science vs religion

[northwest]

thats right a week alone in the desert and u start losing your mind you might find god when your starting to get delusional well put

Are you for real?

I mean to say, what of all that culture pre- the scientific dawn?

What of all that Arabic architecture, music, poetry, and downright civilisation?

The idea that all peoples living in the deserts of Africa or Asia before the dawn of your great scientific age are deluded or fools is absurd in the extreme.

≈g.

Find God? Nope, I never did. He just barged on in and sat down, then she re-ordered my life, and then it taught me such love as never did I taste before.

Who needs a desert?

Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded. Common to think the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the earth, or that droughts were punishment from a vengeful god who appreciated blood sacrifices. Those are delusions. Nothing absurd about that. 'Fools' you added yourself. Again. Interesting addition though.

[~nobody~]

Find God? Nope, I never did. He just barged on in and sat down, then she re-ordered my life, and then it taught me such love as never did I taste before.

Who needs a desert?

I hope it's not too personal but are you able to describe the process by which that happened? Are you saying that you had an epiphany or even a 'vision' (I don't mean this flippantly, I'm genuinely curious).

[Guest Zeah]

You are so insulting.

I just don't suffer fools gladly and I bore of groupthink phony tolerance easily, it's not that same thing.

However you suffer fools or whatever bores you is quite irrelevant, it's still insulting to say

to someone their head's full of nonsense possibly because of a certain religion and

that it will more or less render them useless.

As a catholic I find it insulting, it was bad enough being outnumbered about ten to one as a

kid and subjected to bigoted tripe coming from kids probably overhearing bigoted parents

at home, without growing up to find grown-ups are still coming out with more or less the same shit.

[bill cooper]

You are so insulting.

I just don't suffer fools gladly and I bore of groupthink phony tolerance easily, it's not that same thing.

However you suffer fools or whatever bores you is quite irrelevant, it's still insulting to say

to someone their head's full of nonsense possibly because of a certain religion and

that it will more or less render them useless.

As a catholic I find it insulting, it was bad enough being outnumbered about ten to one as a

kid and subjected to bigoted tripe coming from kids probably overhearing bigoted parents

at home, without growing up to find grown-ups are still coming out with more or less the same shit.

so whats wrong with giving your opinion on religion if i believe its crazy to follow a religion why cant i say it . if i believed in aliens and u said u thought i was crazy i would not take offense each to there own or is it that u relise u have been believing a lot of nonsense your whole life and cant admit it to yourself

[northwest]

However you suffer fools or whatever bores you is quite irrelevant, it's still insulting to say

to someone their head's full of nonsense possibly because of a certain religion and

that it will more or less render them useless.

As a catholic I find it insulting, it was bad enough being outnumbered about ten to one as a

kid and subjected to bigoted tripe coming from kids probably overhearing bigoted parents

at home, without growing up to find grown-ups are still coming out with more or less the same shit.

Subjecting a child to the cult of Catholicism is child abuse in my opinion, for that and any other abuse you suffered you have my sympathies.

It wasn't me though, careful with the associations there.

I could say that I thought cult members were of sound mind and judgement, but I certainly don't. So that would be a lie.

I didn't say anything about 'rendering them useless' either. Just that they aren't of the soundest mind.

If anyone would like to comment on something I did actually say feel free, a change is as good as a rest....

Edited May 5, 2011 by northwest

[Arnold Layne]

I have no problem with offensive opinions. I have every problem with opinions offensively put. There is a mile of difference. One can offend without meaning to, as in stating an opinion of belief which clashes with those of others around; but that is a very different beast from seeking deliberately to offend by belittlement or ridicule.

Every age has its delusions Northwest, you and I are no less deluded than any other age I suspect. After all, scientists are for ever changing their minds. Sixty years ago (?), Chaos theory would have been regarded as very strange indeed and no doubt absolutely daft. But not any more. Let alone multi-decker universes (I like them, though).

I can't imagine, Northwest, that you seriously think that somehow humankind has "arrived" at a point of zero delusion?

Find God? Nope, I never did. He just barged on in and sat down, then she re-ordered my life, and then it taught me such love as never did I taste before.

Who needs a desert?

I hope it's not too personal but are you able to describe the process by which that happened? Are you saying that you had an epiphany or even a 'vision' (I don't mean this flippantly, I'm genuinely curious).

I wish I could, it would make life so much easier.

God (as I understand the concept - please do not equate my views with any religious orthodoxy) has ever been a major part of my life. I was given a Gospel of Mark aged six or so. But when I read it, I knew it beforehand, it was like reading an old and familiar text, even then, even given it was brand new to me.

I have never understood that concept of faith which sees it as something to pick up or put down. For me, its simply part of my nature, I wouldn't even know how to turn it if if I wanted to.

I have had several "Visions" or "Epiphanies" I suspect. But again, they defy description. I think maybe that's in their nature, too. If one could describe and define, would one need a vision in the first place? Dunno. Imponderable.

[strawberry]

Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded. Common to think the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the earth, or that droughts were punishment from a vengeful god who appreciated blood sacrifices. Those are delusions. Nothing absurd about that. 'Fools' you added yourself. Again. Interesting addition though.

