Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Kudos as to what you said, AREQUIPA! Then, Vansdad makes his absolute claim: "Scientists can only speculate but I have a firm belief, for right or wrong.". quite the comparison, for sure.
You obviously don't grasp how science and the SI work, do you, Vansdad? You cannot place scientific "speculation" alongside your "firm belief" in positions of equality of validity. For one very key element, scientific "speculation" as you denigrate it, is only the beginning part, never the end-point. We scientists call it "the hypothesis" for a good reason, and it is already the hopefully well-thought out speculative (as in: preliminary guessing) part of that question.
But what then follows is, as I hope you do know & understand, the relentless, repetitive and peer-reviewed part, where the results, if they show some promise, are then revised, better detailed and re-focused. Then repeated quite often by other independent research teams, possibly on the other side of the globe, with potentially newer, more precise equipment. And fully independent of some Evilâ„¢ payola and buy-outs. Then, through this iterative and relentless process, some very supportable conclusions are arrived at. They are no longer "speculative, guess-work nor inconclusive". They also beat the heck out of a blind acceptance, faith-based version, based on the writings of an ancient multiple-translation book now proven, in every case that we examine, to be technically wanting to say the least.
During the exact same time-frame, the rote-chanting crowd has done, essentially nothing to further validate their "firm belief", so it stands as it did before, unsupported, ambiguous and hard to understand, especially when it's been re-translated and revised as to content & intent, so many times. But as well, in light of newfound evidence, it's most often also found to be sorely lacking in terms of it's believability.
My 96 yr old mother-in-law recently passed away, God rest her lovely soul. She and I used to get into "charming" little partly for fun, but sometimes heated, discussions about what she was "taught" in Sunday School way back in the '40s. For example, she enjoyed and firmly believed in the Noah's Ark fable, of two of each; little zebras, elephants, monkeys and such, daintily prancing up onto a nice safe barge for "just a few months!", and then later traipsing off that now stinking, offal-encrusted, water-logged & listing barge, onto the now-saline-killed ecosystem (hence no palatable vegetative food nor potable water for anyone) to happily and gainfully repopulate the entire globe. All from an initial point up on a snow-covered mountain in Turkey. <Coffee spurting out of my nose...>
She simply did not want to listen to or even considerthe truth about how this is an ecological impossibility. It remains a rather poorly made metaphor or fable, suitable only for non-critical child thinkers, and my scientific evaluations, carefully and politely stated to her {she WAS my MoL, after all...}, deeply offended her childhood fantasies, those which she desperately wanted to cling to. Otherwise, what is left for those whose lives depend on these charming old-tyme legends? Nothing, that's what. Nothing.
And that, my friends, is the definition of being frightened back into the fold. (Ever notice how sheep cannot stand to be separated from the flock-huddle congregation, esp. @ night, when the vampires/coyotes howl?)
And that howling? That'd be us truth howlers. AWhhooooooooooooooooooooo
With all the science there is still no 100% explanation of how everything came into existance. I only meant that I have this belief of how it did and I don't need to speculate. Science is approprate for what happens after it is already here. Each has its place.
So is the question of the existence of something which will judge whether we've been good or evil and reward or punish us based on that judgement (whether I'm talking about God or Santa Claus is up for you to decide). Either important questions should be left to raw emotion or they shouldn't - no changing the rules based on the answer you wish you were going to get.
And if the question of the meaning of life is so important, it must be too important to leave to subjective feeling and opinion. If it matters that much, I'd prefer we use tool which have been shown to be much better at answering questions - facts, evidence and reason spring to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
What specifically is a misconception, and how do you know I'm wrong?
I don't believe in this judgement you are refering to. That is not the God I believe in. So that is the misconception. That everyone has that view.
With all the science there is still no 100% explanation of how everything came into existance. I only meant that I have this belief of how it did and I don't need to speculate. Science is approprate for what happens after it is already here. Each has its place.
Why in the world would you expect science or any other enterprise to be able to provide a 100% explanation for ANYTHING? In what universe is this possible?
Suggesting that science must provide such an explanation is an indication that you misunderstand how science works.
With all the science there is still no 100% explanation of how everything came into existance. I only meant that I have this belief of how it did and I don't need to speculate. Science is approprate for what happens after it is already here. Each has its place.
Vansdad: You have a "belief of how it did"? That fallas far short of a "100% explanation" of how it all came to be unless you are content with a simplistic "explanation" cooked up by ancient people. At least science is still looking.
It baffles me that the religious feel they have some superior ground because science doesn't have an explanation for why the universe exists. That's because science is intellectually honest. How is it any better to just make up an explanation and declare it to be true with no reason to believe it is?
Why in the world would you expect science or any other enterprise to be able to provide a 100% explanation for ANYTHING? In what universe is this possible?
Suggesting that science must provide such an explanation is an indication that you misunderstand how science works.
Funny though because most atheists expect this 100% proof for the existance of God.
It baffles me that the religious feel they have some superior ground because science doesn't have an explanation for why the universe exists. That's because science is intellectually honest. How is it any better to just make up an explanation and declare it to be true with no reason to believe it is?
Really, their "I believe in fairy tales, impossibilities, and downright absurd concepts" and operate under yet another delusion that believing such nonsense somehow makes them superior gets old for it is just another of the escapes from reality they relish so.
Funny though because most atheists expect this 100% proof for the existance of God.
And how much proof is there? 0% vs. 100% pretty much makes it black and white without any shades of gray. Show "some" proof and we'll talk.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
