Quote by DarkRoseofHell Umm...
about 3-4 years ago some people that I know started cubing in our school, and I
too started cubing. (Rubik's cube) its sort of a hobby.
Current time is around 20~ seconds average. And the person thats trying to
convert is around 45 seconds last known.
Oh, I see. Wow,
that's really good! Unfortunately I don't have time to become so l33t.
So this guy approaches you for cubing tips, and then tries to convert you along
the way?
Quote by ProgramZEROYeah, I've been
thinking about buying a bible... Actually, I'd like to buy the Quran(?) since...
Doesn't it have the Old Testament, New Testament, and some other part? Not sure
what it's called...
Yeah, this is the same reason I don't
want just the New Testament; because you don't get the whole story. The Quran
would be the whole story, I think, except for the external scriptures or
whatever they're called. I don't know if it completely includes the Old and New
Testaments though...yothsothgoth seems to know more about what's actually in it.
I was meaning to read it, but considering that I never even got throught the Old
Testament...-_-
Heh, wait till you get to college...at my university, the most common
proselytizers are the Hare Krishnas, who try to give you (for free) a copy of
the Bhaghavad Gita.
No worries, Shinsen89. I myself often find myself too busy with schoolwork to
spend time here. It's nice to see that you're so involved in politics; I'm glad
some people actually care.
Quote by yothsothgothIn reference to
me, eh? You might be, or not... though I will say I fall into the
category...
Hehe, well, certainly, I did know that you are
somewhat religious and that you are a (probably the only) trained scientist is
this group. I mean no offense..>_> It wasn't really directed at you; I am
also referencing the common response to religious people that it is okay to
believe evolution even though they have their contradictory religious
doctrine.
Quote by yothsothgothAlso, I believe
everyone's hypocritical... not just me.
I don't deny that I
am =P. For example, I do believe in wavefunction collapse, even though it isn't
a fully understood phenomenon (granted, I'm somewhat forced to..).
Quote by yothsothgothYes, being a
scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at times. it makes
you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over critical person
and question my questions and reasonings all the time in general, not only my
religious beliefs - so that might be why science and religion both work for me.
^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just can't help but think,
"How could any of this (life on earth) be a random fluke? How could the Big
Bang have happened without something before that happening?" Pehaps its
just unfathomable to me right now to think further than a higher power. I do
believe that the stars were here long before myself, that dinosaurs existed, and
animals have evolved. However, I still feel comfortable in the knowledge that I
still believe in my religion even with my scientific training. I think it
actually helps me explore my scientific background and knowledge when I think
about my religious beliefs scientifically. I will say that faith is faith and
leave that at that.
If you find it useful to have both
perspectives, I don't blame you. However, I stand by my point that, at their
deepest level, their premises are logically inconsistent. After all, you did say
that keeping both perspectives "makes you examine your beliefs
constantly".
Quote by yothsothgothI think science
is compatible when one tries to prove religion with
science.
Well, what you're talking about here is finding
proof for certain events documented in religious texts. Of course, there is
nothing wrong with that and it can be good, peer-reviewed science. But this
isn't the compatibility issue I was referring to.
Quote by yothsothgothScientifically
proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I
have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I
enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know
that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what
they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events -
mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the
constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this
and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun
not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are
together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of
time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the
Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it), Sodom
and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History
Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks
and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is
amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic
proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where
only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have
seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is
interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I
already have.
This stuff is actually pretty interesting. Not too long
ago, I didn't much care for religion-motivated archaeology, and to some extent I
still don't. But I just took a class whose professor is a Biblical scholar.
There I learned to appreciate stuff like this. It's no secret that I hated
reading the Bible, but somehow studying it externally isn't that bad. Also, I
don't think my prof was a Christian...which I think is a very valuable
perspective to a field that could easily be quite biased.
Quote by alexjohnc3BobaFett2ha, I
disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care.
Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be
scientists or have some ideas that are scientific.
This is
true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are
religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can
largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is
here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious
scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.
Quote by ProgramZEROWell, for one,
I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being
compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a
similar purpose in different ways.
