Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: B.C. Tours


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: B.C. Tours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 4:32:24 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren


quote:

ORIGINAL: darkangel


You cannot nail down science - it evolves constantly.


Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.


Thanks for saying what I've been saying in a concise way; particularly "Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is." (where's James Burke when you need him?). A lot of this is semantics and/or people choosing what they want words to mean to support their argument. I keep trying to get out from under that problem so there's a reference point but I can't do it alone.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 6:41:30 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren


quote:

ORIGINAL: darkangel


You cannot nail down science - it evolves constantly.


Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.


Thanks for saying what I've been saying in a concise way; particularly "Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is." (where's James Burke when you need him?). A lot of this is semantics and/or people choosing what they want words to mean to support their argument. I keep trying to get out from under that problem so there's a reference point but I can't do it alone.

anthrosub


Actually, I blame a lot of it on "science teaching." Instead of teaching "science" = a way of looking at and testing data, they teach a collection of facts as if the lists were science. This has two outcomes, both bad. People see science as boring lists of facts to be memorized. This, in turn, puts science on the same level as any other set of lists (a list of ten on two stone tablets come to mind) while science is really so much more.

By the way, Netflix has all of Burke's shows on DVD.


< Message edited by JohnWarren -- 12/9/2005 6:43:44 PM >

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/9/2005 9:00:10 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		You bring up a good point about the "list" aspect. I guess I was fortunate in that I was clued in on how science classes are taught (maybe it's the same for others, I can't be sure). A professor sat down with me and we started talking about how we came to be interested in science. At some point he told me for each branch of science I might notice how the first couple courses focus on the terms used.

Before you can get to the theory and analysis, you first have to learn the language spoken. Unfortunately, most people only take the first couple classes, so maybe that's part of why it seems like lists. Today, the "real" science doesn't actually begin until working on your Masters degree (unless you already have a passion for it to begin with).

I'll have to check out the Netflix option. I also made a mistake with the title. It's actually "The Day the Universe Changed" (first broadcast in 1985) and the last time I looked online, it was selling for $750 on DVD. That was last winter. I have a poor copy on VCR but would like to get it on DVD. I don't know how familiar you are with his work but I can highly recommend a book of his..."The Axemaker's Gift."

anthrosub

< Message edited by anthrosub -- 12/9/2005 9:11:05 PM >

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/10/2005 4:32:56 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren


quote:

ORIGINAL: darkangel


You cannot nail down science - it evolves constantly.


Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.



Hello John

I completely agree with you. I believe it is just the way people use words. Whilst I don't disagree with your explaination, I would change the word 'science' with facts. Therefore - 'Science evolves, facts do not.'
To me science is what we know and like you say, finding and evaluating. The facts that are there, don't evolve, they simply are facts. Science evolves from the exchange of facts - that is how I see it anyway - lol, maybe I am wrong but its the way I look at things. I don't think we disagree, its just the way I understand it to be. I am a word freak To me, science is knowledge which changes with experience and therefore evolves. Facts do not evolve - they simply are.
I hope that helped explain my words better.

Peace and Rapture

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/10/2005 8:06:29 AM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

sci-ence - [Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

fact - [Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do. See dh- in Indo-European Roots.]

belief - [Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelafa. See leubh- in Indo-European Roots.]

faith - [Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fides, faith. See bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.]

religion - [Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religio, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.]


These were taken from the American Heritage Dictionary. I find the etymologies to be quite revealing. This demonstrates how the language we use plays such an enormous role in how we understand our existence (within ourselves) because we use words internally to think and externally to communicate. Words "re-present" our experience and every day we are conditioning ourselves through their use.

Words in combination convey an idea (a concept), a conception of our experience. It can be simple or complex. The important thing to remember and never lose sight of is the purpose of words and how they come about.

anthrosub



_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/11/2005 9:40:59 PM   
kisshou


Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.


If what we know because of science evolves constantly, then how is a belief based upon a scientific conclusion any less faith based than a belief based upon religious conviction?

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/11/2005 9:43:28 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
Science is not a set of facts. It is a way of finding and evaluating data.

