Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 187

Thread: The equivalence of religion and science?

  1. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ...All knowledge is fundemental in nature, but how it is interpreted is what defines how it is used. If knowledge is explained in 'open' terms it leads to more harmony, if it is explained in 'closed' terms it leads to division and to the big guns you refer.
    I started a reply, but see no point in finishing it. You have mis-read pretty much all of what I wrote. I see no point in trying to explain it again. I'll list the errors and part with two final comments.

    1. I said that the fundamental principals of religion and science were not in conflict. You interpreted this to mean that I was claiming there was never a conflict between religion and science.
    2. You accused me of making assumptions about other people - assumptions I did not make.
    3. You said I was taking you literally - when I wasn't referring to you at all. Twice.
    4. When I was referring to you, you changed your mind.
    5. I said "knowledge is fundamentalism", not that "knowledge is fundamental". It's a big difference and confusing the two is not a mistake I'd make.

    You have this idea of a harmonious reconciliation stuck in your head and you dogmatically refuse to hear any alternatives. If that's what you want to do, then that's fine me, but I have no interest in posting so that my words can be twisted to suit your ends. That's disrespectful and a little annoying. And, yes, I used the word dogmatically deliberately.

    Secondly, if the approach to twisting everything to suit your presupposed position - which is precisely what you have done in that last post - is your idea of an open mind, then I'd rather keep mine closed. My idea of an open mind is very, very different.

  2. #162
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I started a reply, but see no point in finishing it. You have mis-read pretty much all of what I wrote. I see no point in trying to explain it again. I'll list the errors and part with two final comments.
    NOOOOOOOOO, that’s not how the forum works

    I think it works like this

    You must spend 17/20 days debating every single word

    Comment on the points you agree with ignore the points that you don’t

    In fact change half the points raised to suit yourself and miss quote at all times and when it becomes more heated debate totally miss quote and find a post to support your miss quote from circa 1954 etc etc

    This way a single comment i.e. Its Tuesday can last 17/20 days going back and forth. Don’t say yes it is (start , its not Tuesday in Australia etc etc)

    Now I assume you’re telling Rocky to get ‘on his bike which I assume means you agree with my Bike analogy

  3. #163
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I started a reply, but see no point in finishing it. You have mis-read pretty much all of what I wrote. I see no point in trying to explain it again. I'll list the errors and part with two final comments.

    1. I said that the fundamental principals of religion and science were not in conflict. You interpreted this to mean that I was claiming there was never a conflict between religion and science.
    2. You accused me of making assumptions about other people - assumptions I did not make.
    3. You said I was taking you literally - when I wasn't referring to you at all. Twice.
    4. When I was referring to you, you changed your mind.
    5. I said "knowledge is fundamentalism", not that "knowledge is fundamental". It's a big difference and confusing the two is not a mistake I'd make.

    You have this idea of a harmonious reconciliation stuck in your head and you dogmatically refuse to hear any alternatives. If that's what you want to do, then that's fine me, but I have no interest in posting so that my words can be twisted to suit your ends. That's disrespectful and a little annoying. And, yes, I used the word dogmatically deliberately.

    Secondly, if the approach to twisting everything to suit your presupposed position - which is precisely what you have done in that last post - is your idea of an open mind, then I'd rather keep mine closed. My idea of an open mind is very, very different.
    Umm.. I understood and read everything you wrote. And, as it was a reply to my posts with me quoted in it 3 times, you will excuse me if that leads me to think you are referring to what I said. So, how can that be 'not referring to me at all??'

    I also didn't 'accuse' you of 'making assumptions that you did not make' I said, I 'think'.. which clearly suggested that I believed it may have been inferred, but may not have been implicit in your text.

    And yes, I changed your quote on knowledge because I believed it was incorrect. I was therefore defining it in my own terms, as one would do in any debate.

    I also 'do not dogmatically want to hear any alternatives'. On the contrary, my posts clearly showed that I was trying to understand your viewpoint whilst also putting forward my own. Again, this is what one would do in any debate.

    As to who is open minded and who is not; I'm afraid the very aggressive nature of your post Geoff says it all.

  4. #164
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I started a reply, but see no point in finishing it. You have mis-read pretty much all of what I wrote.
    What? Rocky? No can't be - say it isn't so

  5. #165
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Material reality is not a foundation of religious belief.
    I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure it's true for you and your religious belief. However, I don't think that this kind of material/spiritual dualism is inherent in all religious beliefs.

    The first noble truth of Buddhism is that suffering exists. That's a real, material thing. Biologists do experiments and form theories about it.
    The second noble truth of Buddhism is that the primary cause of suffering is unfilled need. That's another real, material thing. Social scientists do experiments and form theories about it.
    The third noble truth of Buddhism is that there is a way to end suffering. A real way. A material way. A way that relies on nothing but matter and energy.
    The fourth noble truth of Buddhism is what that way is: the "eightfold path". The path is about how real, material humans should act in the real, material world in order to end their suffering.
    The four noble truths are the foundation of Buddhism. Material reality is the foundation of my religious belief.

    I have no objection to religious beliefs that are primarily spiritual and avoid saying things about the material world. No doubt this is a good way for religious beliefs to survive in an age when science gives us so much detail about the material world. However, such beliefs don't really appeal to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Neither. I rejected your formulation.
    Ah, right.
    In that case, I disagree, for the reasons I have posted before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I did not think I needed to say so, but since you ask, no, I reject the whole of christianity as being utterly in error.
    I didn't think I needed to say either. Since you ask, I'm Buddhist/atheist, not Christian. I'm not expecting eternal heaven or eternal hell when I die.

