My journey into atheism and theories on life
- Thread starter SNESFAN
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,603
- Age
- 40
- Location
- UK
- Website
- pokeparadox.itch.io
- WEBSITE
- https://github.com/pokeparadox
- YOUTUBE
- pokeparadox
There are many violent verses in the bible too. This is the essence of the problem. If someone wants to take away negativity and pour it onto other people they can focus on the violent parts and give their interpretation.
This can be applied to most religious texts regardless of which region they are from.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
". Different profits, yet different versions of the same "god"." is this meant to be prophets, they are both valid points.
I think there is an issue in that by answering simply, you aren't answering fully what truly the question is. Religion has some similarities, but as you mention there are others, which are now almost extinct. Science also wasn't a start and rise, it goes in waves. And the two are largely connected and share this. A pursuit of knowledge, is an open mind, some religions are like that. Yet all science, if that's what you want to call it, took a turn for the worse at some point in the middle ages. Early religion was a scientific method in that trial and error was at play. False and negative positives, not so much, so you have some part bullshit. Scientific method has also made strides, so its also a process in the same token.
You have your time continuum warped, in that you make it out to be that evolutionary process is only a result. If you look at it, it goes back and forth. And i think that is the answer to why the religions you know of are different. Interestingly enough they are big also due to their parasitic and epidemic, all absorbing nature.
in looking for questions to answers you know, science is doing the same in predicting life was created. How about this, when you ask questions to your religious friends, they are answering in a closed logical sense that what their answer is, could be the question if they go farther back, deeper, or whatever the case may be. It doesn't prove anything, it is just pursuit of knowledge in a unwilling sense.
What science is doing when relating still to religion is trying to answer questions like that, which are arbitrary, they, like closed mind religions take into consideration things that aren't part of what problem you need to address.
As such, i think science still finds many human truths to problems, all-though we have a religious view in that technology is good and advanced and can no longer be questioned in this way. As such, we have evolved into the same dumb ignorance, albeit on a better path.
Trust in science is ultimately a trust in oneselfs ability, not faith of other peoples answers. We tend to forget questioning rationale just because the answers we are provided are scientific. And as always, some bullshit persists, its harder to hide since we stand on the shoulders of giants, but within this structure there are weak links.
I think inherently you have evolved out of your surroundings, which is such a multitude in levels to address, had fun reading it, was like inception.
And back to the human truths, circular logic, the point of humanity is humanity, that is just self interest. But it is better, and long live egoism. It is the base of evolution. Luckily egocentricism isn't winning for the time being.
sidenote ramblings: you live in an enclave of the world. The people there aren't much dumber, so a feasibly explanation is in its largely due to the fact that closed mind religions have an ability to push away science. If you want to make life better for people, I think your approach is right, a very non-hostile one. Keep in mind the reason why your environment is how it is, in this day and age is because its trending. Its within a bigger picture.
The most backward enclaves you find in the places which are the most true to closed mind religions. The reason your family has little progress is because questioning is hard, as I understood very well in your description. As a tangent to a clique that is not so closely connected any-more, there is huge risk of being shunned, excluded.
In the bigger picture its maybe the making of a new enclave, exclude yourself by excluding others.
Wherever this reaction may be, it takes scientific progress in the wrong direction.
Edit, read the whole thread now.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many ad populace arguments, guise? focis, super focis.
Einstein is trolling you.
skeezix equated religion with philosophy, or?
Added some thoughts to my original post, but this may take the discussion further:
Thoughts on science/evolution: Bullets and bible in hand easily"wins" prevails over a intelligent person that doesn't see the whole problem.
Edit2: i have much respect for you changing base. Myself ive honed this system of relative and proven network over time. If i doubt something, i go to the next best thing. And rarely anymore is it inconsistant on a level that bothers me or shakes up the system alot.
To a religious person, and formerly so too, you have very little of this, starting basically at scratch, pointing to that and all closed mind religions return to doubt to explain themselves. Fear is the product of keeping the sane mind at bay.
I think there is an issue in that by answering simply, you aren't answering fully what truly the question is. Religion has some similarities, but as you mention there are others, which are now almost extinct. Science also wasn't a start and rise, it goes in waves. And the two are largely connected and share this. A pursuit of knowledge, is an open mind, some religions are like that. Yet all science, if that's what you want to call it, took a turn for the worse at some point in the middle ages. Early religion was a scientific method in that trial and error was at play. False and negative positives, not so much, so you have some part bullshit. Scientific method has also made strides, so its also a process in the same token.
You have your time continuum warped, in that you make it out to be that evolutionary process is only a result. If you look at it, it goes back and forth. And i think that is the answer to why the religions you know of are different. Interestingly enough they are big also due to their parasitic and epidemic, all absorbing nature.
in looking for questions to answers you know, science is doing the same in predicting life was created. How about this, when you ask questions to your religious friends, they are answering in a closed logical sense that what their answer is, could be the question if they go farther back, deeper, or whatever the case may be. It doesn't prove anything, it is just pursuit of knowledge in a unwilling sense.