It's not techniques or tools. It is a way the information yielded from those tools is tested against other information.

Science isn't evolving; what we know because of science is.

Subtle but important distinction.


If what we know because of science evolves constantly, then how is a belief based upon a scientific conclusion any less faith based than a belief based upon religious conviction?



Because there is a checking against reality and a specific set of rules that require that data be available.

It's not a case of "I think" or "I declare" but of "The data show"


_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/12/2005 12:47:03 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Something to consider:

Faith denies facts in conflict with a belief.
Science embraces facts in conflict with a belief.

When the phrase "I believe." is more important than the phrase "I know." then it is vital that what is known is limited to those things that do not threaten what is believed. When fact disproves faith, then the the phrase "I believe." becomes insubstantual and unsupportable.

When the phrase "I know." is more important than the phrase "I believe." then it is vital to know every aspect of a belief so that knowledge is either supported or proven false. When fact disproves science, then knowledge is still supported by the understanding of what is not factually true.

In the words of Michael Shermer; Editor of Skeptic Magazine, "I believe that smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."

There are many core beliefs that a majority of our society takes on faith as positive influences which have no basis in fact. Many of them are blatantly wrong. Worldwide, we have more knowledge available to draw on than our ancestors which, as an end result, has made mankind smarter over the centuries. Yet we still insist on "rationalizing things we came to believe for non-smart reasons."

-SD-

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/12/2005 3:12:20 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Something to consider:

Faith denies facts in conflict with a belief.
Science embraces facts in conflict with a belief.

When the phrase "I believe." is more important than the phrase "I know." then it is vital that what is known is limited to those things that do not threaten what is believed. When fact disproves faith, then the the phrase "I believe." becomes insubstantual and unsupportable.

When the phrase "I know." is more important than the phrase "I believe." then it is vital to know every aspect of a belief so that knowledge is either supported or proven false. When fact disproves science, then knowledge is still supported by the understanding of what is not factually true.

In the words of Michael Shermer; Editor of Skeptic Magazine, "I believe that smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."

There are many core beliefs that a majority of our society takes on faith as positive influences which have no basis in fact. Many of them are blatantly wrong. Worldwide, we have more knowledge available to draw on than our ancestors which, as an end result, has made mankind smarter over the centuries. Yet we still insist on "rationalizing things we came to believe for non-smart reasons."

-SD-



Nicely put. Perhaps your post will answer AAkasha's question of how highly intelligent people continue to embrace things which rationally don't add up. As this is all psychological in nature, I suspect those people have motivating factors driving their "irrational" belief (perhaps the best being that it has some benefit to the individual or society regardless of whether it's true or not).

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/12/2005 3:18:09 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
Honestly Dave - I ain't picking on ya

quote:

Faith denies facts in conflict with a belief.
Science embraces facts in conflict with a belief.


I am assuming you are not religious in any way because your claim is unsubstantiated. I have to say that your claim is just, wrong.

Some faith denies facts in conflict with a belief.
Some faith embraces facts in conflict with a belief.
Science embraces facts in conflict with a belief, but also some science denies and tries to disprove some facts in conflict with a belief.

The thing that I cannot understand is peoples willingness and uncontrolable need - and it does seem to be a need - to pigeonhole and generalise all faith and all religions and all sciences and all BDSMers and all slaves and all sissies... you get my drift... to try and uphold a personal view. In the end - the people that do such - are just doing exactly what the OP started out being against - only from the opposite corner.

Peace and Rapture


_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/12/2005 6:14:21 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		Science deals strictly with observable data...that's all. Measuring the temperature of water being heated by a flame is such an example. There is nothing science can measure regarding religious claims (i.e., Eve coming from Adam's rib or Mohammad being dictated the contents of the Quran via hearing voices). What a particular branch of science can do (psychology) is measure how many people follow a particular religion through a standardized questionnaire and use the results to place each person's strength of belief on a scale ranging let's say from one to ten. The questionnaire becomes the observable data in this case and the result is not presented as a fact but a theory (which is not a synonym for "belief").

