Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #775


      We got to talking awhile back. About religion. Arthur saved the conversation and sent it to me. I thought it would be cool to get everyone’s take on it. :D



      Derek: it’s thunderstorming here, i’m staring at it
      sorry for delay
      my kitty’s rain sleep worked

      me: no problem… talking about that, i have the itchy feeling we are seeing more storms last few years, here in NL at least. last year 2 windows where blown from my house!

      Derek: fawesome
      not for you, but i love storms
      i’m a geologist
      you know that

      me: oh i love them too!

      Derek: our perspective of time is seriously warped
      4.6 billion years
      100,000 years
      if you do the math
      we’ve been around (in a 24-hour day), for the last fucking minute
      that’s it
      i’m entranced by rain

      me: yup, true. and we might be gone in the 3rd minute again. nothing to worry about

      Derek: it, over time, turns mountains into valleys
      it’s fascinating

      me: yeah. they even find seashelves in the Himalaya if I’m right, and all continents float away and towards each other again. Mankind is just a little thingy happening somewhere in the universe, earth is not even a molucule inside a tiny bit of sanddust in the shoe of a giant

      Derek: there you go
      glad you feel like i do
      man always concerned about mother earth…guess what? she’ll be fine. man? we’re fucked.

      me: i guess you’re not the one to believe in an afterlife, right?

      Derek: ummm
      religion and science
      i don’t mix
      they are one in the same
      here’s why

      me: yeah somehow they are, and somehow they aren;t also. religion = based on fear for the unknown and the suffering, and philosophy and science is questioning the things that happen

      Derek: science is based on recording observations and then making conclusions based upon those observations. then, you start recording data over a long period of time. example: the sun rises everday. how do we know this? because hundreds of years \"prove\" this. but, how do you explain tomorrow, when the sun doesn’t rise? therefore, it’s still a faith based thought process, even though people like to pretend it’s not.

      me: thats too simple for me. The Sun IS => fact by proof, God ISN’T => belief by hundreds of groups of silly people all believing different things.

      Derek: wrong though
      prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow, and provide your basis
      i agree about religion
      not about science though
      science IS => using past observations to predict the future
      that is pure and simple, faith

      me: no, I’m not with you completely
      I throw a rock at you, it hits you on the head and it hurts badly. Are you going to duck and cover when I throw the next stone?
      meaning: we can predict it will hurt again in the future?

      Derek: you assume gravity still applies
      big assumption, don’t you think?

      me: yes, very big assumption, but as all people search for cover for 100,000 years already when a stone is heading their way, it has become a 1:1,000,000+ chance that gravity will disappear on it;s track. Fair belief it will hurt when I throw the next stone, so instead of having faith in gravity disappearing, I accept the assumption of its existence as a fact

      Derek: that’s your flaw
      \"accept the assumption as fact\"
      how is that different that religion?
      they are no different

      me: because the odds are the other way round

      Derek: one = the other
      odds are odds
      odds are not absolute
      therefore, not \"holy\"
      therefore, not foolproof
      therefore, not laws
      just laws as we perceive them at this point in time

      me: yup, exactly. we agree on 1 + 1 = 2, this agreement makes life a little more simple for the people when everybody on earth will say the same thing: yes, we agreed on 1 + 1 = 2. But it’s like with the \"truth\", it doesnt exist, nowhere. What we call truth is a simple insight that we think we have, and that changed over the years and centuries. However, some laws, or agreements, never change. 1 + 1 = 2 remains.

      Derek: 1 + 1 = 2, as far as I know, will never change. it’s defined by man. how could it change?
      it can’t change, it’s governed by man, not the \"world\"

      me: but the word \"fact\" vs \"belief\" is not on the same level as 1 + 1 = 2. It’s open to interpretation

      Derek: give me one fact not defined by man
      we all die
      how do we \"know\" this?
      past observations
      we therefore believe, hey, 100 gabillion people all died
      therefore, we must all die

      me: no
      faith is what you have in the unknown, in the things you cannot touch, cannot see. facts, although they can change, have been proven by large numbers
      it’s a matter of definition

