DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Christians Vs. Religious(other) - Evidence & Proof
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 276 - 300 of 350, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/17/2015 11:56:00 PM · #276
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Cory:

I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.

Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")...


You seem to have a very distorted view of religion. Maybe you hang out with the wrong religious people.

True religion shouldn't conflict with science. After all, if science is used to explain the universe, then it would also explain the Creator (the original reason science was established).

If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.

EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not.


Perhaps, but it's my general perception that the religious tend to fill any gap left by Science with God. Which is all fine and good, until there aren't any gaps big enough for God to fit in left.

So, while not exactly a classic conflict, it IS a conflict in the sense that Science is constantly undermining religion, slowly chipping away at every nook and cranny where God used to reside. In the deepest and darkest recesses the light of science has yet to shine, but eventually it will shine there, and that's when the real conflict occurs, because sometime before that the religious will have to decide to either illogically embrace their position or they'll have to abandon their deepest and dearest beliefs. That sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.


Seems like you're only speaking to people who are using God of the Gaps which is pretty shaky ground to stand anything on. You need to meet some better people.

Could you wrap your brain around scientists who are religious?

You should check out Christian thinkers in science and look at the list of alive today.

Michal Heller (born 1936): He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize.

Andrew Pinsent (born 1966): Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a Catholic priest, is the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University.[340] He is also a particle physicist, whose previous work contributed to the DELPHI experiment at CERN.

Just to name a few. Also, many of the major scientific discoveries have been by those of the priesthood.


I admittedly DO find this difficult - but tend to reconcile it by thinking of it as a bit of brain damage that, much like a stroke, can sometimes leave the victim nearly completely unimpaired. ;-)

Message edited by author 2015-02-17 23:56:30.
02/18/2015 02:02:04 AM · #277
I enjoy seeing how diferent people feel on this subject.

An intresting text by Albert Einstein:

"There is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints."
02/18/2015 08:20:32 AM · #278
Originally posted by Lydia:

You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?

Whatever side you're on... you won't convince them to swap to yours here on this thread.

Move on, folks.

There's nothing to see here.

So... WHY are you folks still doing this?

But, really. Why?


Perhaps we do it because we find it entertaining and earnestly believe that some things can be learned from the other side. I know that personally I have yet to be convinced by the opinions expressed by Dr Achoo (Jason), but it does not lessen the fact that I am impressed by his counters and has had me review a great deal of the materials he proffers.

A closed mind does little absolutely nothing towards the advancement of understanding or views that one holds to be diametrically opposed to their own.

If indeed what you are advancing is true, when do the various denominations spend so much time sending missionaries to convert people? Could it be that they believe that they can alter the views and beliefs that these people already have relative to supreme beings and the after life.

Those are but some of the reasons why I find these interactions interesting, and is probably one of the few reasons why I even bother showing up on this site anymore.

Ray

Message edited by author 2015-02-18 08:24:28.
02/18/2015 11:17:36 AM · #279
Originally posted by RayEthier:

I know that personally I have yet to be convinced by the opinions expressed by Dr Achoo (Jason)...


You have. You just don't know it yet. ;)
02/18/2015 11:39:31 AM · #280
Originally posted by jagar:

I enjoy seeing how diferent people feel on this subject.

An intresting text by Albert Einstein:

"There is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints."


That's going to take some time and rereading to grok. I think I strained a muscle in my brain reading that.

(I wish we could "rep" comments here, but this is really a photo site, not a forum.)
02/18/2015 12:08:52 PM · #281
Ha, lets Grok and roll.
02/18/2015 12:16:50 PM · #282
Originally posted by Lydia:

You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?


As an atheist myself I'm becoming convinced that many fellow atheists are quite annoying.
02/18/2015 12:32:08 PM · #283
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Lydia:

You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?


As an atheist myself I'm becoming convinced that many fellow atheists are quite annoying.


Best. Post. Ever.

(I mean this in the most lighthearted manner)

Message edited by author 2015-02-18 12:40:08.
02/18/2015 01:06:56 PM · #284
Originally posted by Lydia:

You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?