You believe and that's a fact but that's all the fact is. I'm not sure what science courses you took in school or what books you read but I've never heard of any scientific endeavor, the goal of which was to disprove religious claims (note the use of the word "claims" as opposed to "facts" which you continue to use interchangeably). As far as generalizing is concerned, I don't think anyone is going to try and state the level of belief or orientation of every individual on a first name basis. This whole discussion has been conducted on a "generally speaking" basis.

I'm hoping this will give you a clear picture of the differences.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/12/2005 11:43:05 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		DA:

Yes, you are picking on me, but thats alright. LOL, I'm actually surprised that you're the only one though. Usually by the time a theology thread gets this far I've been called the anti-christ at least twice...

First your assumption. I'm a very spiritual person. However, I do not subscribe to any single religious philosophy. Most are essentually similar, and all are somewhat lacking. However, I am not an agnostic, as I have firm convictions in the essence of my spirituality and faith.

Moving on... since you don't like to generalize, name one faith that universally embraces any and all facts that disprove or discredit it's belief structure. Just one...

Name one "science" that attacks faith for the sake of discrediting a belief structure.

Since you don't want to generalize, thats as good a place to start as any. However, if this becomes a point/counterpoint conversation about proving exceptions to rules and exceptions to exceptions, (except on Thursdays when it's raining, when of course the rule still applies, but only as an exception to another rule...) then we're going to be at this a very, very, long time m'love.

There are almost always exceptions to any rule. However, that does not mean that the exceptions should be mistaken for their own rules, nes pah? If say, only 2% of the crossdressers involved in BDSM are female, it does not mean that all male crossdressers are involved in BDSM. However, if an acceptable percentage (to illustrate this, lets assume a percentage of 95%) of male crossdressers ARE involved in BDSM, then it's fairly safe to say that, now isn't it? I guess it comes down to what you feel is an acceptable percentage.

-SD-

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/13/2005 1:42:37 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

DA:

Yes, you are picking on me, but thats alright.

Aw... I gots found out...lol

Actually - I will argue that your not the antichrist... ... you have been one of the few people I have had the honour to discuss 'religion' with - it usually comes down to name calling(as you have experienced) - people saying what another is saying, instead of wanting to know what they are saying (nope - that's been avoided I think) - or totally and utterly yawn inspiring - and sofar, the yawns are avoided... so I thank you for that.

I kinda 'assumed' you were spiritual, which is why I said not religious - an important distinction, IMO anyway.

quote:

Moving on... since you don't like to generalize, name one faith that universally embraces any and all facts that disprove or discredit it's belief structure. Just one...

Name one "science" that attacks faith for the sake of discrediting a belief structure.


Universally, I can't - exactly for that reason. Because I do not generalize - not because I can't, but because I don't and if I did try to name, I would be doing the exact thing I didn't like and cheating mysefl and who I am - I am sure you can comprehend that. But on a non universal and ungeneralized way - I can say my faith doesn't do that. I can also say I have had experience of science attacking faith and a belief structure - but again, its not all science... it is individual. I know I sound dreadfully boring - but I take and move on individual basis only - it is what my life is based on - the moment, the person, the relationship at that specific time. I don't look back on the past, I don't deal with things on how they may exist - I live in the now. Yes, I deal in exceptions and yes, even the smallest percentage is important to me - which is probably why I am so picky - lol ... and yes, we would be here a hell of a long time - but I got all the time in the world...

We probably won't ever agree - I am sure we would accept each others ideas though - and THAT is important.

Peace and Love



_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/13/2005 5:27:14 AM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There are almost always exceptions to any rule. However, that does not mean that the exceptions should be mistaken for their own rules, nes pah? If say, only 2% of the crossdressers involved in BDSM are female, it does not mean that all male crossdressers are involved in BDSM. However, if an acceptable percentage (to illustrate this, lets assume a percentage of 95%) of male crossdressers ARE involved in BDSM, then it's fairly safe to say that, now isn't it? I guess it comes down to what you feel is an acceptable percentage.



