A Challenge ...

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.

sorry that i have expressed my self badly but you need to relax man.
Indeed, I am not listening, since you aren't speaking. As for calming down.. I'm not particularly excited about this conversation.. You aren't expressing yourself badly, and we're all entitled to our opinions, but your casual dismissal of facts belies your ignorance of the subject at hand.

When i say a set of beliefs i mean things that you chose to believe.
Using your example, you choose to call the season in which the earth starts to shut down for the cold ahead, "autum". It does not have a name it just is. That you chose to call it autum means nothing to the season or what happens during it, only to you. You need that name to put it in a neat little box as we humans love to do.

Thats a set of beliefs equaly odd as saying that the 25th of december is a holy day cause some jewish dude was born.
Things you choose to believe are a set of beliefs? Do tell.. how existential..

I choose words to describe the seasons because I question the effectiveness of inarticulate communication. I'm not writing to the seasons, I am writing to you, this is the way that we convey information to each other. "Things are just names that people made up." isn't a very good argument.. for anything..

The christ parallel is insubstantial. I can observe the seasons, failing that, I could apply simple theorem, mathematical formula, or view substantiated evidence to see that the seasons are currently an accurate representation of the earths cycles. To believe in christ's birth and subsequent death/resurrection I would need empirical evidence, it is simply hearsay without it.

Yes science is method based and our information gained through scientific annalysis is based on repeated trial and error.
And religion is not, if that is not enough to explain the differences between the two then you are beyond understanding.

I don't think I can explain any better than Email has for the rest of your diatribe of misconceptions.
 

420norway

Active Member
Wow you are right... i am not speaking....thats clever man.
Now try to read from the objective point of view you claim that science has given you cause so far you sound like much more like a fanatic than a man of reason.

Yes the seasons change without any labels from us but i was using the idea that you can call it autum or gods death, the effect is not changed.
The jesus thing was simply meant to show how arbitrary our choices to catagorize and label phenomenon are.
but you do understand that time numbers and all your precious theroems are concepts of the mind not the real world right. Yes these concept are what we use to describe the world and very useful ones at that, but they are still only our creations and to me thats the same as creating a god to explain it all.
And i gotta say you seem so set in your ways that nothing will change you mind or even make you consider any alternative. If thats not blind faith then i dont know what is.

By the way i am not sure if you care but i am deeply entrenched in the sciences right now. working on my bachelors in Bio and i have yet to find any thing that i cant question to a point that i get no more answers and simply need to accept it to move on. Does this shake my faith in biology as an accurate way to interpret the world? No of course not, in fact if anything it strenghtens it.

Get of your high horse and play in the dirt man. Just try to look at the world with open eyes and you might be suprised what you see. Thats not meant as a belittlement, just a stoned ass buddhist trying to sread some harmony.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Wow you are right... i am not speaking....thats clever man.
Now try to read from the objective point of view you claim that science has given you cause so far you sound like much more like a fanatic than a man of reason.

Yes the seasons change without any labels from us but i was using the idea that you can call it autum or gods death, the effect is not changed.
The jesus thing was simply meant to show how arbitrary our choices to catagorize and label phenomenon are.
but you do understand that time numbers and all your precious theroems are concepts of the mind not the real world right. Yes these concept are what we use to describe the world and very useful ones at that, but they are still only our creations and to me thats the same as creating a god to explain it all.
And i gotta say you seem so set in your ways that nothing will change you mind or even make you consider any alternative. If thats not blind faith then i dont know what is.

By the way i am not sure if you care but i am deeply entrenched in the sciences right now. working on my bachelors in Bio and i have yet to find any thing that i cant question to a point that i get no more answers and simply need to accept it to move on. Does this shake my faith in biology as an accurate way to interpret the world? No of course not, in fact if anything it strenghtens it.

