U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 03-16-2012, 11:38 AM
 
Location: South Whidbey Island
1,754 posts, read 1,459,776 times
Reputation: 1884
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
Not necessarily so. There is no linkage between atheism and science, atheism is merely a denial of what is not knowable. A person can be an atheist and be completely ignorant of science.

I do agree with you that Atheism is a form of faith. Both Atheism and Religion stake a position what cannot be proved or disproved.
One cannot state there is no god with any real assurance of that fact.
One cannot state there is a god with any real assurance of that fact.

I was a born again Christian for many years. But, as my knowledge and experience in the world increased, I saw less and less validity to the faith.

Today, I lump Christianity in with Islam as responsible for untold misery and death throughout history.

While I do not consider myself a Buddhist, as I reject any organized society of man. Buddhism is a philosophy, and at its most fundamental level is not a religion, yet, the following tenets pretty well establish a sound foundation for living one's life. Whether one is a Buddhist, or a Christian, or an Apathist like myself, the following framework for living works as well as we are going to find on this planet.
I'm less inclined to defend any single organized religion. I belong to one, but I admit that it is an even greater leap of faith that just believing in a God. That seems to be the trend nowadays, especially out West. A lot of people aren't that sure of any organized religion, but believe there is "something" out there beyond science as we think of it. There is something to our existence beyond science.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Quimper Peninsula
1,625 posts, read 929,499 times
Reputation: 1319
I'll be darned.. I see a side of highnlite I did not see before..Same with Nullgeo.. Heck even got a source of a user name out of him... Wow that geodesic stuff is quite heavy duty my friend!..

IMO If anything that general relativity stuff demonstrates to me we as a species have little knowledge what so ever of the mechanical aspects of our our universe, let alone some meaning if any of a "higher power"..

With that said it does not belittle man kind in any way for filling in the vast blanks with god, after all we are just another critter on the planet earth, evolving, learning as we go..

Wow... Back to work I go pondering a multidimensional universe....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 12:53 PM
 
7,151 posts, read 4,142,147 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
That was a very long and complicated way of saying "you don't know either." Unless of course you are the greatest scientific mind that ever existed
Actually, it wasn't complicated. Using slightly fewer words than you used in the post I referenced, in which you based your opinion that many points of opposing views on the question of science vs god have equal validity, I pointed out, in a very simplistically and logically ordered series of truths, that none of the opposing views - as you bracketed them -- have validity, because of the unknowable nature of the infinite. The fact that I can't know for the same reasons is of no significance. The point is that neither religious theory -- nor a-theistic theory -- and not science, either -- can know.

As for being the greatest scientific mind that ever existed: my orderly discussion did not indulge or rely on much science at all -- but rather on mathematics ... and no, I do not present myself as a great theoretical mathematician, either ... nor did I need to be one to reference a key work of one of the very greatest minds in the history of mathematics, any more than you need to be a scientist to refer to the 'big-bang' theory (not a popular theory these days in mathematics, by the way).

Last edited by nullgeo; 03-16-2012 at 01:13 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 01:41 PM
Status: "Grains....Grains" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,312 posts, read 10,201,200 times
Reputation: 4038
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
I consider atheists to be people of faith. They worship the science god. They have FAITH that science can and will explain our existence, despite not being in the same universe of that today. They have FAITH that the big bang occurred all on its own, without needing to explain how that mass got there in the first place, and what was the causal agent for the bang. They have FAITH in evolution. While it is clear that species evolve, how many species have been proven to evolve into a different species altogether? A lot of circumstantial evidence only. Scientists have a good reason for why such evidence doesn't exist. Fossils require special and rare circumstances to form. Atheists don't require that proof. They have FAITH that it happened that way.
The science god? What is that? While atheism may operate on some social levels as a religion, but suggesting that atheists are "people of faith" makes little sense.

As for your examples of faith, they are silly. Scientists aren't trying to "explain our existence". Scientists don't have faith that "the big bang occurred all on its own", they simply have hypotheses. And evolution has been rigorously confirmed and requires no more faith than the theory of gravitation.... The fossil require, if you weren't aware, is just one piece of evidence used to confirm evolutionary biology.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:04 PM
Status: "Grains....Grains" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,312 posts, read 10,201,200 times
Reputation: 4038
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
nor did I need to be one to reference a key work of one of the very greatest minds in the history of mathematics
Hermann Minkowski,though well known, is in no sense one of the "greatest minds in the history of mathematics"...

Regardless, you were hardly referencing his work, at least not in a meaningful way...

As for infinity, it does in fact have a "number" and "size", at least if you're talking about mathematics which you pretend to be doing. Infinite sets, as well as finite ones, both have definable cardinality.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:13 PM
 
Location: South Whidbey Island
1,754 posts, read 1,459,776 times
Reputation: 1884
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The science god? What is that? While atheism may operate on some social levels as a religion, but suggesting that atheists are "people of faith" makes little sense.