I call it "The Elsa Conundrum ." Elsa was a sweet, gentle lion who was hand raised by a gamekeeper in Kenya.

So the next time you are in Kenya and a lion comes bounding at you out of the grass, what are you gonna do?

If you're a sane, reasonable person, you'll bring up your Holland & Holland and try to drop the beast before it gets to you.

If it happens to be Elsa who's just glad to see you, it's a sad tragedy, but in this world, you gotta go with the odds.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/13/2005 10:00:35 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Replied in general and not posted against or for anyone:

Three scientists are riding the train in scotland...
The astronomer seeing a sheep out the window exclaims, "Look, sheep in Scotland are black!"

The mathematician adjures, "There is one sheep in Scotland known to be black."

The physicist with a deep sigh intonates, "There exists in Scotland at least one sheep, of which one side appears to be black, viewed from a train, at a distance and in motion."

[posted and copied from ID controversy] because I am to lazy to regurgitate the entire well worn arguments.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/13/2005 2:25:25 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Okay DA, tell me about this personal "science attacked my faith" experience of yours. (Sorry, that sounds waaay harsh, but I couldn't think of any other way to put it.) I'm curious about what happened. I'm also curious about what the outcome was.

When this sort of thing happens it is usually the result of one or two different things.

1. The faithful percieves an attack that simply is not there. A good recent example of this is the James ossuary. The James ossuary was reportedly proof positive of the existance of Jesus Christ visa vi his brother James. In the middle of its world tour, it was discovered to be a fraud by scientists who were testing samples of it for verification of its age. This upset a whole lot of people who decided that science was attacking their religion.

2. Science discovers something that flies in the face of religious belief inadvertantly, or produces a scientific theory that those of a given faith believe to be threatening. See Darwinism. Actually, a little known fact about Darwinism is that when the concept of evolution was introduced, there was an effort by the Christian church to cast doubt on the theory by producing their own hoax. A sample of bone was altered and rigged to fool the available testing methods. For about 15 years that piece of bone was accepted as a genuine artifact until science proved it was a fraud.
When the hoax was revealed, it's creator, a Reverend on the east coast, confessed to making it specifically to disprove archeologists theories he felt were against religion, most prominently his own. He felt that evolution undermined the "factual representation" of the Biblical accounts of creation. If I remember correctly, the bone fragment is still in the possesion of the Museum of Natural History.

3. Bad science. Unfortunately this happens far too often. The scientific method follows a set path. Scientists rarely deviate from that path without a very good reason. Occasionally though, some twit will come along and try to use science to progress a personal theology or find one of those exceptions we were talking about and make it the rule. For instance, the concept behind the recent ID theory put forth by the Institute for Creation Research would have you believe that the universe is only 6000 years old. This model is based on Biblical dating, geophysical phenomenon and atmospheric gasses. It blatantly refuted scientific evidence that plants and animals evolve with no supporting evidence. Almost all of the "data" used by the ICR is inconclusive and based on assumption rather than scientific methodology.
Young Earth: Coming soon to a Kansas school near you.
This is not to say that all bad science comes from people of faith. However, I know of no instance where science has gone out of its way to disprove the core beliefs of any faith that have been taken seriously by anyone. I have observed that more often than not, people of faith use science, good and bad,as a way to further their own beliefs.

Gotta go. Please share this experience of yours. Feel free to e-mail me if it's not something you can post here.
-SD-

p.s. BTW John, loved that Elsa Conundrum.

< Message edited by SadistDave -- 12/13/2005 2:45:08 PM >

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/13/2005 2:56:13 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Okay DA, tell me about this personal "science attacked my faith" experience of yours. (Sorry, that sounds waaay harsh, but I couldn't think of any other way to put it.) I'm curious about what happened. I'm also curious about what the outcome was.


Dave - didn't come across as harsh, not to me anyway... I love your curiousity.
Done and done-er... will contact shortly.

Peace and Love

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/14/2005 12:01:23 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Since we've been discussing science -v- religion, and how one affects the other, a thought occured to me. Religions tend to inhibit science when science is in conflict with faith (ie: genetics, cloning, anything extra-terrestrial, etc.). Science inhibits religion by creating technologies that lessen the might of God(s) in the minds and hearts of men, as well as everyday items that go against religious teachings, (ie: violent movies/video games, condoms, cloning, genetics, etc.)