What science is doing when relating still to religion is trying to answer questions like that, which are arbitrary, they, like closed mind religions take into consideration things that aren't part of what problem you need to address.
As such, i think science still finds many human truths to problems, all-though we have a religious view in that technology is good and advanced and can no longer be questioned in this way. As such, we have evolved into the same dumb ignorance, albeit on a better path.
Trust in science is ultimately a trust in oneselfs ability, not faith of other peoples answers. We tend to forget questioning rationale just because the answers we are provided are scientific. And as always, some bullshit persists, its harder to hide since we stand on the shoulders of giants, but within this structure there are weak links.
I think inherently you have evolved out of your surroundings, which is such a multitude in levels to address, had fun reading it, was like inception.
And back to the human truths, circular logic, the point of humanity is humanity, that is just self interest. But it is better, and long live egoism. It is the base of evolution. Luckily egocentricism isn't winning for the time being.
sidenote ramblings: you live in an enclave of the world. The people there aren't much dumber, so a feasibly explanation is in its largely due to the fact that closed mind religions have an ability to push away science. If you want to make life better for people, I think your approach is right, a very non-hostile one. Keep in mind the reason why your environment is how it is, in this day and age is because its trending. Its within a bigger picture.
The most backward enclaves you find in the places which are the most true to closed mind religions. The reason your family has little progress is because questioning is hard, as I understood very well in your description. As a tangent to a clique that is not so closely connected any-more, there is huge risk of being shunned, excluded.
In the bigger picture its maybe the making of a new enclave, exclude yourself by excluding others.
Wherever this reaction may be, it takes scientific progress in the wrong direction.
Edit, read the whole thread now.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many ad populace arguments, guise? focis, super focis.
Einstein is trolling you.
skeezix equated religion with philosophy, or?
Added some thoughts to my original post, but this may take the discussion further:
Thoughts on science/evolution: Bullets and bible in hand easily
Edit2: i have much respect for you changing base. Myself ive honed this system of relative and proven network over time. If i doubt something, i go to the next best thing. And rarely anymore is it inconsistant on a level that bothers me or shakes up the system alot.
To a religious person, and formerly so too, you have very little of this, starting basically at scratch, pointing to that and all closed mind religions return to doubt to explain themselves. Fear is the product of keeping the sane mind at bay.
Last edited by a moderator:
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
There are certain christians, though, that consider that you need to be converted in order to go to Heaven, and that is why they justify the missions to spread christianism around them to "save people".
I'm rather with the Pope there - whether you are a Christian or not, it should be your actions that speak for themselves.
But at the same time, the christians who think otherwise do have a point: the Bible clearly says that christians should spread the word and believing in Jesus will "save" you.
I think this point is a matter of debate even among christians.
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Oh, you don't need the Bible or the Quran to be violent. Look at the violence committed by atheist states (which strangely usually happen to communist and who tend to replace the religion by a religious-like cult in a single person/leader) : China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, and many other countries.
Violence is part of human nature, it seems, and I wouldn't quote religion as a source for it - it happens even when you don't have it.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,603
- Age
- 40
- Location
- UK
- Website
- pokeparadox.itch.io
- WEBSITE
- https://github.com/pokeparadox
- YOUTUBE
- pokeparadox
Oh absolutely - it was not my point to say that religion is evil. The point was someone was specifying the Quran as being violent and so I felt compelled to add balance to this. Bastards are bastards and will use whatever tools they need to spread their bastardry.
bzar
A Commando
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge about how the universe appears to work. It is not a religion nor a belief.
Science isn't about what you believe. It's about what you can predict.
Science doesn't deal in truths. It only deals in observed probabilities of something happening as a result of something else.
Scientific theories are consistent with and predict all observations made about the subject and thus represent the best understanding we currently have about the subject matter. If an observation contradicting the theory manifests and is repeatable, the theory is either augmented to fit the new observation or discarded entirely.
You don't "look silly" for trusting the best knowledge at the time even if it turns out to be wrong later. We gain knowledge through observation and it's natural and expected our sum of observations is incomplete at any given time. Thus it's natural and expected our predictions fail to account for situations we haven't observed. Thus it's natural and expected for theories to rise, fall and change as we observe new things. It's still the explanation that best predicts all our observations thus far.
As a completely separate subject from science: atheism is not a religion, like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Some people identifying as atheists may present opinions that are rooted in their "theistic void", but those are their opinions, not any kind of "teachings of atheism". The only thing you can say for certain about any atheist is that they don't have a religion. Many atheists turn to science to learn about the universe around them, but some are just fine not knowing or even thinking about that kind of stuff.