As for your examples of faith, they are silly. Scientists aren't trying to "explain our existence". Scientists don't have faith that "the big bang occurred all on its own", they simply have hypotheses. And evolution has been rigorously confirmed and requires no more faith than the theory of gravitation.... The fossil require, if you weren't aware, is just one piece of evidence used to confirm evolutionary biology.
I hope you didn't take "science god" literally. Do you know why you never hear people arguing about the existence of gravity (only the cause), whether or not the sun is hot, and whether or not water is heavier than air? I'll tell you why. It's because those things are rigorously proven beyond dispute. Most of the other things in life that we argue about are argued for a reason; namely that they are not rigorously proven. For every expert on one side, you can find an equally qualified expert on the other side. I don't disbelieve evolution myself, but to call it rigorously proven is stretching things quite a bit.

When people treat a hypothesis as a proven fact, it is faith IMHO. Anyway, I am not trying to prove religion or God. The gist of my posts is that atheists are no closer to explaining our existence through science than someone of faith is to proving the existence of God. You say scientists aren't trying to explain our existence. Really? I think scientists all over the world are trying to figure out how the universe began, how life was formed, how our consciousness works, etc. What they heck do you call that? I think both sides are silly to look down upon the other.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:25 PM
 
Location: South Whidbey Island
1,754 posts, read 1,459,776 times
Reputation: 1884
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
...........As for "something out of nothing", why, it happens all the time, continuously. In fact, this is one of mathematics' popular contemporary subjects. See point #8 above.
OK, enlighten me. What is one physical example of something created out of nothing without any external force or causal agent at all? Not asking for anything theoretical, but something that actually exists in the physical world. It can be observed, touched, etc. Again, not asking for a mathematical theory, but an example of physical matter that appears out of nowhere without any external cause.

BTW, I wasn't mocking your scientific mind. Don't interpret my earlier post that way. Mathematicians are probably the scientists I admire most. Yes, I consider them scientists. Some do not.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:35 PM
 
7,151 posts, read 4,142,147 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Hermann Minkowski,though well known, is in no sense one of the "greatest minds in the history of mathematics"...

Regardless, you were hardly referencing his work, at least not in a meaningful way...

As for infinity, it does in fact have a "number" and "size", at least if you're talking about mathematics which you pretend to be doing. Infinite sets, as well as finite ones, both have definable cardinality.
Minkoski, actually, is NOT well known, except within the very defined community of theoretical mathematics -- and physics. And he is most certainly considered one of the greats.

The reference I made to Minkowski was meaningful to me and completely relevant to the point I was making.

Infinity can be used within cardinality, yes. And it does have a numerical designation, yes. It also has meaning -- and application -- that entirely negates size and time and numerical functionality.

And now, as is your obsession, you can pretend however much you wish about the subject. Truth is, I made a series of statements, and included a couple references. The references are not the topic, which you will now undoubtedly attempt to make them. Knock yourself out. If no one responds, go out to your yard and see if your fence boards are talking back to you today. Or, I suppose, you could return to the topic of knowing -- or not knowing -- god -- thus the appropriateness of the motto being discussed.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:38 PM
Status: "Grains....Grains" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,312 posts, read 10,201,200 times
Reputation: 4038
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
Do you know why you never hear people arguing about the existence of gravity (only the cause), whether or not the sun is hot, and whether or not water is heavier than air? I'll tell you why. It's because those things are rigorously proven beyond dispute.
You are conflating people's every day understanding of observable phenomena with the scientific theories of that phenomena. When you say "you never hear people arguing about the existence of gravity", what you're referring to are observable phenomena that is explained with our theory of gravity. So right, people don't deny the phenomena, but what does that say about the science? Nothing at all....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
I don't disbelieve evolution myself, but to call it rigorously proven is stretching things quite a bit.
Its not stretching anything. Evolutionary biology is the backbone of biology and it has been rigorously confirmed with the same level of support as DNA, etc. How evolutionary biology differs has nothing to do with the science itself, but rather how the science conflicts with people's religiously motivated everyday beliefs about matters. In that sense its different than gravity...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
When people treat a hypothesis as a proven fact, it is faith IMHO.
I suppose? But that isn't what is done in science....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
the gist of my posts is that atheists are no closer to explaining our existence through science than someone of faith is to proving the existence of God.
But atheism has nothing to do with explaining "our existence", its simply the denial of the existence of god.

But heck, personally I don't know what atheist or theists are trying to talk about. Just a bunch of gibberish if you ask me....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ View Post
You say scientists aren't trying to explain our existence. Really? I think scientists all over the world are trying to figure out how the universe began, how life was formed, how our consciousness works, etc. What they heck do you call that?
I call it trying to figure out how the world works, is that what you mean by "explaining our existence"? Knowing how something works doesn't mean you understand, or know, the significant or "meaning" of it so I figured you had something deeper in mind.

PS. Mathematicians aren't scientists....

Last edited by user_id; 03-16-2012 at 02:47 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 02:46 PM
Status: "Grains....Grains" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,312 posts, read 10,201,200 times
Reputation: 4038
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Minkoski, actually, is NOT well known, except within the very defined community of theoretical mathematics -- and physics. And he is most certainly considered one of the greats.
Umm, yeah, I'm not talking about every day people here...and no he still isn't one of the "greats" as far as his contributions to mathematics go. He is a footnote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
The reference I made to Minkowski was meaningful to me
That may certainly be true, but as for as mathematics goes it was incoherent. But hey, I won't get in the way of such fashionable nonsense..
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top