      Derek: but
      what i submit
      is that they are one in the same
      you cannot define science w/o a form of faith, i.e. the past repeating itself, no matter how long the data stream may be

      me: but I’m not having faith in yes or no I’m gonna die, I accept as a fact that I will, as all odds are with that. I might be lucky (or not) and lay my hands on the pill that will make me immortal and stay 25 years old all the time. Thats uncertain, and can be (is not, but can be) part of my beliefs. So in my definition of a fact, I will die as a matter of fact

      Derek: the true scientifc method: define problem (purpose), investigate, guess (make an assumption as to what will happen), experiment, observe, make conclusion, this is the simplest form of true science. you conclude based upon the hypothesis given before the experiment
      you don’t know that
      you accept it, based on past observations
      you may not die arthur, as crazy as that sounds
      throw history out the window
      how do you know?
      you believe….
      this may help
      nothing is fact until it happens
      nothing is fact until the past

      me: sidenote, I wrote cartoons on Highschool. My nick was \"Make me a believer\"

      Derek: any prediction into the future is a mere guess
      i took a class on this bro
      you will not sway me

      me: no, you are wrong Derek, sorry

      Derek: nice nick!
      how so?

      me: this may help
      nothing is fact until it happens
      nothing is fact until the past <= is what you say
      so wrong

      Derek: ok
      one proton + one proton = ???
      2 protons
      what if those two protons chemically react to produce 3 smaller protons?
      1 + 1 = 3
      matter of semantics, as you alluded to earlier: again, we are discussing man-made limitations

      me: or, to say it differently, facts do not exist, we can only try to make a definition of the word fact so that we both can somehow talk to each other about things. But in the end, facts do not exist. Not now, not in the future, not in the past. Same with truth. We interpret, we guess, we talk blabla and call it philosophy, but all individuals have different opinions about the same fact. So we know nothing

      Derek: that
      i will totally agree with!
      therefore….facts do not exist. therefore, science is based in faith
      pure and simple

      me: no Derek, no. In my opinion you label the word faith on something that shouldnt be labeled like that. Faith is for what we don;t know by the numbers, facts is for what we know by some numbers. (although I agree with you, that we have to believe the numbers they tell us are true, therefore giving a little uncertainty to my story )

      Derek: but
      you can have 1 number to support your fact, you can have 1,000,000,000,000,000 numbers to support your fact
      you still have to \"believe\" that the predicted result (hypothesis) will occur
      that is inherently \"faith\"

      me: nope, still not convinced. It’s a fact I’m going to die sooner or later, and I’m not having faith that the pill for immortality will be invented in my times

      Derek: not the point
      point is

      me: thats the difference to me

      Derek: you can’t prove you will die
      until you die
      you can’t prove you will die, without using assumptions
      assumptions based on past observations, used to predict the future
      in my mind?
      you will never die

      me: i’ve seen my mother dead, all my grandparents, and i think it is a fact that i will go the same way someday

      Derek: prove me wrong
      prove it
      using science and logic

      me: yeah sure, but thats another way of being alive

      Derek: no
      you keep referencing past observations to justify what will happen in the future
      that is science at it’s basis
      nothing more
      prove to me you will actually die

      me: it doesnt need prove to see me dead, time will tell I’m going to die. my body will one day stop jumping and humping, and there’s only 0.0000000001 % chance thats it is going to be different

      Derek: aha
      you acknowledge the chance
      there is your flaw
      the chance is there
      it corrupts everything
      no matter the odds

      me: no, its no flaw Derek. What I mean is, we call the 0.000000001% faith, and we call the 99.99999999% fact. Matter of definition

      Derek: i get what you’re saying
      i do
      both are based in faith
      faith meaning = acceptance w/o proof

      me: yup, that part I agree, but as I said before: facts do not exist, there is no 100% truth anywhere. Still we call things facts (things that are pretty fair to belief, here you go ) and faith

      Derek: right
      boils down to semantics
      but for me
      religion and science are one in the same
      just based upon the logical approach to either

      me: yeah on your level it is true. but it isn’t the only level how we can define the differences and similarities of religion and science

      Derek: not the only level, maybe
      but, present to me a more basic level

      me: thats easy

      Derek: anything else is built up, more complex, extraneous

      me: nope
      go back to 100,000 years ago, and imagine you were a Neanderthaler or something
      did they discuss these things? no, guess not

      Derek: assumption

      me: yup, but pretty fair assumption, as long as we dont find bibles, sciencebooks and things from that period. so, I think they survived on a daily basis, looking for food, a fuck and a shelter

      Derek: assumption nonetheless, but carry on

      me: those 3 basic things bring uncertainty for the ones amongst the animals that where stupid enough to have feelings

      me: uncertainty brings fear, fear needs a cure. a cure needs a doctor. a doctor needs power. the raise of religion was there.