Get of your high horse and play in the dirt man. Just try to look at the world with open eyes and you might be suprised what you see. Thats not meant as a belittlement, just a stoned ass buddhist trying to sread some harmony.
Is your major biology? Didn't they teach taxonomy? Didn't they explain that science uncovers existing laws - naming does not equal creating?

I am not saying this be offensive but you should consider a major in philosophy - i see a rough road for you in the sciences.
 

420norway

Active Member
didnt read emails thing so i will quickly respond.

You need to ellaborate on how time is physical...cause i cant see any way that it is. Time is simply the word to descride the movement of everything, is it not? I am most likely wrong so please define it for me to show time is a physical thing if you would.

What i meant by go back far enough is precisly what you said. If you dont know how the plants came to be how and where they are, you cant be sure of anything afterwards since we know that any of those factors can and will affect the experiment now. You need to simply get past the unknowable factors and proceed right? Why is that absurd? To me it is absurd to claim that science is an unbaised and purely rational system when it is so clearly not. Science is full of guesse work all the time.

Like i said before Science fills the same gap as relgion, to explain the unexplainable and to answer mans questions about this comeplete insanity that is life.
 

420norway

Active Member
I love philosiphy man!
But i tell you that if you think that scince and philosiphy shoulbe be seperate then i am truly worried.
Without a philisophical way of thinking we would never have had any drive to create a branch of sciences to answer these questions.
You are obviously a very well educated man, but your books have not taught you everything dude. Open your mind to more than numbers and formulas and pay atteton to the marvelu flow that is life. You might ask a question of yourself and be off on a new tangent of science.

But never never say a Philosipher should not be a scientist, thats just silly man.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
didnt read emails thing so i will quickly respond.

You need to ellaborate on how time is physical...cause i cant see any way that it is. Time is simply the word to descride the movement of everything, is it not? I am most likely wrong so please define it for me to show time is a physical thing if you would.

What i meant by go back far enough is precisly what you said. If you dont know how the plants came to be how and where they are, you cant be sure of anything afterwards since we know that any of those factors can and will affect the experiment now. You need to simply get past the unknowable factors and proceed right? Why is that absurd? To me it is absurd to claim that science is an unbaised and purely rational system when it is so clearly not. Science is full of guesse work all the time.

Like i said before Science fills the same gap as relgion, to explain the unexplainable and to answer mans questions about this comeplete insanity that is life.
the 24 hours it takes for the Earth to spin is a physical representation of time. There are physical representations of months, years, precession cycles, etc... the 4th dimension (space-time) is also a physical representation of time.

I have a hard time understanding where you don't see the absurdity in having to know where plants come from in order to study a specific thing about plants. If you don't see it - i'm not sure i can explain it... sorry.

You can't explain the unexplainable - that is another absurdity. Science explains what was formally either not understood or misunderstood but that is not unexplainable.

Science isn't some esoteric semantical exercise - it ain't philosophy or theology. You don't need to know where the Sun came from to measure how hot it is, right?
 

email468

Well-Known Member
I love philosiphy man!
But i tell you that if you think that scince and philosiphy shoulbe be seperate then i am truly worried.
Without a philisophical way of thinking we would never have had any drive to create a branch of sciences to answer these questions.
You are obviously a very well educated man, but your books have not taught you everything dude. Open your mind to more than numbers and formulas and pay atteton to the marvelu flow that is life. You might ask a question of yourself and be off on a new tangent of science.

But never never say a Philosipher should not be a scientist, thats just silly man.
check your philosophy at the lab door and no problem. i find wonder ... in science!

i am not a well-educated man - i graduated high school and that is it.
I am very interested in mythology, religion, and many other things. But we aren't talking about that - we are talking about science.
 

420norway

Active Member
The earth does not take 24 hours to revolve. It revolves and we chose to break the day into 24 "hours".

So you are saying that you simply accept the unexplainable?! what type of scientist are you man....
 