As a completely separate subject from either science or atheism: some people are insecure, some people are just dicks. Usually this has nothing to do with the groups you can associate them with.
As a personal opinion: anyone claiming to know any "ultimate truths" without conclusive and repeatable observational evidence is either lying, delusional or under some kind of influence (person, substance or something). I apologise in advance if this offends anyone, but I don't see how one could actually know for certain. Believe strongly yes, but not know. People may believe in things and that's fine. Observational evidence however should trump beliefs when making any decisions regarding the universe the observations are made in. I'm fine with not having the slightest idea about how stuff we don't have observational evidence for works. I'm not afraid of not knowing. Learning stuff is fun. Not knowing means there's more to learn
As a personal wish: I really hope this thread won't go the way these usually do.
EDIT: added apology and explanation in hope to avoid offending people
Science isn't about what you believe. It's about what you can predict.
Science doesn't deal in truths. It only deals in observed probabilities of something happening as a result of something else.
Scientific theories are consistent with and predict all observations made about the subject and thus represent the best understanding we currently have about the subject matter. If an observation contradicting the theory manifests and is repeatable, the theory is either augmented to fit the new observation or discarded entirely.
You don't "look silly" for trusting the best knowledge at the time even if it turns out to be wrong later. We gain knowledge through observation and it's natural and expected our sum of observations is incomplete at any given time. Thus it's natural and expected our predictions fail to account for situations we haven't observed. Thus it's natural and expected for theories to rise, fall and change as we observe new things. It's still the explanation that best predicts all our observations thus far.
As a completely separate subject from science: atheism is not a religion, like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Some people identifying as atheists may present opinions that are rooted in their "theistic void", but those are their opinions, not any kind of "teachings of atheism". The only thing you can say for certain about any atheist is that they don't have a religion. Many atheists turn to science to learn about the universe around them, but some are just fine not knowing or even thinking about that kind of stuff.
As a completely separate subject from either science or atheism: some people are insecure, some people are just dicks. Usually this has nothing to do with the groups you can associate them with.
As a personal opinion: anyone claiming to know any "ultimate truths" without conclusive and repeatable observational evidence is either lying, delusional or under some kind of influence (person, substance or something). I apologise in advance if this offends anyone, but I don't see how one could actually know for certain. Believe strongly yes, but not know. People may believe in things and that's fine. Observational evidence however should trump beliefs when making any decisions regarding the universe the observations are made in. I'm fine with not having the slightest idea about how stuff we don't have observational evidence for works. I'm not afraid of not knowing. Learning stuff is fun. Not knowing means there's more to learn
As a personal wish: I really hope this thread won't go the way these usually do.
EDIT: added apology and explanation in hope to avoid offending people
Last edited by a moderator:
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Except "climate science" but that's an altogether different topic where there's much more belief than actual science at work, while it drives a lot of political agenda recently.
Besides, there's a LOT of crap by people who think they are scientists but who cannot produce reliable results. Patents are full of them. I know, I tried to follow many patents in chemistry saying that this stuff happens when you do this and that in these conditions, and no matter how many times I tried I could never reproduce it in labs. And that's not just one paper, it's most of what's published out there. Nobody checked anything that goes recorded. And that's just chemistry, look at the the subject of social sciences, behavioral science, neuroscience and stuff like that and it's mostly garbage experiments made on 5 people and drawing out conclusions out of nowhere. Even clinical trials used to prove that medicine work are incredibly biased and cherry-picked to "force" the obtention of results.
Ha. Let me laugh.
So, "science" yes, but there's Science and science out there. I don't care if people are atheists or not, but scientific mindset is very rarely at work anywhere. I see mainly fraud.
Last edited by a moderator:
You will never see me defending the Bible or the Tora. These monotheistic texts are all desert madness for me, although Jesus seemingly tried to reform it into something better
and when I was 14 years old I had to fight even physical to not have a "confirmation", because my parents did not accept, that I thought, that their god is evil and that they do not even respect the cardinal sins
and therefore do not have any right to force this stuff upon me further (BTW: Most christians don't give a damn about the cardinal sins, which is sad).
BTW: I am strongly against infant baptism, because an infant cannot believe in something he cannot even grasp and has no possibility to say "no".
I feel kind of raped in this way, because I was baptised as an infant and would never have done this freely.
Have you read the (mainly much older!) religious texts I mentioned in Post #13?
This question also goes to sebt3, which also does not seem to have read the whole thread, if he thinks I would rant against religion in general.
You do not have this violent shit in there but it seems, people want to have the option to say violence is ok, because my holy book says so at some passages.
If "Mein Kampf" is banned, then these tools of hatred should be banned too, would be fair and consistent in states with a humanism based constitution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr_Loon
Can't Remember
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
How do you know this then ?