Considering that, I have to wonder where we would be if one or the other did not exist. Spiritually, it is possible that we may have evolved to the level of godhood. Technologicly, we may have evolved to a level that makes Capt. Picard look like Fred Flintstone. Of course theres really no way to know the answer to that, but it has raised an interesting question for me, that I would like to ask anyone who cares to answer.

I'm still working out my own answer...

Would you rather live in a stone age and have the powers of a god, or have all the technological wonders you can imagine and no moral values? (Please, no middle of the road, bullshit answers. Thats too easy.)

-SD-


(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/14/2005 1:00:31 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
Would you rather live in a stone age and have the powers of a god, or have all the technological wonders you can imagine and no moral values? (Please, no middle of the road, bullshit answers. Thats too easy.)


Morality can exist in the absence of a god. In fact, it can be argued that one is not really being moral when the actions carried out under threat. Is it all that different if I am a gun at a paedophile and tell him "leave that kid alone or I'll shoot" and he does or if someone does "good" under threat of eternal torture?



_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: B.C. Tours - 12/14/2005 3:41:38 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		Interesting question...I think I'll go with a principal Aristotle proposed long ago...happiness for the sake of happiness. This can be extended to "living a good life for the sake of a good life" or "friendship for the sake of friendship." The point being, God (or anything else for that matter) isn't a factor.

I'd also like to remind everyone this thread was originally aimed at the morons conducting the B.C. Tours. They specifically stated science has no proof of evolution and that the universe is 6000 calendar years (not "years as interpreted by God") old. They are flat out wrong.

There's been a lot of debate here and I keep trying to make a point about religion that seems to get passed over. There are many different religions in the world, many of which are very different from each other. Because of this, it seems to me that anyone with a head on their shoulders is forced to concede that either all religions are an attempt by human beings to explain the unexplainable (which means they are all analogies and not to be taken as the literal truth)...or...one of them is correct and all the others are wrong.

To me, truth is universal. There are no "versions" of truth. To this day there isn't a single religion that can claim to be the utter truth with verifiable evidence to support it. Stating that one simply has to have faith or believe is not the answer either. At best, it's a stop gap measure in lieu of the real explanation. Since we will never know "everthing" about the universe, I think the honest answer is simply that we don't know. To many that's not good enough and those are the people who continue to insist on their belief.

To those who think I have a bias for science, let me say that science avoids the word "truth" just as much as it avoids the word "God." It doesn't matter if someone has had an incident to the contrary; that is an exception to the rule. Period. Science gathers information, analyzes it, and proposes a "theory" (as in, "I have a theory about what we're seeing here"). That is not a claim of fact or the truth.

Science is objective and looks for explanations that can hold up regardless of the variables. For example, science has proven the Earth orbits the Sun. This is "true" regardless of what religion you follow, how old you are, where you live, what language you speak, or what your favorite color might be. Because this information has been verified so thoroughly, we take it for granted as a "fact." What religion can present one of its claims to such intense and thorough scrutiny?

How many people believe is not proof of anything but that there are a lot of believers. How long a belief has been around proves only that the belief has a long tradition. I think this is basic common sense.

The one difference between science and religion that SadistDave has been good to point out is the absence of anything to do with morality or ethics in science. The only thing science can do is tell us when we are behaving in a destructive manner (which it does although politicians are good at ignoring the fact). To me, this is where religion can contribute to the decisions we make about what our direction should be in life. If religion could divorce itself from all the mythical stories (or at least acknowlegde that's what they are) then I would have no issues and people like the B.C. Tours clowns wouldn't exist.

So, enough from me for now. All I'm doing is looking at all the information available and coming up with what common sense tells me. By the way, I think it's a good idea to consider that with every new human being born on this planet, this whole debate must be started all over again once they acquire the ability to reason. So it will never really end in my opinion.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: B.C. Tours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125