Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,196,975 members, 7,963,103 topics. Date: Tuesday, 01 October 2024 at 05:52 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Problem With Religion, Including Science. (8139 Views)
The More I Grow The More I Get Confused With Religion / Why Are Nigerians So Obsessed With Religion? / Top Ten Indications That You’re Over-obsessed With Religion (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Nobody: 7:10pm On Dec 02, 2014 |
sinequanon: OMG!!! Who is this guy? I didn't even see this post I wouldn't have responded to his other post, I thought I was having a discussion with you I didnt know I was talking to my self. WHAT?? you've got to be kidding me. This is what you think? WTF... I'm done |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by AllNaijaBlogger(m): 8:58am On Dec 03, 2014 |
Thsuperiorman: I fail to see your point. What are you disagreeing with? That God created time or what? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Nobody: 10:16am On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger: If you fail to see my point how did you know I was disagreeing? Anyway, Yes God(if it exists or existed) couldn't have created time because the interval or difference between non-existence and existence is Time. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Kay17: 10:46am On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: I understand what he is saying. But the shortfall of his suggestion will send us on searches into the individual souls of each and every scientist to the point of absurdity. We would have to concern ourselves with how Carl Jung, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Darwin etc did their science. We will lose sight of the larger picture of science, which is a sum of efforts, and a standard for truth 1 Like |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 11:11am On Dec 03, 2014 |
Kay17: It's what people say about religion. They talk about their particular "big picture" and "standard for truth". They will claim that it would be absurd to scrutinize their prophets, leaders or followers, or the writers of their holy books. You are rather drawing attention to the similarity. I have not missed the implication in your phrase "standard for truth" vs "the truth". But when you have an exclusive "standard for truth", then you are treating it as "the truth". And basic unchanging assumptions (materialism in the case of science) + exclusivity = dogma. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by AllNaijaBlogger(m): 12:31pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Thsuperiorman: The bold in your comment is false. Can you perceive time? Do you feel time? If I locked you in a dark room for 3 days, would you know that it was for 3 days that you were locked up, after being released? Now, tell me, what is the difference between you and a dead man in that dark room? Both of you do not perceive time and both of you will both stink after 3 days |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 12:37pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger: After all this, your point is |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by AllNaijaBlogger(m): 12:40pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
plaetton: That time does not separate the living and non-living as TheSuperiorMan claimed. That was very clear in my post. I wonder why you are confused. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 12:44pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger:Time does not separate the living and non living? What exactly does that mean? And how does it prove that god created time? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by AllNaijaBlogger(m): 12:51pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
plaetton: What does it mean? Why are you asking me? Why not ask the person who made the claim- TheSuperiorMan. I also never stated that as the proof of God creating time. Please, stop being antagonistic for no reason. There is an easier way to ask about what I believe |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 1:27pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger:I am not A |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 1:30pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger:I am not antagonizing you. I understand what The superior man is saying, I am just trying to understand your points. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Kay17: 1:49pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: Which would be valid. It is an error to confuse Jesus' Teachings with what a rabid pope did in the 14th century. It is super glaring that in as far as our minds can allow, the concepts themselves are not the same with the practitioners. It is that simple, regardless of how tempting it is to confuse them for one another. I have not missed the implication in your phrase "standard for truth" vs "the truth". Please! That's an overstretch. Of course, most of the Western world believes in objectivity and that translates to a belief in truths. And I don't understand your phobia for assumptions. I don't see anything wrong with them, they help with making sleep easier. And how do you define materialism? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 2:06pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Kay17: It is good that you can now see religion and science in the same light. Your FAITH is in something that does not exist in practice. We can agree to disagree on the "validity" of that. Kay17: A belief is a belief. Anyone can label their beliefs "truths". Another symptom of religion. And I'm afraid the emotional side of things and "phobia" is all yours. All I am doing is calling an ASSUMPTION an ASSUMPTION. It is you and your attendant trolls, who try to dress them up as "truths". You can look materialism up in Wiki. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by PastorAIO: 2:28pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Thsuperiorman:Let's go back to school. objectivity ˌɒbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti,ˌɒbdʒɪkˈtɪvɪti/ noun the quality of being objective. "the piece lacked any objectivity" synonyms: impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality subjective səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ adjective 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. "his views are highly subjective" synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic; More Now, what I don't understand is ... if you don't think any scientist can be objective then what is your argument. We are saying that science, a means of enquiry practiced by humans cannot be purely objective and you protest by reiterating the same thing. 