Whatever side you're on... you won't convince them to swap to yours here on this thread.

Move on, folks.

There's nothing to see here.

So... WHY are you folks still doing this?

But, really. Why?


Originally posted by RayEthier:

If indeed what you are advancing is true, when do the various denominations spend so much time sending missionaries to convert people? Could it be that they believe that they can alter the views and beliefs that these people already have relative to supreme beings and the after life.

I would be interested in the answer to that.

One of the tenets of so many religions is that if you don't do it "The One True Way", you burn in the eternal fires of wherever.

The missionaries take their gospel all over the world. Well, hey! What about the poor dumb savages that don't get reached? Are they screwed 'cause they never got the word, through no fault of their own?
02/18/2015 01:23:11 PM · #285
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Lydia:

You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?


As an atheist myself I'm becoming convinced that many fellow atheists are quite annoying.


An oyster without an irritating grain of sand makes no pearls.

Message edited by author 2015-02-18 13:23:38.
02/18/2015 01:27:31 PM · #286
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


The missionaries take their gospel all over the world. Well, hey! What about the poor dumb savages that don't get reached? Are they screwed 'cause they never got the word, through no fault of their own?


Nah, this is well covered. Only those who are given the opportunity are subject to these rules.

Although, it seems to me that this makes the missionaries the cruelest bastards on the planet - if only they would just leave the poor savages alone, they could remain 'saved' via their ignorance.

Essentially, it is the missionary who directly opens the gates of hell himself, for according to Christianity, you are only subject to eternal damnation once you reject Christ as your personal savior.
02/18/2015 01:55:32 PM · #287
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I know that personally I have yet to be convinced by the opinions expressed by Dr Achoo (Jason)...


You have. You just don't know it yet. ;)


Good grief!!!

When I do finally arrive at this stage of enlightenment, will I be experiencing "panentheism" ? :O)

Ray
02/18/2015 02:01:49 PM · #288
Modern science tells us without doubt that: "The physical world around us, built up from the interactions of subatomic particles, does not exist until we obsteve it" this is scientific and spiritual but not religious.
02/18/2015 02:49:38 PM · #289
Originally posted by jagar:

Modern science tells us without doubt that: "The physical world around us, built up from the interactions of subatomic particles, does not exist until we observe it" this is scientific and spiritual but not religious.


There seems to be a fine line between physicists and philosophers. It seems the deeper we look at matter, the more it doesn't matter.

(Ouch, I think I pulled another mind muscle on that one. I better take it easy.)
02/18/2015 02:56:47 PM · #290
Originally posted by jagar:

Modern science tells us without doubt that: "The physical world around us, built up from the interactions of subatomic particles, does not exist until we obsteve it" this is scientific and spiritual but not religious.


Oh Christ, are you talking about John Wheeler's bullshit?

Just because the duality of light breaks down under observation, doesn't carry to mean that reality breaks down unless we observe it.

If I have understood his ideas, essentially the argument is that the strangeness of quantum physics manifests itself in the sense that nothing we see is really there, etc.

It's quite easy to see that this is another rat-hole of belief, you are looking at his hypothesis (not theory btw) and assuming that because a scientist has a hypothesis which seems to fit the data at some level, that science supports the conclusion.

In truth, modern science does not tell us anything without doubt (doubt is a really essential ingredient in science), especially not that the physical universe doesn't exist independent of human observation.

I've said it many, many times before, but will say it here again - science doesn't prove things like this post would indicate, science disproves things and has no ability to fully confirm any theory, because it only takes a single validated instance of data which does not fit the model to invalidate the entire theory.

02/18/2015 03:04:46 PM · #291
Originally posted by RayEthier:

I know that personally I have yet to be convinced by the opinions expressed by Dr Achoo (Jason)...


Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You have. You just don't know it yet. ;)


Originally posted by RayEthier:

Good grief!!!