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
I'm not sure I agree with this. It's like people saying that life without death is meaningless. To me it's just excuses we make to accept the bad parts of life, because we have no control over them.
bzar
A Commando
I don't have any background in climate science (though I have worked at a weather observation station for a year making weather observations for air traffic) and haven't reviewed any of the research so I won't touch this one.
Are you a chemist or have you asked a chemist why your experiments failed? Not saying the patents are not lying, they may as well be. Just curious.
I know much scientific (and pseudoscientific and bad science with insufficient experiements and all) study goes on unscrutinized and it's sad. In time they will be exposed though, when reality refuses to conform to them. Also some corruption going on, which is sad too. The only thing one really can do about that is educate oneself and cling to the scientific method and demand of rigorous procedure to try and see through the lies and inaccuracies. At least I don't know of a better way of separating them.
Not sure the situation is THAT dire. Anyway I wouldn't call intellectually dishonest or manipulated studies science, even in lowercase. They're just fraud the same as any other.
sebt3
homebrew player (P. & C.)
http://www.bobperks.com/wish.htm
Death is a fate of life. Even stars die at some point. There is no such thing as immortality. Would you like an immortal life ? A life where doing something today mean nothing as doing it the next day dont change a single thing ? Beside, when something die, it give space for an other life. If we're lucky there is even a chance for that living being to be better than its previous generation (think evolution).
I do believe that love and hate emotion are closely relative to each other. But that's a belief. I cant argument for or against. If you can, go ahead I'll learn a trick or two in the process
Last edited by a moderator:
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Yup, I am.
The problem is that education does a very poor job at that. Probably because most governments prefer to have a bunch a "stupid" people under them instead of enlightened ones.
My friend, you have no idea. And it's ony getting worse.
So, i'm fine if people want to live by Science, but the quality of science being produced is very alarming, more than the religious debates.
bzar
A Commando
Fair enough
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
Pffft, patents. Anyone can get a patent for anything. There are patents for time machines and warp drives, invisibility cloaks, and youth serums. None of them work. Complaining about "bad science" in patents is like being surprised that politicians lie.Repeat actually published research papers, that's where the science is. If there's a patent and no published paper to back it up then what you are seeing is someone did something in the lab ONCE without fully understanding it and the company they work for jumped on it and patented it as quickly as possible before it could be understood what happened. They're going to file a LOT of bad patents, but all they need to do is get lucky once.
Scenario usually goes like this.
Scientist: I think I've got the youth formula, but it needs to be tested.
Lawyers: Patented!
Scientist: Nope, that wasn't it, but now I've got another one.
Lawyers: Patented!
Scientist: Nope, that wasn't it either. Here's a third try.
Lawyers: Patented!
Scientist: Bah, it failed. This fourth one is promising.
Lawyers: Patented!
Scientist: Ahah, testing seems to be going well. Now we will publish it and get some feedback.
Marketing: *salivates*
Scientist: Oh boo, someone found a flaw in our research paper and it wasn't actually doing what we thought it did. Gotta start over. Here's attempt 5.
Lawyers: Patented!
Marketing: *Sad puppy face*
So by the time you finally get an actual product to market there's been who knows how many dozen iterations before it that have all been wrong yet patented. That's not bad science, that's proven history of good science, iterative steps and experimentation.
If anything this is a sign of how broken the patent system is, that it encourages filing for things before they've been fully tested, not any sort of complaint against science.
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
i'm not talking about broad claims patents. I was referring to patents describing experiments with precise conditions, parameters and raw materials and operating procedure. Even if you did follow their instructions, you could not achieve the same result. Net, either the patent information was full of shit (on purpose to confuse competitors) or they did not disclose all parameters or all necessary ingredients.
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
Yes, so was I. You seem to be under the impression that a patent means that what is described in the patent actually works. Like I said, there are patents for all manner of impossible inventions, every single one is incredibly detailed with step by step instructions on how to build the thing being described and not a single one of them actually works in the physics of this universe.Sometimes an experiment is an accident, the steps listed were executed once in the presumed conditions and they arrive at the given conclusion so the patent is filed immediately. The lab then tries to reproduce it but they cannot, either their results were wrong or the steps or conditions were faulty and they need to start over. Sometimes they don't even do the experiment before the patent is filed, they just come up with this idea think will work and acquire funding to do it. And while they're doing the experiment the patent gets filed. If the experiment turns out to be a success then the company has bet and won. If it fails then they have a worthless patent that doesn't do what it describes, but patents are pretty cheap and easy to get so no real loss. This does not mean that the science is bad, the chemists working on the things they are trying to get patented would be very upset at your suggestion, it means the patent system which allows (and encourages) submission before final results is broken.
b_o_b
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,493
I agree violence is part of human nature, but religion is definitely a source of violence or at least used as an excuse to invade countries, torture people, suppress minorities and women. Personally I think the world would be a better place without it.
Similar threads