      Derek: sorta follow you

      me: then, with the assumptions of the religious powers that know nothing, those animals stupid enough to question things, needed more \"facts\" closer at hand. the raise of science was there

      Derek: ok
      but you just described how religion is crap
      and i’ve described how science is nothing more than faith in numbers

      me: so in the basics, religion is cure for fear, science is questioning things raised by philosophy and rebellion

      Derek: i accept religion being cure for fear
      science does question philosophy and rebellion
      put science on your stove
      turn up the heat
      boil that shit down
      it’s nothing more than a belief in the future, based on past observations

      Derek: i’m operating on the philosophical level here, w/ regards to science
      playing devil’s advocate
      it’s undeniable
      we can operate on whatever level we want, w/ respect to science, but it’s inherently flawed, just by definition

      me: already the \"observations\" part makes a big difference, as science dares to question the results every now and then, and religion is a silly belief in facts and truths that have proven to go wrong, or at least the people with the powers in religion don’t want to be questioned anyway. Religion is a manmade thingy from within mankind, science at least tries to look a bit further.

      Derek: okay
      science can’t question the results
      not part of the formula
      it can only report them
      i agree totally about religion
      science cannot disprove anything
      it can only \"prove\" other things, based upon an experiment
      which is operated under controlled conditions, and only gives creedence to past data, if it does in fact, fall in line

      Derek: goddam
      we need to post this in the philosophical forum

      me: uhu, see that you come up with a few more differences again? and here is another rather important one: science can be done by machines without feelings, religion can only be done by mankind

      Derek: agreee!!!!!
      you can buy a computerized bible
      so, um, disagree
      both are programmed by humans

      me: you cant ask a computer or a shovel or a hairdryer what it \"believes\" but you can give it a scientific task to prove things, over and over again, to add to the numbers

      me: and religion just cant do that. We should believe the numbers of the hairdryer (wow, my hair is fry again! hiha! praise my hairdryer!) and not the stories of the pope when he tells us to not use condoms.

      Derek: a shovel or hairdryer is operated by humans. they are controlled by us. we control the results, regardless of what the tools \"believe\". all we can do is use our tools to support and give credibility to what we think should occur

      me: fry = dry

      me: sure, but still the basics of religion are different as the basics of science. feelings vs non-feelings

      Derek: but not

      Derek: are we discussing whether or not shovels have feelings, or whether or not shovels are tools used to provide data used to support past and future hypothesis’, used in the scientific method?

      me: well, you asked me about faith and the same basics and things, and I don’t agree. When we talk about the results and effects, yes you are right, there are similarities in the faith we have in both. But then we only talk about the effects, and not about it basics

      Derek: what are the basics then?

      me: like I said, somewhat the \"feelings vs non-feelings\" thingy. Never gave that a proper thought, its what comes up now. Maybe there are better words for it, I don’t know

      me: But then we only talk about the effects, and not about it basics <= I need to improve that sentence. What I mean is: But then we only talk about how we look upon the effects, and not about its real basics.

      me: hahahaha! just did a F5 on the forum and guess what! \"Our users have posted a total of 11111 articles\"

      Derek: ha ha!
      crap arthur
      i’m gonna copy all of this
      my head is drained

      me: sure, go ahead

      Derek: want me to post it?

      me: sure, why not

      Derek: lol
      i will

    • #26260


      I read this and it’s interesting to read your views on it…although I was interrupted soo many times trying to read it I will have to read it again..

    • #26261


      If this was headed \"Manilla ON Arthurion\" I’d have grabbed my camera and made a fortune in Amsterdam.

    • #26262

      some pumpkins

      that was a fascinating conversation to read

    • #26263


      that is an intersting read for sure. :wink:

Viewing 4 reply threads

The forum ‘Philosophical Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.