Well, many people like to
say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be
religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree
because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.
In response to your other question, if you read the article, it is originally a
response to an article by the popular pseudo-doctor Deepak Chopra. There was
also a good critique of it on Pharyngula, so I'm sure Alex has seen it.
Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are
compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because
it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and
say it: science and religion are not
compatible.
Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I
especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He
doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.
You know, somehow I'm surprised he's still up to this stuff. Maybe it's because
I don't have time anymore to go looking for these debates...and with people like
him dominating them, I don't even have the interest.
Quote by ProgramZEROWhat's better;
Mac or PC? I've got a PC like many other people and have never owned a Mac but
I'm curious. Which is better in your opinion?
Quote by Persocom01This is known as
the bandwagon fallacy. At one point in history the majority of scientists though
that God created the universe. Their beliefs didn't in any way change the truth
of the matter, nor are the beliefs of the majority necessarily the
truth.
Quote by ProgramZEROWow, that's
pretty whacky. I've heard of services that print out portraits with ink made out
of the ashes of dead loved ones. I am not kidding!
Quote by littlejonny100Sorry to
break the flow but many of you have probably seen http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dover_trial_intelligent_design.php
by now. If not, as always, give it a look. Anyways two very specific things
occurred to me while watching that. Firstly it seems that the whole idea of
irreducible complexity is the fact that they already have a direction. In that
example they said something along the lines of you cannot create a moth by
chance. They've completely ignored the fact that a moth was created by chance
and seem to be following the idea that chance is the process used to create a
moth. Chance could have just as easily led to a moth being 5 times larger than
an elephant, if we never knew anything different would we argue it. There seems
to be the notion that nature and random chance has wanted to create these
specific things.
Yeah, I've found this is widely true as well; anti-evolutionists focus on the
random aspect of evolution while completely ignoring natural selection--without
which we wouldn't have evolution at all as we know it.
Quote by littlejonny100P.S. So
ah....what was the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
Intelligent design doesn't specifically say god so it become
science?
It's not science. Almost all scientists will tell you that.
I know Carl Sagan had some respect for Hinduism in regards to its cosmology, but
I definitely don't believe he thought it holds important answers. For one thing,
philosophy in general doesn't hold any
answers..just questions =P.
Quote by ProgramZEROAlright, my top
six favorite songs in no particular order: Pink Floyd: Echoes, John Lennon:
Imagine, The Beatles: Tomorrow Never Knows, XTC: Dear God, AC/DC: Highway to
Hell, King Crimson: In the Wake of Poseidon.
Do these songs have anything to do with atheism? If not, I don't see any point
in putting em up there...
Quote by Shingsengumi89Also i'm
hitting an anime dry spell everyone, can someone give me some recommendations, i
just finished watching LastExile(great Series), and I've already watched a ton
of good anime so any suggestions?
Hey, sounds like your taste is similar to mine! (NGE and RahX are my top 2). If
you want, you can check out my anime
list at AniDB and sort descending by my rating. If you're interested in
current shows, I know I already told you this but Seirei no Moribito and Tengen
Toppa Gurren Lagann are two of the best shows I've seen, period.
I actually really like this article. If it truly portrays the nation accurately,
it shows that most Americans in fact do not harbor misconceptions about
evolution and the like, and instead recognize that their faith in their
religion, not the so-called evidence for it or against prevailing scientific
theories, is the reason they cling to their beliefs. I can definitely respect
that, as realizing that faith is the only thing you have going for your religion
is the first step to letting it go (even if many people never do).
Why do you say that?
EDIT: nevermind, I think i get it...
Oh, I see. Wow, that's really good! Unfortunately I don't have time to become so l33t.
So this guy approaches you for cubing tips, and then tries to convert you along the way?
Yeah, this is the same reason I don't want just the New Testament; because you don't get the whole story. The Quran would be the whole story, I think, except for the external scriptures or whatever they're called. I don't know if it completely includes the Old and New Testaments though...yothsothgoth seems to know more about what's actually in it. I was meaning to read it, but considering that I never even got throught the Old Testament...-_-
Just the New Testamnt, huh? In that case, I don't at all regret it. I'm a completist =P.
merged: 03-24-2008 ~ 02:37am
...Huh?
