't treat it as fact.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 2:53:15 PM

Quote :

"the word supernatural is stupid, because nothing is supernatural - to exist is to be natural,"

But see that's the POINT. God is supernatural. Science is natural. Even string theory, if it's possible, is a NATURAL occurance. Would you say god is supernatural? But then does that mean he doesn't exist? I agree with you, i'm just playing devils advocate and saying if God is supernatural, but you say supernatural things don't exist, then they might have an issue with that.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ..]

8/3/2007 3:03:54 PM

I'm saying if god exists, he's natural, because he exists. Nothing is supernatural - the only things that could actually be supernatural are things that don't exist... but really, supernatural is the wrong word in that situation too.

It's just like unnatural. There's no such thing as unnatural.

8/3/2007 3:20:46 PM

But see the words "natural" and "super-natural" can ONLY be aplied in RELATION to something else. That's the way the human brain works. We can only have a word/meaning because we're able to relate that word/meaning to another word/meaning.

So for example a cactus in the desert is natural, whereas a cactus in a rainforest is un-natural.

Quote :

"It's just like unnatural. There's no such thing as unnatural."

You can't say nothing is unnatural, because then the very word "unnatural" would not have a basis for existing and would have never been created. Something not natural in relation to a specific place, time, or thing can very much so be "unnatural". Then super-natural is reserved for shit we just can't see, explain, or rationalize, or even observe or test. ie god or ghosts and stuff along that line.

So like you can only have bad with evil, black with white, or natural with un-natural. All words have a frame of reference. Without one side, you can't have the other. If there's no "un-natural" then what is natural?

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 3:31:02 PM

I'm going to have to disagree. A cactus in the rainforest would seem unnatural, but then we'd have to just deal with the fact that some cacti can grow in the rainforest and redefine that bit in our understanding of nature.

If it turns out there's a god, or if it turns out we were created when he snapped his fingers, then that, by definition, is natural.

Quote :

"You can't say nothing is unnatural, because then the very word "unnatural" would not have a basis for existing and would have never been created."

that doesn't make any sense. There are tons of things that people have come up with names for that don't exist. Unicorns never existed, but they were invented by people, and so was the name.

You're right, though, that the human brain uses frames of reference in a lot of cases, and you're also right that if there's no un-natural then there's a question as to what is natural and why the word exists. Well, everything is natural, but that doesn't mean the word isn't necessary. The word "universe" encompasses everything in existence as well, but we still wanted a word to describe everything, so we came up with one. That doesn't mean the word is useless, just because it describes everything.

8/3/2007 3:58:29 PM