1+1=2 is an objective fact. On the other hand, every nonsense you cough out that contradicts that or any other fact for that matter, is SUBJECTIVE. For god's sake one plus one equals 2 is mathematics. Maths serves Science but it is not science. I hope I don't have to go into a long thing to break this down for you. Maths is a system that can be explored and developed without any reference to the real world, just by sticking to the rules of Maths. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 2:37pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: LOL! Yesterday, I was going to reply, myself, but d ting weak me. The 1 + 1 = 2 argument is only regurgitated. The internet warriors who do it have no idea about the nature of mathematics to be able to discuss the argument. Good luck trying to break it down for the likes of Thsuperiorman! |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by PastorAIO: 2:38pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
plaetton: There's a false dichotomy here. Science as a method of enquiry cannot be compared to Religion as an ideology. Scientism on the other hand, and any claim to deserve more of society's resources because science is more worthwhile than any other activity ... is a different story. I wonder who spoke on behalf of all of religion to claim that religion will take mankind somewhere, or bring good in humans. I happen to know of individuals (a lot of them not even scientists) who have spoken on behalf of all of science to claim to take mankind somewhere. Dawkins springs to mind. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by PastorAIO: 2:44pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: I think a mistake would be to take the words of certain people who claim to speak for Science and then say " Science ...talk....about empirical evidence....." These people are not Science itself, and many of them are not even scientists. It's like the many MOGs and pastors that we have that speak on God's behalf. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 2:48pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: Both are dogmatic. Both are about control. It is a fundamental principle in science that you only investigate what you can potentially predict, nail down and control. Science also deems anything that cannot potentially be controlled as non-existent. Of what use, scientists ask rhetorically, would such knowledge be? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by PastorAIO: 2:49pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
plaetton: Please lay out this vetting system for us. And specifically those aspects of the vetting system that cannot be found in religious discourse. A Papal Bull or an Islamic fatwa are not debated at all, as far as I know. However there are religious issues that do get hotly debated. You are comparing a lot of false dichotomies. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 3:02pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method. Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science. Ministers and Pastors don't often claim to have created god, so I don't see a good parallel. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for. However, it doesn't mean that their words are truth, just because it carries the label and connotation that is science. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Nobody: 3:20pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
AllNaijaBlogger: Considering your very little knowledge about the subject matter (no offense) you got A LOT of nerves calling that statement false. I never related time to anything, I never said you could feel time, I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. But yes, you can perceive time and even within your perception of time, time progresses. Even if you lost track of the conventional progression of time your actions are still bounded by time in a different dimension but, still progressive. You clearly do not understand what time is. Let me explain. (I really hope you get it this time) Time is ANY interval between occurrences. Whether or not I perceive time however is irrelevant. The thing is there exist an interval between when I was locked up and when I came out that interval is time. While being locked up, I blink my eyes - the duration between when I blink my eyes and open them can be measured with time. The duration between when my hand was still and when I moved my hand is time. That progressive space between occurrences (as long as the world doesn't pause) is time. EVERY progressive occurrence whether subjective or objective is based on TIME. Time is independent, my perception of time is irrelevant to the fact that time progresses. I lost track of time while locked up doesn't mean time does not progress. If you don't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it, but if you do, think about it and answer yourself if God could have created time. AllNaijaBlogger: You clearly do not have basic knowledge of how to lay down arguments. Do you even read what you write? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Nobody: 3:50pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: My bad, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, which scientific theory is subjective (not purely objective)? PastorAIO: Who said maths was science? I said 1+1=2 is an objective fact. And again you said... "With no reference to the real world? Are you saying if I have 4 oranges and give 2 to you and 2 to your brother I didn't share them equally? Maths is an expression used to explain or understand quantitative relationships of the real world. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Kay17: 5:28pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: But do you? Your FAITH is in something that does not exist in practice. Faith in what? What's the something? A belief is a belief. Anyone can label their beliefs "truths". Another symptom of religion. Where did I ever insist assumptions were truths?! But how materialism affect me?! |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 6:00pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Kay17: See title. Kay17: Your abstraction of science, that does not exist in practice. Kay17: When you talk about "truth" or "truths". You don't realize they are based on fundamental assumptions, and are assumptions by association. Kay17: Not realizing how it underpins your outlook. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Kay17: 6:21pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: But the implication of me seeing Science and Religion together, was as concepts isolated from their practitioners. So i asking if you conceded to that. Apparently that is a no since you don't think Science and Religion are concepts per se but behavioural results. When you talk about "truth" or "truths". But all these you have said are untrue about my position. I never insisted that assumptions were truths nor associated truths with assumptions. I have not stamped my feet on the ground and asserted 'this and this' are truths. I never did. You must be confusing my handle for someone else. Neither have I made any ranging assertions about materialism. You are chasing red herrings. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by Kay17: 6:29pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: But the science in its earliest years was not science because there was no accreditation authority, right? Would experiments performed in schools or in the privacy of a home in the absence of an accreditation authority, amount to science? What if these bureaucratic scientists turn their focus and search for metaphysical entities, would that still be science? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 6:38pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Kay17: I have explained why I say that science without reference to people is a mischaracterization. Science defines a system of arbitration based on people. Science applies people. But we can agree to disagree. Do you think machines could potentially take over the task of doing science. Maybe you think they would do a better job, avoiding all debate and having automatic rule-based consensus? Kay17: You said that you believe that science is a standard for "truth". But science makes a basic assumption -- materialism -- so, your "truths" are based on these assumptions. Just because you are not explicitly calling an assumption truth does not mean that you are not inadvertently implying it. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 6:40pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
sinequanon: As see I continue to read this thread, I am reminded of the words attributed to Jesus where said " Remove ye the log from your before you notice the speck in another person's eye '. The extremely narrow minded, dogmatic and irrational hatred for the scientific method is both baffling and laughable. sinequanon: Every discipline has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method. To single out science is just silly and disengenous. sinequanon:Correction: You mean authorities in the scientific method. Scientific methodology evolves, and is democratic. Since everyone is not scientifically literate, those who choose to pursue and acquire scientific knowledge obviously have the duty to interpret for the rest. Again, this is the same with every discipline. The good thing is that science is an open system that allows and gives equal opportunity to everyone. If the people who pursue and acquire scientific knowledge cannot define what they pursue, who is more competent to define science for them? sinequanon: Again, a silly convoluted logic based on a false assumptions about what science is and what a scientist is. sinequanon: Meaningless word salad. Talk about logic, this is a very poor example of serious logic. sinequanon:This is perhaps the silliest thing I have read this month, and considering that it is coming from an " Intellectual ", I think It might break the record for the year. Are there any doubts to anyone now , that this fellow did not, does not , and has belligerently refused to understand what science is ? Scientists evolved The Scientific Method. No one created science. Someone needs to get a copy of " Science for Dummies ". |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by plaetton: 6:45pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
PastorAIO: The scientific method. The fact that no scientific pronouncement is taken at face value. Peer review. The system of democratic, unrestrained and continued testing of theories and ideas, discarding what does not hold up public scrutiny, and following up those that do. That is a vetting system that tends to weed out personal bias and dogma. |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by AllNaijaBlogger(m): 6:46pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Thsuperiorman: So this is the atheist arrogance i keep hearing about. Nice condescension. Textbook megalomania. Now, to the point. I agree that time is the interval between two events. But what is that interval? Is that interval real or just assumed? What is the interval between A and B if -A is the time earth starts its orbit around the sun -B is the time the earth finishes its orbit around the sun The interval is 24 hours. But what is 24 hrs? An hour is 60 minutes But why is an hour 60 minutes? Why is it not 59 minutes? Why is it not 120 minutes? Do you know that ancient cultures divided the day into 12 parts? Some cultures even had uneven hours- an hour could be 60 minutes or 48 minutes depending on the circumstances. Why is time calculated with the orbit of the earth? Does that mean that time is different on mars? Different on other galaxies? Now, we are getting to the fact that time is relative. But relative to who? If our brains processed things at a faster speed, would we "perceive time" differently? Time is just another unit of measurement that is arbitrarily decided upon. Kilometres or Miles? |
Re: The Problem With Religion, Including Science. by sinequanon: 6:47pm On Dec 03, 2014 |
Kay17: It was called alchemy. Kay17: They would not contribute to the body of scholarship called science. Kay17: That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
@ / The Key To Be Eligible For Ressurection To Live Forever Like Jesus Christ / 70 Virgins In Paradise
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 119 |