When I do finally arrive at this stage of enlightenment, will I be experiencing "panentheism" ? :O)

Ray

Nah! You'll just be nuts! 8~)
02/18/2015 03:08:31 PM · #292
Originally posted by jagar:

Modern science tells us without doubt that: "The physical world around us, built up from the interactions of subatomic particles, does not exist until we observe it" this is scientific and spiritual but not religious.


Originally posted by Nullix:

There seems to be a fine line between physicists and philosophers. It seems the deeper we look at matter, the more it doesn't matter.

(Ouch, I think I pulled another mind muscle on that one. I better take it easy.)

That sounds more to me like the tree falling in the forest thing.

Whether or not someone hears it doesn't affect the fact that the tree fell, and since the laws of inertia, gravity, and all apply whether or not anyone's around, it's pretty much a worthless concept.

Again, I don't have to have an explanation for things that cause wonder and awe for me. I'm happy just to experience them and be grateful.
02/18/2015 03:17:49 PM · #293
Quantum physics informs us that a system exists in superposition, that is, in all possible states, until we observe that it is only in one specific state. The double split experiment confirms this, the result of the experiment depends on wether or not you are watching.
02/18/2015 03:25:41 PM · #294
Quantum mechanics, I Ike this:

"We can imagine a closed box containing just a single electron. Now until someone looks in the box, the probability wave associated with the electron will fill the box uniformly, thus giving an equal probability of finding the electron anywhere inside the box. If a partition is introduced into the middle of the box that divides it into two equal boxes, still without anyone looking inside, then common sense tells us that the electron must be in one side of the box or the other. But this is not the case according to the Copenhagen Interpretation; that says that the probability wave is still evenly distributed across both half-boxes. This means that there is still a 50:50 chance of finding the electron in either side of the box. When somebody looks into the box the wave will then collapse and the electron will be noticed in one half of the box or the other, but it will only at the moment of observation 'decide' which half it will be in. At the same time the probability wave in the other half of the box vanishes. If the box is then closed up again, and the electron no longer observed, its probability wave will again spread out to fill the half box, but cannot spread back into the other half of the box that was empty."
02/18/2015 03:35:04 PM · #295
Quantum mechanics is just a mathematical model that attempts to explain reality, it isn't itself, at all, reality.
02/18/2015 03:40:40 PM · #296
Quantum physics exists as a Rosetta Stone for the analytic who just can't understand the theist. I have found many examples where someone will say, "I just don't understand how you can believe in X" and the most fruitful reply is to show an analogy in quantum physics.
02/18/2015 03:44:21 PM · #297
jagar, that's all fine, good and accurate. Up until you apply that to the conclusion that reality doesn't exist independent of human observation and experience.

If reality matched your proposition I have no doubt you would be famous for having discovered the grand unifying theory, and would be recognized as the most eminent scientist of all time. Sadly, reality doesn't work as proposed, since the laws of physics work differently at micro and macro scales.
02/18/2015 03:45:11 PM · #298
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Quantum physics exists as a Rosetta Stone for the analytic who just can't understand the theist. I have found many examples where someone will say, "I just don't understand how you can believe in X" and the most fruitful reply is to show an analogy in quantum physics.


An example in quantum physics that is almost universally applied incorrectly to the macro world. Not exactly the best Rosetta stone IMO.
02/18/2015 03:51:47 PM · #299
I don't mean to sound overly douchey in the last two comments guys, but it's mistakes like the conflation of quantum physics and the macro-level world we exist in, and the constant mischaracterization of the word theory that absolutely drive scientists to madness.

Neither is particularly easy to understand fully, but both are pretty easy to grasp the basics of, and to continue to not do so starts to feel as though it may be intentional.
02/18/2015 04:04:40 PM · #300
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Quantum physics exists as a Rosetta Stone for the analytic who just can't understand the theist. I have found many examples where someone will say, "I just don't understand how you can believe in X" and the most fruitful reply is to show an analogy in quantum physics.


An example in quantum physics that is almost universally applied incorrectly to the macro world. Not exactly the best Rosetta stone IMO.


Which example is this again? I didn't list any example.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 08:39:52 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 08:39:52 AM EDT.