Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


troy

science vs religion

1,145 posts in this topic

Since you predicted my response, does that mean you have an answer prepared?

I've already answered, look.

Share this post


Link to post

Since you predicted my response, does that mean you have an answer prepared?

I've already answered, look.

Do you mean post #102?

Delusion can be avoided in most cases, I think, by looking at the available evidence using reason, and often by accepting, again using reason, that you just don't know

but you also say

Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded.

I'm saying they weren't deluded because they used the best reasoning they had.

I don't see where you've answered this.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway.

Isn't that where everyone is all the time anyway? what's so special about now? :stoned:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Who the fuck +1'd that?

eta +2! lol

Who said anything was special about now?

Edited by northwest

Share this post


Link to post

I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway.

That's fine. But how do you judge what was reasonable? If people had no evidence to draw a conclusion then experimentation is required. Is it not reasonable that they drew conclusions from experiments without understanding of experimental bias? "Kill a virgin then crops grow" must have seemed pretty compelling evidence. "If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic to me.

I don't think we disagree that these days we can easily model the effects of sacrifice on crop growth and determine that the two are independent. Also that we can model the effects of things such as praying, homeopathy, astrology, faith healing, psychics, crystal power, reflexology, reiki etc and equally show that they have no demonstrable effect beyond a placebo.

I think the only disagreement is that I don't think the origins of these practices were delusional. I think they were based on reasonable thought processes at the time.

Of course, their continued practice is another issue altogether and one that strays into issues of power and money and more modern human failings.

Anyway, I'm sorry you were bored NW. I find it quite interesting to see how other people think.

edited for stoopid spelling

Edited by strawberry

Share this post


Link to post

Don't worry, I don't mind, I just wonder why I'm answering all these questions but it's fine, whatever. Your Newton question was a good one.

'If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic too me.'

Great quotes emerge. Can I use that as my signature?

In the circumstances it might've been a reasonable experiment I suppose but it couldn't really be a reasonable conclusion for long. You only have to say, hold on, the crops aren't growing, maybe this virgin sacrificing thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? lol

Edited by northwest
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Don't worry, I don't mind, I just wonder why I'm answering all these questions but it's fine, whatever. Your Newton question was a good one.

All's well...

'If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic too me.'

Great quotes emerge. Can I use that as my signature?

Of course, though I'm sure there's better on this site. (But please correct my spelling if you do, 'too' vs 'to' grrr.)

In the circumstances it might've been a reasonable experiment I suppose but it couldn't really be a reasonable conclusion for long. You only have to say, hold on, the crops aren't growing, maybe this virgin sacrificing thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? lol

That's why I stopped killing virgins and joined uk420 ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Religion privileges faith over reason so will always be in opposition to science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy?

Share this post


Link to post

Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy?

Hows about philosophy vs science for a three way triangular tournament to the death :laser:

Lets settle this once and for all :starwars:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

what about Eating v Breathing?

Share this post


Link to post

what about Eating v Breathing?

Thats what your epiglottis is for. So the two don't get mixed up.

Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy?

Religion is one of our first attempts at philosophy and as we have accumulated more knowledge often from science, religion has become discredited and outdated. Because religion is dogmatic it will only make any changes when it is forced to. Darwinian evolution changed our whole idea about how we came to be here and now some religious types are saying that God tweaked the process. They have appropriated the concept and put their own spin on it. It just demonstrates how malleable religion can be for the credulous.

Edited by troy

Share this post


Link to post

Shite, I meant philosophy verus science :doh:

My point though was about the complete lack of evidence for many of the theories espoused by philosophers regarding the whole "what the hell are we here for and what, exactly is here?" question. This is similar to the musings of people who would consider themselves "not atheist" as opposed to religious.

I dont consider myself religious but do think quite often about the nature of existence in a kind of wishy, washy, new age spiritual, had too many mushies sort of way.

This does not in any way affect the way I view science. Its just that I have a feeling for, rather than a belief in the something other than the mecahanical processes that explain the world around us. I dont see a contradiction with believing the theory of evolution and also wondering why there is life, (not how there is life)

Nothing to do with a creator or a designer, or anything like that. Do you just dismiss stuff like that and just stick to that which has solid evidence to back it up? Or can possibly have evidence to back it up.

I guess I'm interested in whether you ponder stuff like "why is the universe here?, why does anything exist?" or do you just not waste your time?

I would agree with you about religion in the organised sense being in a great many instances ridiculous and at odds with science, but where does spirituality/philosophy/non-atheism become ok?

Share this post


Link to post

hey dude, my knowledge of philosophy is in its early stages. I know that hawking said philosophy is dead ! which seems an exaggeration but I think he had some kind of point. Philosophy is interesting because it is the search for knowledge but without empiricism in the scientific sense. Philosophers use their reasoning to figure out the nature of reality and how we came to be here. I think they put ideas out into the world and then people argue with them and see if they can make any sense of the world. Philosophy encourages us to think critically about the world but does not necessarily furnish any answers, just more things to think about ! However it does challenge existing ideas and that encourages critical thinking. I've never really considered why the universe is here, it just is and i'm glad to be part of it. I don't think there is any meaning to life apart from what we decide is important to us. I think I was born an atheist (wasn't everybody ?) and am more interested in how we came to be here rather than why. We are stardust which manifests into conscious organisms and I am glad to have that opportunity. Maybe I am lacking in the 'why ' gene because that seems unimportant to me.

I would agree with you about religion in the organised sense being in a great many instances ridiculous and at odds with science, but where does spirituality/philosophy/non-atheism become ok?

I don't understand the question, can you clarify ?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now