420norway

Active Member
Science is nothing without Philosiphy, surely you must see that....
If no one had asked the questions, you would have no need to find aswers.
I am glad that i am taking my time in Bio very seriously because if the scientific community thinks like you then i will have to change it all wont I?
 

email468

Well-Known Member
The earth does not take 24 hours to revolve. It revolves and we chose to break the day into 24 "hours".

So you are saying that you simply accept the unexplainable?! what type of scientist are you man....

OK it takes X amount of time to revolve and we decided to call it 24 hours - this is the absurdity argument i'm talking about.

How is calling the time it takes the Earth to spin once a day accepting the unexplainable?

we name things, we categorize things - that is what we do. Then we agree to call things by certain names.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Science is nothing without Philosiphy, surely you must see that....
If no one had asked the questions, you would have no need to find aswers.
I am glad that i am taking my time in Bio very seriously because if the scientific community thinks like you then i will have to change it all wont I?

Science can ask questions without philosophy. It doesn't take socrates to ask where we come from - i think we all do that. I love philosophy too - at least until it gets bogged down in semantical dialectic bullshit that the deconstructionists and postmoderns like to engage in.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
I am glad that i am taking my time in Bio very seriously because if the scientific community thinks like you then i will have to change it all wont I?
rather than trying to build philosophical arguments against science - why not pay attention and learn how science works?
 

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
*snip*
Get of your high horse and play in the dirt man. Just try to look at the world with open eyes and you might be suprised what you see. Thats not meant as a belittlement, just a stoned ass buddhist trying to sread some harmony.*snip*
I play in the dirt all day long brother, and my horse was only high once (funny story). I think you might have the wrong impression. I was arguing the differences between science and religion, not my belief system. I disagree with your assertion that science is just another religion, they are fundamentally different, but I do not worship or revere either one.

My personally beliefs are firmly planted in nature, I consider myself a spiritual person, just not religious.
 

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
Yes the seasons change without any labels from us but i was using the idea that you can call it autum or gods death, the effect is not changed.
Ahh.. I was wondering where you were getting at, and what. Semantics is the thing I think you're trying to bring out here. However, I'm not sure what semantics has to do with the idea of teaching any faith-based ideas in the college lecture/classroom as part of a science class (maybe other than to say creationism/intelligent design ideas exist).
The jesus thing was simply meant to show how arbitrary our choices to catagorize and label phenomenon are.
Some are arbitrary, and they are necessarily so. In order to communicate in the manner we do, we MUST use words.
What are words?
Symbols.
What are symbols?
Arbitrary representations of an idea, concept, information, places or thing(s).
The problem lies in the vast and often myriad understandings, and misunderstandings, of the given symbol(s) being used. Context can be important. However, again, I fail to understand why this is important here. Faith and science are two different beasts.
but you do understand that time numbers and all your precious theroems are concepts of the mind not the real world right.
AHA!!! Zen and the Art (of Motorcycle Maintenance), yeah? Is that where you're headed? Do I get a prize? :D
Yes these concept are what we use to describe the world and very useful ones at that, but they are still only our creations and to me thats the same as creating a god to explain it all.
Yep. :lol: That shit does not belong here! :lol: ;) :-P
And i gotta say you seem so set in your ways that nothing will change you mind or even make you consider any alternative. If thats not blind faith then i dont know what is.
I know you're addressing Alpha, but I'd like to speak to this as well. On some levels, on many levels even, you may be right. But, increasingly, science is beginning to explain the biology of religion. Certainly, gentlemen and philosophers Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung could also argue that there is something "inherent" in religion FOR man, something almost instinctive, something that may have been what was required for us to build the societies we have. Science is beginning to bear that out, search for V.S. Ramachandran and his "religious center" of the brain (he didn't coin that term, the press did, it's a bit of a misnomer). :D
By the way i am not sure if you care but i am deeply entrenched in the sciences right now. working on my bachelors in Bio and i have yet to find any thing that i cant question to a point that i get no more answers and simply need to accept it to move on. Does this shake my faith in biology as an accurate way to interpret the world? No of course not, in fact if anything it strenghtens it.
Very good and very cool. However, as I was alluding to previously, do we even want to allow science to have a go at religion? Personally, and especially if I were religious, I would say no. Religion and its efficacy, its 'reason for being', lies largely in the faith that is required. Choose any religion in the world, and I believe this applies. Science is the polar opposite. Few, if any, religions make any allowances for variety of opinion, choice, or philosophy. Many require proper bloodlines, others require rejection of the possibility of anything else (other gods/goddesses, more than one god) for true adherence, and may even go so far as to require that its followers accept only one particular dogma borne of the very same religion. This is not science. Scientists, as you know, use the same language, the same mathematics, the same measurements. So as to eliminate, as best as possible, the chance for misinterpretation or misunderstanding, so as to most clearly and objectively record the truth as we humans can experience it.