Somewhat related: Some guy on campus has been handing out pocket bibles the past couple of days. I regret not taking one..
Heh, wait till you get to college...at my university, the most common proselytizers are the Hare Krishnas, who try to give you (for free) a copy of the Bhaghavad Gita.
Haha, brilliant!
No worries, Shinsen89. I myself often find myself too busy with schoolwork to spend time here. It's nice to see that you're so involved in politics; I'm glad some people actually care.
Hehe, well, certainly, I did know that you are somewhat religious and that you are a (probably the only) trained scientist is this group. I mean no offense..>_> It wasn't really directed at you; I am also referencing the common response to religious people that it is okay to believe evolution even though they have their contradictory religious doctrine.
I don't deny that I am =P. For example, I do believe in wavefunction collapse, even though it isn't a fully understood phenomenon (granted, I'm somewhat forced to..).
If you find it useful to have both perspectives, I don't blame you. However, I stand by my point that, at their deepest level, their premises are logically inconsistent. After all, you did say that keeping both perspectives "makes you examine your beliefs constantly".
Well, what you're talking about here is finding proof for certain events documented in religious texts. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that and it can be good, peer-reviewed science. But this isn't the compatibility issue I was referring to.
This stuff is actually pretty interesting. Not too long ago, I didn't much care for religion-motivated archaeology, and to some extent I still don't. But I just took a class whose professor is a Biblical scholar. There I learned to appreciate stuff like this. It's no secret that I hated reading the Bible, but somehow studying it externally isn't that bad. Also, I don't think my prof was a Christian...which I think is a very valuable perspective to a field that could easily be quite biased.
This is true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.
Well, many people like to say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.
In response to your other question, if you read the article, it is originally a response to an article by the popular pseudo-doctor Deepak Chopra. There was also a good critique of it on Pharyngula, so I'm sure Alex has seen it.
Hey guys, it's me again. Just read an interesting article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/skyhooks-and-cranes-deep_b_6179.html
Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and say it: science and religion are not compatible.
Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.
You know, somehow I'm surprised he's still up to this stuff. Maybe it's because I don't have time anymore to go looking for these debates...and with people like him dominating them, I don't even have the interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLiyglcRcCA
Need I say more?
FIX'D
There's a place in Santa Cruz, CA called "Mystery Spot" which is supposed to have weird gravity.
I think that's pretty cool o_o.
On another note, for you evolution fans: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/165
BTW, TED is an amazing site--it's full of intellectually inspiring ideas.
Thought I'd mention that my Akkadian professor (don't ask) says that the entire Noah's Ark/flood story is "borrowed" from a Sumerian myth.
Awesomeness.
Yeah, I've found this is widely true as well; anti-evolutionists focus on the random aspect of evolution while completely ignoring natural selection--without which we wouldn't have evolution at all as we know it.
It's not science. Almost all scientists will tell you that.
Is there something wrong with this site..? Forgive me, I may just not be thinking this morning.
I know Carl Sagan had some respect for Hinduism in regards to its cosmology, but I definitely don't believe he thought it holds important answers. For one thing, philosophy in general doesn't hold any answers..just questions =P.
Here's a funny article.
Do these songs have anything to do with atheism? If not, I don't see any point in putting em up there...
Hey, sounds like your taste is similar to mine! (NGE and RahX are my top 2). If you want, you can check out my anime list at AniDB and sort descending by my rating. If you're interested in current shows, I know I already told you this but Seirei no Moribito and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann are two of the best shows I've seen, period.
I actually really like this article. If it truly portrays the nation accurately, it shows that most Americans in fact do not harbor misconceptions about evolution and the like, and instead recognize that their faith in their religion, not the so-called evidence for it or against prevailing scientific theories, is the reason they cling to their beliefs. I can definitely respect that, as realizing that faith is the only thing you have going for your religion is the first step to letting it go (even if many people never do).