It's a very long time ago that people thought of the Earth as flat. Aristotle confirmed its 'spherical' nature using good empirical scientific methods a few hundred years BC.

And as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa depends on the origin of your frame of reference. To an outside observer both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun, to an observer on the sun the earth moves around the sun and to an observer on Earth the sun moves around the Earth, albeit in a strange orbit. (Really, I just mean the argument 'sun orbits the Earth' vs 'Earth orbits the sun' has no meaning and neither is true.)

As to whether they were deluded or not depends on whether you compare their subjective realities time with the consensual objective reality of their time or the consensual objective reality of our time. I imagine few people would escape being classified as 'deluded' if their subjective reality is compared with a future consensual objective reality.

As much as this might appear to be a stoned attempt at playing devil's advocate, I think there is an interesting point about confidence levels in science. Consider classical vs relativistic mechanics....

Two objects (O1 and O2) move away from each other at speeds V1 and V2. Classically we'd say if O1 looked at O2 it would see O2 moving away at a velocity of V1+V2. But, we now know the answer is closer to (V1+V2)/(1+V1.V2/C²) (where C is the velocity of light). Can we say that the classical model is wrong? Were its proponents deluded because in theory they could reach a combined velocity above the velocity of light? As V1 and V2 get smaller, 1+V1.V2/C² tends towards a value of 1 and therefore towards the classical model. If for example V1 and V2 are 10m/s the difference between the classical and relativistic forms is approximately 1.1126500560536171941839427287291x10^-13%. Was every mechanical physisist deluded prior to the relativity theory? What if the 'real' forumla contains extra variables which have no effect in the domain we can currently observe, are we now all currently deluded?

[troy]

Religious people clearly are deluded, its not an insult its a fact. If they had these beliefs in any other aspect of life they would be considered mentally ill. In fact there is a close correlation between mental illness and religion. Religious groups use vulnerable and ill people to shore up their numbers. In a way its not their fault, if they hadn't been indoctrinated at the start they may well not have had these beliefs t all, in fact Its more likely they would not have them. The fact that there are so many religions prove that there is no truth to any of them.

Another conflict between religion and science is on the issue of abortion.

And as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa depends on the origin of your frame of reference. To an outside observer both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun, to an observer on the sun the earth moves around the sun and to an observer on Earth the sun moves around the Earth, albeit in a strange orbit. (Really, I just mean the argument 'sun orbits the Earth' vs 'Earth orbits the sun' has no meaning and neither is true.)

Never heard that position before. I thought we lived in a heliocentric solar system and previously it was thought that the earth was the centre of the universe (geocentrism) . Are you an astronomer ? I don't understand your argument. I believe its the convention to say that the earth orbits the sun, thats why its called a solar system. It seems pedantic to say otherwise.

As to whether they were deluded or not depends on whether you compare their subjective realities time with the consensual objective reality of their time or the consensual objective reality of our time. I imagine few people would escape being classified as 'deluded' if their subjective reality is compared with a future consensual objective reality.

Good point. People today have no excuse however.

Edited May 5, 2011 by troy

[~nobody~]

Thanks for the response AL

The fact that there are so many religions prove that there is no truth to any of them.

Or possibly that there's some truth in all of them.

[sam-i-am]

Don't think it's Lee though, I've seen him 4 times and I don't remember that, and he's only a few albeit quite good routines He'd agree with me though. I think you just wanted to call me a twat without actually attributing it to yourself. Which is a bit twatty, really.

Wasn't, honest guv,sorry. Could easily have been someone else, it was a long time ago. The other phrase for dead folk is "happy go lucky"

Edited May 5, 2011 by sam-i-am

[Guest weirdofmouth]

what i mean is not that folk become delusional and hallucinate when under pressure (tho that's true) but that any understanding of "religious" experience or "spiritual" reality usually comes about when your life is at a crisis point

ie totally alone, broken, fearful, empty...

the "still small voice" in the depths of silence and all that

the first world war and the Nazi concentration camps both created extreme atheism and intense religious belief

when at death's door you tend to either pray or say "fuck you God! why me?" (which is in itself a perverse and understandable kind of prayer)

how can you say to anyone that their belief or unbelief is unfounded? it's just the conclusion they come to via their experiences ************

phew time for a spliff........

[northwest]

I have no problem with offensive opinions. I have every problem with opinions offensively put. There is a mile of difference. One can offend without meaning to, as in stating an opinion of belief which clashes with those of others around; but that is a very different beast from seeking deliberately to offend by belittlement or ridicule.

Every age has its delusions Northwest, you and I are no less deluded than any other age I suspect. After all, scientists are for ever changing their minds. Sixty years ago (?), Chaos theory would have been regarded as very strange indeed and no doubt absolutely daft. But not any more. Let alone multi-decker universes (I like them, though).

I can't imagine, Northwest, that you seriously think that somehow humankind has "arrived" at a point of zero delusion?

I'm not seeking to deliberately offend anyone, I'm just saying what I think.