Religion is a language of absolutes where none exist; Science is a language of qualifications where absolutes may exist.
check your philosophy at the lab door and no problem. i find wonder ... in science!
Me, too! :D Freaky deaky, man.
i am not a well-educated man - i graduated high school and that is it.
I am very interested in mythology, religion, and many other things. But we aren't talking about that - we are talking about science.
Well.. we are also talking about religion, essentially, and its allowable interaction or interplay with science. And, I'm with you, I don't see them as compatible. The only role religion should play is with regard to moral issues, human cloning, causing suffering, and the like. Science, otherwise, is completely amoral because observations don't require anything other than the capacity to be made.
 

420norway

Active Member
Ok i give up.
You have a cut and dry view of what science is and that is obviously not going to change.
Just wanted to have an debate about the blurring of the line between science and religion cause i think they can help each other. I know that karma exists cause i see it everyday, on the other hand i dont know that time exists i just use it to means to an end.
No scientist should be so closed of to the possibility of the amazing or supernatural, as it seems that you folks are.
You make me sad guys.
 

420norway

Active Member
By the way i do love that book but Zen is far more intersting for its self.
I dont know how much reilgion you have studied but if you do you may find iteresting parrelels in myth and science.
thats it i am done
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Ok i give up.
You have a cut and dry view of what science is and that is obviously not going to change.
Just wanted to have an debate about the blurring of the line between science and religion cause i think they can help each other. I know that karma exists cause i see it everyday, on the other hand i dont know that time exists i just use it to means to an end.
No scientist should be so closed of to the possibility of the amazing or supernatural, as it seems that you folks are.
You make me sad guys.
We are not closed to believing in the supernatural - but if it isn't "natural" it isn't science. And if science can study it then it isn't supernatural.

I can believe there is such a thing as the loch ness monster and still be a great scientist - but i can't study it scientifically since there is no scientifically acceptable evidence for it.

Two different worlds, two different goals.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
By the way i do love that book but Zen is far more intersting for its self.
I dont know how much reilgion you have studied but if you do you may find iteresting parrelels in myth and science.
thats it i am done

Folks talk as though there is no wonder and awe to be found in science. I challenge anyone to watch the Planet Earth series (hosted by David Attenborough) and not be amazed by the natural, scientific explanations and discoveries contained therein.
 

medicineman

New Member
Folks talk as though there is no wonder and awe to be found in science. I challenge anyone to watch the Planet Earth series (hosted by David Attenborough) and not be amazed by the natural, scientific explanations and discoveries contained therein.

That's a pretty interesting series. I guess it's up to the observer as to what they take away from it. My own view was that man was doing immense damage to Mother earth, the part about the plastic showing up on the beaches of pacific islands was interesting, throw away plastic from around the world.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Plastics are an evil conspiracy of the oil corporations to destroy the earth. We need to produce more leather or the buggy-whip sellers will go out of business.

Vi
 
Top