sorry ive just had one of those busy weeks, anyway back to the debate:
to ttwen
Quote by ttwen@fmp111's most recent post
- science can be done without thirst for knowledge; it can also be done for thirst for destruction, desperation for something, a show of power etc etc.
Ah that wasn't the point, i was merely stating my personal motivation for my love of science, nothing to do with the argument.
Quote by ttwen
-"again motivation is not more important than the tools"
(1) motivation + tools = action.
(2) motivation + no tools = can't action, therefore no action
(3) no motivation + tools = no action
(4) no motivation + no tools = no action
i don't understand your logic here. i can't see how tools are more important than motivation when both must be true for an action. please explain your logic.
I never said that the tool was more important than the motivation. If u actually read the line you quoted me on, i said motivation ISN'T more important than the tools. In fact my position on this matter is that: to accomplish a goal, the motivation (i.e. will or thought) and the tool (action, though physical manipulation of entities etc) are both required.
Quote by ttwen - i have a gut feeling that dark matters exists.
* i guess i just can't stand it anymore, i think you either deliberately leave some details out, or you really don't know them.
And what are you attempting to demonstrate by your statement of your gut feeling? i have no idea. What details do i leave out on what argument?
Quote by ttwen- horoscopes = not direct? i don't think so though, example horoscope:
"Normally you are happy to deal with social situations by sitting in the background. However, today you should expect to be vibrant and talkative as the ideas will flow fast and furious. In terms of romance you might need to be a little less demanding of a loved one!"
is this really full of hidden meanings? what i see from this i just a quick prediction, and suggested reaction.
Hmm well i agree that example seems a tad clear, but the kind of horoscope i was referring too is goes something like this: Today is a time when energy drains can come from all sorts of directions and not be too easily spotted. Sometimes it's premature moves, other times strokes come just too late, and the spring in the elastic step can't be counted on as you bounce down the road. You could slog your way through this if you must, but you can also choose a park bench with a good view and watch everyone else going through it.- http://www.astrology.com.au/daily/pisces.asp
Anyway, the point is that they are obscure and basically can be applied to anyone gullible to distort it into something they feel familiar... in other words, this stuff is hogwash that is just open to interpretation.
to naturally
Quote by naturally What the?
No offense to you dude, but I think you should be more wise and mature enough to explain the good part of science since you chose science is more important to you.But reading your first post as the thread starter, you only say "Science!" and the rest is all about how religion in your opinion. Tsk..tsk...tsk...
Is this thread's goal just to destroy religion vocally face to face?... oh dear...
Holy crap! your right o_0 i completely forgot to give a support for science! let me address this right away:
Fmp111's revised opening statement
Religion and science have an element in common. That is, they both make statements regarding the nature of physical phenomena within the universe. The main difference is the methodology in which they attempt to establish the validity of their arguments.
Science follows (obviously) the scientific method. It is this scientific method that is absolutely essential in maintaining validity of scientific discussion. It begins with the establishment of a hypothesis followed by experimentation. The results of the experiment are then used to formulate another hypothesis to investigate further. In this way, all scientific theory is based upon empirical evidence and a rational method.
In essence, it is this adherence to a logical methodology and empirical evidence that ensures the soundness of science.
This is the main reason why i support the scientific method.
Secondary (and personally less important, relative to the method) is the applications of science and technology. The significant increase in life span since the dawn of man, the development of agriculture, the haber bosch process which is responsible for sustaining atleast 30% of the entire human population today, medical advances such as the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of the smallpox(which by the way during the 20th century, claimed from 300-500 million deaths) vaccine and its subsequent eradication (the list goes on and on so i shall just cut it short here) is proportional to the level of technology of the time. The technology was a result of the application of science.
Ultimately, the whole modern world is a monument to the scientific method and its application. No aspect of our lives today are independent of science and technology.
Finally, science and more importantly its logical rational methodology gives people the power to question and rationally distinguish right from wrong. People do not commit immoral acts for scientific or logical reasons. This can also be extended to an argument for atheism(however unfortunately not all scientists are atheists) as science/rationality and atheism usually go hand in hand.
I acknowledge that there are people who are atheists that commit immoral acts, Stalin for example. But such people do not act immoral because of atheist or scientific motivation. Such immoral acts are motivated from other sources such as politics, race and so on.
