Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dirtyfrank said:
Disagree Dave, think our issue is the same old thing. The human representing the bigger picture starts to believe they are the bigger picture.


Religious version:

God>representative> organization>fame> ego>corruption.

Science version:

Truth>representative>organization>fame>ego>corruption.

And ditto, politic, philosophy.


Reason I lean to science? At its truest, it never claims to have the final answer, just the next question. The rest tell you what is, what should be and that you are a traitor\heretic\sub human if you question that starting/finish point.

Any scientist that starts sounding as certain as a politician, Pope or Bono is no longer a scientist.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you named your first version as Religious. That has little to do with faith and I would accept you statement regarding the questioning of the start/finish point. I find that my faith promotes continual questioning - but I would never describe it as a science.

So what does a scientist who actively promote scientific research into areas specifically designed to only cause harm?
 
Ok, I may misunderstand you here Dave (your response) but I'll try to respond.

Yes, I used Religious rather than faith for sensibilities or in other words in respect to you because of discussions we've had before. I have a respect for someone's private faith but I'll challenge a public religion.

To answer you're 2nd point first and I think I'll answer it in exactly the way you want/think: science: , theory, test, proof, challenge, theory test proof.

You're point, I think is application. That's when "moral" (what you were referring to there) comes into it. Or even before as a motivation.

But good or bad motivation can be behind declaration and persuit of faith. So in the end I as I said in the quick second post, we agree there's not a lot of difference in science and spiritualism in how it can be true, fake or corrupted.

I do disagree with your premise that your faith (or anyone's faith) allows you to question. It may in the detail but unlike science your faith has at least one absolute. I'm not going to nitpick the several other possible Christian orientated absolutes depending on your specific version but science always allows for current "absolutes" or rules to be challenged within or without its field.....which in a weird way the op proves.

And again, before you think I'm "atheist" I'm not, I just take the scientific approach to a deity which will obviously do me no favours afterlife wise but is at least consistent in the "if I'm consigned to hell I'll have empirical evidence it exists"
 
Sisu said:
<laugh> The neutrinos have mutated. I guess by the end of the movie they mutated back to their original state<doh>

There's a nut job out there called Marshal Masters, who is telling all who will listen planet Nibiru is coming <yikes> A really creepy guy, looks like a ***** priest
Click to expand...

Zechariah Sitchin first mentioned Nibiru when writing about Sumaria and his deciphering of the early text of that place, he believes it`s orbit brings it close to the Earth every 28000 years and it`s inhabitants are the Anunnaki (Gods of and creators of humans). You should read his web site, it is as convincing as the links you have supplied.
 
Dirtyfrank said:
Ok, I may misunderstand you here Dave (your response) but I'll try to respond.

Yes, I used Religious rather than faith for sensibilities or in other words in respect to you because of discussions we've had before. I have a respect for someone's private faith but I'll challenge a public religion.

To answer you're 2nd point first and I think I'll answer it in exactly the way you want/think: science: , theory, test, proof, challenge, theory test proof.

You're point, I think is application. That's when "moral" (what you were referring to there) comes into it. Or even before as a motivation.

But good or bad motivation can be behind declaration and persuit of faith. So in the end I as I said in the quick second post, we agree there's not a lot of difference in science and spiritualism in how it can be true, fake or corrupted.

I do disagree with your premise that your faith (or anyone's faith) allows you to question. It may in the detail but unlike science your faith has at least one absolute. I'm not going to nitpick the several other possible Christian orientated absolutes depending on your specific version but science always allows for current "absolutes" or rules to be challenged within or without its field.....which in a weird way the op proves.

And again, before you think I'm "atheist" I'm not, I just take the scientific approach to a deity which will obviously do me no favours afterlife wise but is at least consistent in the "if I'm consigned to hell I'll have empirical evidence it exists"
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response - constructed, may I say, with more than a little tenderness. Much appreciated. It's interesting that when discussing science, philosophy (and therefore religion) becomes involved and ultimately the whole concept of morality. Whether, morality is an essence of philosophy is still a continuing debate within academia.

My problem with science is that scientists find beauty in what they find e.g. the mathematician who waxes lyrical about the beauty he finds in an equation (never did see that myself - equations are just hard sums!). Whereas I want to discover beauty for itself and of itself in what I touch, see and do or create.

I cant evaluate your afterlife chances, after all I can't prove to anybody that it exists! However, my gut suggests that those who display a sense of humanity towards others must count for something and probably more than a closed religious spirit. So I suppose my concept of afterlife is typically Scouse - exclusively un-exclusive <laugh>
 
CCC said:
I'm glad you hold the same opinion on math's as I do, Dave. <ok> The American math' which is slowly gaining ground amongst our youth - who are too reliant on American culture to make their own - sounds ungainly and discordant when spoken aloud. I wince every time I hear it, although I'm not averse to changes in language, words or culture. I guess in this sense I'm a total English snob! <laugh>

As far as mathematics goes, I'm a pragmatist. If it can inform on, or anticipate, an experiment then I'm all for theoretical mathematics or mathematical modelling. At the end of the day, the difference between science and the old metaphysics (philosophy) is that science can be confirmed (to an extent) in the 'real' world by experiments. There is a wonderful passage in Sagan's Demon Haunted World which explains with crystal clarity this very point. Well worth read that book. I can't recommend it enough. It would help Sisu immensely! <ok>
Click to expand...

apologies, probably me watching too much of the american series numbers, bad habit lol.
 
if you love your maths i recommend watching the code, very interesting subject.

to do with anything relating to math(s) <whistle> ie way bees produce and the octagon shape (ie hives) which has more of a baring than we realize.
 