  6. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    This is so boring now

    God created the heaven and the earth lets assume thats at 0 time

    Assume light occurred at Planck time

    Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The rest is semantics
    Um, no, it isn't.

    Like many apologists you shift the ground each time your position is demonstrated as wrong.

    However, you are right that it's getting boring. Your beliefs (I think) are not in line with what you are posting, so...

  7. #167
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    However, you are right that it's getting boring.


    At last we agree

  8. #168
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Ah, right.
    In that case, I disagree, for the reasons I have posted before.
    It is highly debatable whether there is any point in using a definition of a word in contradiction to general usage. But no-one can prevent you from doing it.
    It's like saying 'I define 'hair' as the hard, brittle stuff that grows on the tips of your fingers and toes.' Well, most of the time, suit yoursel; but it makes life difficult during conversations about personal hygiene.
    I didn't think I needed to say either. Since you ask, I'm Buddhist/atheist, not Christian. I'm not expecting eternal heaven or eternal hell when I die.
    Oh, OK. Thanks.

  9. #169
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post


    At last we agree
    We've agreed before. Well, I thought we had - sometimes it's hard to tell

  10. #170
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    We've agreed before. Well, I thought we had - sometimes it's hard to tell
    Be useful

    Ill rep you or anyone who can find out if Dhirbhai 1 & 3 Gas fields (Krishna Godavari basin) is in a Earthquake zone

    Im doing due dilgence on the site etc and cant seem to find out ? Im serious

    ps god is in the title, there are no co-incidences ?

  11. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Be useful

    Ill rep you or anyone who can find out if Dhirbhai 1 & 3 Gas fields (Krishna Godavari basin) is in a Earthquake zone

    Im doing due dilgence on the site etc and cant seem to find out ? Im serious

    ps god is in the title, there are no co-incidences ?
    Well, what's the definition of 'earthquake zone'?

    We get earthquakes here in England, y'know.

  12. #172
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Be useful

    Ill rep you or anyone who can find out if Dhirbhai 1 & 3 Gas fields (Krishna Godavari basin) is in a Earthquake zone

    Im doing due dilgence on the site etc and cant seem to find out ? Im serious

    ps god is in the title, there are no co-incidences ?
    The nearest tectonic plate edge, which is the source of most earthquake activity, goes through the Andaman and Nicobar islands and up the Bassein peninsular of Burma. That's quite a long way away. But earthquakes along that zone would be quite capable of causing problems hundreds of miles away...

    So, what qualifies as 'earthquake zone'? Presumably it would be defined by probability of seismic disturbances of a given severity over a specified period of time...

  13. #173
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It is highly debatable whether there is any point in using a definition of a word in contradiction to general usage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Google
    Results 1 - 10 of about 37,900 for "atheism is a religion". (0.09 seconds)
    Results 1 - 10 of about 24,400 for "atheism isn't a religion" OR "atheism is not a religion". (0.27 seconds)
    General usage seems split.

  14. #174
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Google statistics
    Obviously Google's search engine made a very rapid snap judgment (0.09 secs) that "atheism is a religion" but when it took some time to think about it (0.27 secs) the system realised that "atheism is not a religion."

    I'm impressed not only by Google's logic but that it condensed into such a short period all the tedious messages on this thread!

  15. #175
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Be useful

    Ill rep you or anyone who can find out if Dhirbhai 1 & 3 Gas fields (Krishna Godavari basin) is in a Earthquake zone

    Im doing due dilgence on the site etc and cant seem to find out ? Im serious

    ps god is in the title, there are no co-incidences ?
    for only $30 ...

    ScienceDirect Login

  16. #176
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    Obviously Google's search engine made a very rapid snap judgment (0.09 secs) that "atheism is a religion" but when it took some time to think about it (0.27 secs) the system realised that "atheism is not a religion."

    I'm impressed not only by Google's logic but that it condensed into such a short period all the tedious messages on this thread!
    Ummm... except this thread wasn't about atheism...

  17. #177
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    Obviously Google's search engine made a very rapid snap judgment (0.09 secs) that "atheism is a religion" but when it took some time to think about it (0.27 secs) the system realised that "atheism is not a religion."

    I'm impressed not only by Google's logic but that it condensed into such a short period all the fascinating and thought provoking messages on this thread!


    (Except I corrected your use of the word 'tedious', which I concluded was a mistake)

  18. #178
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    General usage seems split.
    Wow. What an amazing method of determining what general usage is.

    Presumably that makes 'cabbage's £1.50 each' grammatically correct usage of the apostrophe.

  19. #179
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    General usage seems split.
    why would anyone type, and therefore have searchable, a comment "atheism is not a religion" except as a response to idiots who say it IS? you've taken the biscuit, but here, have the whole bleedin packet

  20. #180
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Google
    Results 1 - 10 of about 37,900 for "atheism is a religion". (0.09 seconds)
    Results 1 - 10 of about 24,400 for "atheism isn't a religion" OR "atheism is not a religion". (0.27 seconds)
    General usage seems split.
    Quote Originally Posted by Google
    Results 1 - 10 of about 40 for martin harper "not idiot". (0.20 seconds)
    Results 1 - 10 of about 157,000 for martin harper idiot. (0.04 seconds)
    General opinion on using Google search results to make a point seems to be "it's a crock of ****".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •