More of a passing acquaintance than well-versed really.

I'm better on the Kalevala at the moment. My 4 yr old daughter is having The Songs of Power as bedtime stories (interspersed with Mog and the rabbit) at the moment. Good stories in there too.

If I were to even begin to post in this thread, I would offend so many people of so many religions.




Oh wait...

If I were to even begin to post in this thread, I would offend so many people of so many religions.




Oh wait...

Either that or no-one would be really bothered and you'd have another hissy fit.

In Science you assume that your perceptions are true. Then you base everything else on those perceptions.

Personally I feel that I'ts a lot easer to believe in your own perceptions than in a book someone else told you to believe in.
But something being easier to believe in doesn't prove it right. You still have to take that "leap of faith" to get your system of thoughts working.

Not really. There are some assumptions that science makes (the observable is real, and not just in my head. I'm not hooked up to the Matrix.), but those are hardly a leap of faith, no more than it takes faith to conclude that standing in front of a moving train is an unsafe thing to do.

Science isn't based purely on human perceptions. Basing your views purely on human perception would be extremely bad science, as it's extremely unreliable. Science relies on rigourous testing of the available evidence, and results from experiments that have been proven time and time again to be repeatable.

Science is reliable, to the extent that the computer sitting in front of you really exists.

I agree with you that assuming your computer really exists is not such a wide “gap” as is believing in some divine being and what he says, but they are both still assumptions. And if we allow assumptions, what determines what kind of assumptions can we make and what kind we can't?

Science is based on human perception and we have to assume our perceptions are true.
When you stand somewhere on earth you might first get the impression that the Earth is flat, based on your perceptions. Now we know that is wrong. The Earth is round. But we know that just because we sort of expanded, sharpened and focused our perception of the world.
A bunch of people in history saw a building “sunken in the ground” far in the horizon, or knew a little maths and with a well and the Sun's light, determined that the Earth must be round.
It's basically the same thing as humans discovering that the universe does not behave like Euclidean space, which hairbearbunch and islandsinthesky have been reminding us on this forum.

Thanks to science, we can now observe the universe better than before because we can observe energies of any wavelength, our way, not just light. But it is still us perceiving the world, with better instruments than our natural senses, our eyes and stuff.

And I'm not convinced that science can give us the ultimate picture, since you can't have a belief system which isn't based on anything. So you always have to assume something.

Religions are based on perceptions too. Often religious people talk about sensing something divine. I think that's a perception too. Why would it be an inferior perception to the perceptions that are used to make science? And one might think that if there is/are some kind of creator(s), he/she/it(they) should know exactly how their creation works.

On the other hand, if you hear some god telling you how things are, but you yourself can never find out, you can wonder if is that god really some kind of soul-eating monster who can eat your soul only if you live how he wants and so manipulates you with all the things he tells you.

[Octillus]

Jeez, someone's on some hardcore disassociatives.

I agree with you that assuming your computer really exists is not such a wide “gap” as is believing in some divine being and what he says, but they are both still assumptions. And if we allow assumptions, what determines what kind of assumptions can we make and what kind we can't?

Science is based on human perception and we have to assume our perceptions are true.

What happened to "Cogito ergo sum"? Why would you presume that anything outside of your mind is real? We don't have to assume anything.

When you stand somewhere on earth you might first get the impression that the Earth is flat, based on your perceptions. Now we know that is wrong.

Well perception would be based on idiocy, in that case. The fact that the stars and sun are in the sky at different angles throughout the day and night would tell even the most ill-informed species that it is untrue. Look at Stonehenge and Newgrange, primitive examples of methods to use the sun to tell the time of day or year based on the principle that the earth is revolving and they didn\'t have anything except mathematics to prove to them that the earth wasn't flat. In fact, if you're arguing for religion in that post then it'd be important to bear in mind that Galileo was forced to deny that the earth was spherical by the Catholic Church.

A bunch of people in history saw a building “sunken in the ground” far in the horizon, or knew a little maths and with a well and the Sun's light, determined that the Earth must be round.

What on earth are you talking about. That could just as easily have meant that the sun was revolving around a flat-surfaced earth.

And I'm not convinced that science can give us the ultimate picture, since you can't have a belief system which isn't based on anything. So you always have to assume something.

Obviously you've never heard of the Scientific Method.

Religions are based on perceptions too. Often religious people talk about sensing something divine. I think that\'s a perception too. Why would it be an inferior perception to the perceptions that are used to make science?

Because it's largely based on ideas which were conceieved through speculation by mere humans throughout time, and all of these belief systems were formulated in an age far more primitive to ours where people would be more inclined to believe things without any objective proof.

Seriously; with all due respect to your religious beliefs, you make absolutely no sense.

Although I've been brought up to go to church every sunday and forced to wade through all the Abrahamic bs since I was born, I think I've finally broken free, these days it's all about hinduism cos it's the only thing where art, music and God were(and still are sometimes) inseperable. Religion is just a word and hinduism is science and yoga is one of it's children.

It's really amazing to look at christianity and islam from the outside and shocking to see so many people convert, kill, fight and die for them.

I'm sorry if I don't make any sense. It's hard enough to talk about this stuff in my own language so talking about it in English isn't making it easier. But I really enjoy this kind of conversation so I hope you'll be patient with me.

I am not arguing for religion. I am not even a religious person. I don't think I personally have any reason to assume a god exists, I have no.. eh, perceptions that would lead me to think so.

What happened to "Cogito ergo sum"? Why would you presume that anything outside of your mind is real? We don't have to assume anything.

So why do we do anything if we aren't sure anything outside our mind is real? We assume it's real, or we don't care, or we end up doing nothing because as The Oid put it, we think we are hooked up to the matrix. So in order to do science we have to assume stuff outside our minds is real.

Well perception would be based on idiocy, in that case. The fact that the stars and sun are in the sky at different angles throughout the day and night would tell even the most ill-informed species that it is untrue. Look at Stonehenge and Newgrange, primitive examples of methods to use the sun to tell the time of day or year based on the principle that the earth is revolving and they didn\'t have anything except mathematics to prove to them that the earth wasn't flat. In fact, if you're arguing for religion in that post then it'd be important to bear in mind that Galileo was forced to deny that the earth was spherical by the Catholic Church.

You don't see the stars at day. And humans are (or were) normally asleep most of the time at night, when the stars were visible, so they weren't spending too much time on wondering that maybe the earth was round, because you can clearly see the earth is flat. Or at least they thought so. They didn't get the idea that if standing on a big enough sphere, the immediate surroundings of the observer would seem very much like a flat surface. They didn't need to think so because they didn't have any perceptions of the Earth's roundness. And thinking that the Earth was round worked for them. Just as science works for us today.

But I don't understand how it can be concluded by the changing angle of stars that the Earth is round? How do you know they aren't just balls of fire which fly around in funny patterns?

I am well aware of how the church treated Galileo. And they were able to do that because they were in control then. And they didn't like what Galileo was saying. They weren't very objective, but it was their "science" that made them act so. Todays science isn't any better, in a way. But ill get to that later.

A bunch of people in history saw a building “sunken in the ground” far in the horizon, or knew a little maths and with a well and the Sun's light, determined that the Earth must be round.

What on earth are you talking about. That could just as easily have meant that the sun was revolving around a flat-surfaced earth.

I meant that once you see only the top of the building in the horizon, but not the first floors, you might suspect that the earth is at least a curving surface (I use the phrase at least a lot ) and with the sun and well (and with a well I mean this
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/uplo ... _Well_.jpg
and not the word "well,") I was referring to Eratosthenes. He used the Sun, a well and mathematics to determine that the Earth is round.

And I'm not convinced that science can give us the ultimate picture, since you can't have a belief system which isn't based on anything. So you always have to assume something.

Obviously you've never heard of the Scientific Method.

Yes I have. The scientific method of collecting knowledge is a system of beliefs which corrects itself as new knowledge is discovered. All the information is based on our perceptions of the world. Our perceptions can be questioned.
One day we might find out that the Earth and all the other planets are shaped like a peanut but seemed only spheres because we couldn't comprehend it's true shape due to our limited senses and incomplete science (science is never complete, that wouldn't be science).
And all the information we have collected tells us only how the universe has functioned since we started "recording" it to this day. We can only assume that it will work so in the future.

Religions are based on perceptions too. Often religious people talk about sensing something divine. I think that\'s a perception too. Why would it be an inferior perception to the perceptions that are used to make science?

Because it's largely based on ideas which were conceieved through speculation by mere humans throughout time, and all of these belief systems were formulated in an age far more primitive to ours where people would be more inclined to believe things without any objective proof.

Todays scientific objective view doesn't get any more objective as it was back then in history, even if collected with the scientific method. I'ts the people with the money who decide what is being mainly researched. And they'll research stuff that will benefit themselves. Most of the money of major countries goes in arms research (you can call that science). People just make better and better guns. Not so much money goes to space research, for example. The internet and GPS were military applications first before they were given to public use, weren't they? At this rate our science will take us to a world where everybody knows everything about guns but all they know about space is the Earth is round and travels around the sun or something like that.
So it was back then. In Europe a "while ago" for example, the church had all the money so basically people researched the Bible, the source of objective truth (according to Christians, since it is information directly from God). Their "science" aimed for understanding the world and how it works, and they thought they even had an absolute truth as their source.

I am just trying to say with all this that I see science as just one belief system among others, they all make some assumptions.
So it seems people like to believe in what works. Most like science because it works for them, building their houses and cars and guns and stuff, but some people feel that their religion or maybe something else even, works better for them, so the believe in it instead. Ultimately it doesn't matter in what you believe since you can't exit your head.



...Or at least I think so.

EDIT: "Todays scientific objective view" originally had the word "view" missing

1. I believed.
2. I didn't believe anymore.
3. I thought all religions were the same boring bullshit.
4. I listened metal and like my tr00-satanic-kvlt idols I became an "enemy" of christianity
5. I didn't care anymore how "tr00" I were.
6. I noticed the good sides in religions.
7. I started to envy religious people because I fear death.
8. I walked outside from church and took my money with me because I don't want to be part of organised religion. I hate nominal christians.

What next?

On a global scale all religions are bad because they teach you this hollywoodish black and white image of good and evil.

nice.

i kinda went through the same thing, but minus the 2nd step, and the satanist stuff (because it made me think if satan exists surely his opposite has to aswell)

people confuse the physical church on earth as the true church of Christ, but the sad truth is every denomination has their own flaws and no church is 100% true to the original laws n such

what next? i recommend reading up about quantum physics and the spiritual, interesting shit

This isn't the middle ages anymore. No one is forcing anyone to believe in their idea of what or who God is. It is very easy to have your own concept of a Higher Power without any consideration of religion. Faith is not subjective....or at least it shouldn't be.

[djskrimp]

I believe all of you people have lost your fucking minds........and I love you for it.

I don't really see the point in constructing some concept of a "higher power" if you've moved away from religion. Fair enough if you somehow manage to find compelling evidence that such a thing exists, but making stuff up to fill a gap in your knowledge, or the gap made in your life by organised religion is just silly in my opinion.

Some say that they wouldn't like to live in a universe where death is the end of their existence, as if reality is some kind of democracy where something can only be true if you want it to be.

Each to their own I guess.

I personally find the idea of eternal existence in some kind of afterlife or even in this life more horrifying than dying away some day. It makes everything feel so worthless since everything could always be done anyhow.

I dunno, personally I think eternal life (as a human, as opposed to an afterlife) would be pretty awesome, provided it wasn't immortality with some horrible catch (such as continuing to age or getting alzheimers), and as long as my wife was immortal too.

Living long enough to be able to see things like quantum computers, artificial life, colonisation of other worlds, maybe even interstellar travel if it turns out to be physically possible? Fuck yes, sign me up. I don't buy into the view that it'd get boring, there will always be some great unanswered question or unexplored place. Think of all the things you could do if you had no time constraints.

[JuZ]

I dunno, personally I think eternal life (as a human, as opposed to an afterlife) would be pretty awesome, provided it wasn't immortality with some horrible catch (such as continuing to age or getting alzheimers), and as long as my wife was immortal too.

Living long enough to be able to see things like quantum computers, artificial life, colonisation of other worlds, maybe even interstellar travel if it turns out to be physically possible? Fuck yes, sign me up. I don't buy into the view that it'd get boring, there will always be some great unanswered question or unexplored place. Think of all the things you could do if you had no time constraints.

Would it be terribly hypocritical of me to say "amen" to this? I hope so...

Haaaallelujah!