Foredeckdave said:
saint, you are supposed to engage upon a theoretical/philosophical discourse on the topic not just annihilate the suggestion with minimalist invective!
Click to expand...

I'll try again.
How can anything "pass through" a ball of thermonuclear fusion well over three quarters of a million miles in diameter with a surface temperature of over 5000 degrees C ?
How much more philosophical can I get?
 
is the sun a solid mass or is it like the planet that is full of gas but just hot?

if its a gas, just because its hot(well more than we can ever comprehend i should imagine heat wise) we do have metals on this planet than can reach higher temps than other metals, just because we don't understand or know of anything that can p-ass through the sun, doesn't mean its not probable at some point.

a lot more scary things in this universe and beyond than our sun.
 
Foredeckdave said:
Thanks for your response - constructed, may I say, with more than a little tenderness. Much appreciated. It's interesting that when discussing science, philosophy (and therefore religion) becomes involved and ultimately the whole concept of morality. Whether, morality is an essence of philosophy is still a continuing debate within academia.

My problem with science is that scientists find beauty in what they find e.g. the mathematician who waxes lyrical about the beauty he finds in an equation (never did see that myself - equations are just hard sums!). Whereas I want to discover beauty for itself and of itself in what I touch, see and do or create.

I cant evaluate your afterlife chances, after all I can't prove to anybody that it exists! However, my gut suggests that those who display a sense of humanity towards others must count for something and probably more than a closed religious spirit. So I suppose my concept of afterlife is typically Scouse - exclusively un-exclusive <laugh>
Click to expand...

I think sciene and maths are beautiful. Knowledge is beautiful and the quest for knowledge. Maths and science represent the intellect of the human race. Our ability to question, understand and harness the universe around us. It's absolutely magnificent. How can that not be beautiful?

Do you remember the feeling the first time you saw a film in 3D? Or the first time you used a touch screen? Or maybe the first time you played a computer game or watched a TV or listend to a Radio or used the internet (all depending on age)? That feeling of awe, excitement, a sense of seeing a glimpse of how the world will unfold before us, is one of the most beautiful things in the world :)

Just like some people see beauty in the articulate use of the english language through poetry or books, or beauty in paintings or the natural world around us, some see the beauty in an equation.
 
Rep for Dave, Frank and afcftw for their useful and considered contributions. <ok>

My position on this topic has fair well explained / supported by Frank and afcftw. So I'll mainly respond to Dave and where I disagree with anyone else.

Dirtyfrank said:
...

And again, before you think I'm "atheist" I'm not, I just take the scientific approach to a deity which will obviously do me no favours afterlife wise but is at least consistent in the "if I'm consigned to hell I'll have empirical evidence it exists"
Click to expand...

The only major issue I had with your post was in this paragraph, Frank. I am an atheist - or agnostic, depending on the degree of philosophical accuracy you want to impart on the definition. Dave doesn't apologise for his faith and he shouldn't have to. Equally, I don't see why I should have to apologise for my lack of faith. This is not America. There is no real stigma over being without religion, which is pretty much the majority position in this country (unlike our American bretheren). You didn't state overt disapproval with atheism but your reluctance to be associated with it, for Dave's sake or not (not sure), I found confusing / irksome.



Foredeckdave said:
...My problem with science is that scientists find beauty in what they find e.g. the mathematician who waxes lyrical about the beauty he finds in an equation (never did see that myself - equations are just hard sums!). Whereas I want to discover beauty for itself and of itself in what I touch, see and do or create.
Click to expand...

This is an unfortunate stereotype, Dave. I'd wager I know more scientists than you, and none exclusively see beauty in what they find. Like all humans, we scientist share the wonder of life, Nature and the artistic and aesthetic creations of humanity. What scientists say is that an understanding of nature and the universe doesn't diminish our wonder or appreciation of it (as Keats contended -- see Dawkin's entire book devoted to this point Unweaving the Rainbow) but, rather, enhances it.

Foredeckdave said:
... I cant evaluate your afterlife chances, after all I can't prove to anybody that it exists! However, my gut suggests that those who display a sense of humanity towards others must count for something and probably more than a closed religious spirit. So I suppose my concept of afterlife is typically Scouse - exclusively un-exclusive <laugh>
Click to expand...

This would only be fair, I think, if a supernatural afterlife exists. It puts me in mind of Bertrand Russell's quip to someone who asked what he would say to God in his defense of his atheistic stance, he replied: 'I shall say, "God, why did you make the evidence for your existence so insufficient?"' I'm fairly sure there is no afterlife, but in the (very) highly unlikely event that there is, and if God is indeed just, then I'll have nothing to worry about. At least, that's my opinion. <ok>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back