'scientists are for ever changing their minds. '

Of course, that's their job. Still, many of the discoveries made by science remain constant and tell us much about the very fundamentals of our existence.

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.

And that that's ok...

Delusion is probably more common than ever in all humanity though, there are more people and the big brainwashing cults continue to exploit them. Of corporate as much as church origin these days probably. Minds are easily confused, uncertainty often creates fear so people like to invent answers.

An answer with no evidence remains an invention to me, what else can it be?

If it helps the individual to draw conclusions about the unknown good for them, overwhelmingly though I think this practice is unhealthy in a wider social context, I think there's masses of evidence of it's detriment both historically and presently.

Delusion isn't general, it's specific. It's not delusional to think the earth revolves around the sun. It is delusional to think the earth is flat and the sun is a conscious god that appears everyday to greet his people. I think 'we', meaning reasonable agnostic modern people, are less deluded about the nature of our existence than many of our predecessors, for sure, but I don't think even 'we' are free from delusion all together, no. Maybe in a Zen moment.

[northwest]

Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded. Common to think the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the earth, or that droughts were punishment from a vengeful god who appreciated blood sacrifices. Those are delusions. Nothing absurd about that. 'Fools' you added yourself. Again. Interesting addition though.

It's a very long time ago that people thought of the Earth as flat. Aristotle confirmed its 'spherical' nature using good empirical scientific methods a few hundred years BC.

Pedantry is irritating enough without misinterpreting in the first place. "Common to think". See what I said. Ok.

I thought it was the Chinese mapping the movement of the stars that first calculated it anyway.

And as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa depends on the origin of your frame of reference. To an outside observer both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun, to an observer on the sun the earth moves around the sun and to an observer on Earth the sun moves around the Earth, albeit in a strange orbit. (Really, I just mean the argument 'sun orbits the Earth' vs 'Earth orbits the sun' has no meaning and neither is true.)

No it has meaning, you're seeking to negate it for your own reasons but "both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun" is correct. A bit nearer to the sun. So basically, the earth orbits the sun.

As to whether they were deluded or not depends on whether you compare their subjective realities time with the consensual objective reality of their time or the consensual objective reality of our time. I imagine few people would escape being classified as 'deluded' if their subjective reality is compared with a future consensual objective reality.

As much as this might appear to be a stoned attempt at playing devil's advocate

Mmm.

[northwest]

Don't think it's Lee though, I've seen him 4 times and I don't remember that, and he's only a few albeit quite good routines He'd agree with me though. I think you just wanted to call me a twat without actually attributing it to yourself. Which is a bit twatty, really.

Wasn't, honest guv,sorry. Could easily have been someone else, it was a long time ago. The other phrase for dead folk is "happy go lucky"

My bad, sorry. Pretty sure that's Eddie Izzard. Another comedian that's actually funny

[strawberry]

Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded. Common to think the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the earth, or that droughts were punishment from a vengeful god who appreciated blood sacrifices. Those are delusions. Nothing absurd about that. 'Fools' you added yourself. Again. Interesting addition though.

It's a very long time ago that people thought of the Earth as flat. Aristotle confirmed its 'spherical' nature using good empirical scientific methods a few hundred years BC.

Pedantry is irritating enough without misinterpreting in the first place. "Common to think". See what I said. Ok.

I thought it was the Chinese mapping the movement of the stars that first calculated it anyway.

If I were just being pedantic, I should say that "common to think" has no meaning without a time frame and an estimate of the ratio of "flat earthers" to "spherical earthers". Is 5% of a population "common"?

How does "mapping the movement of the stars" say anything about the Earth being flat?

And as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa depends on the origin of your frame of reference. To an outside observer both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun, to an observer on the sun the earth moves around the sun and to an observer on Earth the sun moves around the Earth, albeit in a strange orbit. (Really, I just mean the argument 'sun orbits the Earth' vs 'Earth orbits the sun' has no meaning and neither is true.)

No it has meaning, you're seeking to negate it for your own reasons but "both orbit a point in space close to their combined centre of mass which would be close to the center of the sun" is correct. A bit nearer to the sun. So basically, the earth orbits the sun.

I am negating nothing. I am saying that your 'truth' is just a subset of the 'actual truth' and you're trying to claim it more 'true' than one of the other possible and equally true subsets.

It all depends on the frame of reference. If you make Earth the origin then everything else moves around the Earth by definition. You could even make the axis between the Earth and the sun a fixed axis and state quite accurately that there is no movement of either the sun around the Earth or vice versa.

As to whether they were deluded or not depends on whether you compare their subjective realities time with the consensual objective reality of their time or the consensual objective reality of our time. I imagine few people would escape being classified as 'deluded' if their subjective reality is compared with a future consensual objective reality.

As much as this might appear to be a stoned attempt at playing devil's advocate

Mmm.

It doesn't matter if I'm playing an avacado or not. On the basis that you say people in the past were deluded I extrapolated that everyone who has ever lived is deluded when observed from the future.

I'm on the side of science, I am not on the side of antitheism unless it is scientific. Science requires accuracy ("pedantacism" if you prefer). It shouldn't be used incorrectly to attempt to support an argument.