Alright, to contrast this with religion: The religious viewpoint is not based upon a rational, empirical model, but rather the polar opposite which is faith. And this is ultimately its root flaw.
By definition, faith is belief without evidence and logic. It is this embrace of faith that allows people's views to become distorted and manipulated.
It is through this manipulation of belief that any action no matter how morally abhorrent, can be justified through faith.
(I have nothing against the humanitarian aspects of religion. I argue that these humanitarian aspects are not only confined to religion, you can also have secular humanitarians as well. This also applies to certain areas of morality. Good morals do not originate from religion as there are also moral atheists and secularists etc.)
The manipulation of belief through faith is essentially the root of the crusades, inquisition, twin tower bombings etc. The people who acted perhaps were good people, but it was their faith that allowed them to commit such acts. Also within the bible itself (especially from the old testament) or the koran etc there are passages that clearly advocate behavior that is not morally acceptable. I acknowledge that most religious people do not follow such passages, but this is not due to the moral teaching of other sections of their religious texts, the moral basis of their actions originates from secular/social/natural sources.
And so what i argue is that religion has become redundant and harmful to society especially modern society. I propose that religion (and specifically faith) should be dropped and reason should be embraced in its place. i am not suggesting that we suddenly stop and view the world with a nihilistic attitude. I merely ask that we adopt reason and logic and as much as possible empirical evidence as our methodology.
Anyways, i thank you sincerely for pointing that missing part of my argument out. :D
moving on,
to toumarie
Quote by toumarieSo, it is consistent now to you?
Sir, at first we discuss about the inconsistency/consistency in Holy Bible and then I give an explanation that it is consistent about what happened in Deuteronomy and 10 commandments by giving an example.
No you have misunderstood, I say that the king's actions are consistent with the simple social needs of that time. I still assert that his actions are inconsistent in terms of the ten commandments.
What i argue is that there is a flaw in using the analogy of the king's actions to that of a god. This is due to the power difference in each of them. Where the king is merely powerful, god by definition is all powerful and thus could solve the problem without resorting to such measures as the king did.
Quote by toumarieGod created human (with their own freewill) and not a robot.
God gave human power to rule the earth.
Based on my experience, God is able and willing to prevent evil in my life.
This raises an interesting conflict. How do you reconcile your god's omniscience with freewill? god by definition is omniscient and thus can see into past present and future. If such a being can see into the future, then he/she/it will have already known the actions of all lesser beings and therefore the actions of the lesser beings are predetermined.
If god is willing to prevent evil and is all loving then explain this (a quote from David Attenborough) : "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."
Quote by toumarie@fmp111 : I never thought you're going to write about cut a hand. Well, my brother had this kind of experience while he was a little boy. It's not his hand, it's only his finger.
It can be rotten and the doctor will have to amputate it, so after the operation, the doctor only said, "I did my best."
As a people who believe in God, we have only one option; pray.
Exactly, that is all faith has! praying! which does not solve the problem. I predict that you shall start to give examples of people who are healed through prayer. My reply to this would be: The amount of people cured through prayer as opposed to medicine is insignificant. So insignificant that it falls into the same probability of being cured through natural healing processes, which by they way, they are.
Quote by toumarieAs you have said fmp111, there are so many motivation that can make people do acts of evil, so if you want, don't blame everything bad to religion because there are so many religious people who don't do the acts of evil. I just want you to at least respect us.
It is not religious people who are the subject of my disrespect, it is the religion itself and specifically it is the element of faith within religion that my hostility is most strongly directed at.
Quote by toumarieI believe in God and His miracle and live in it is far more joyful for m
Again i do not doubt your sincerity of belief, i merely say that your belief is misplaced and is not valid. Your joy is true, the subject of your joy is most likely not.
to priincess
Quote by priincessi think you're wrong since many people has cured diseases without using science n just by praying, the power from God. and science also religion are different so we cant compare it. u can cure people by science or by God. but science is from God too
see above in my rebuttal to toumarie.
to honoonotobira
Quote by honoonotobiraHow about using a lie to achieve goals, such as getting a sympathy from others?
How about using a slander onto someone I don't like so nobody want to become her/his friend?
How about chocked to death a person because I hate him/her?
How about pushing someone from high place (not buildings) to kill him/her because I envy her/him?
How about drawning someone until he/she dead because he/she always make fun of me?
How about give a hug to my little brother/sister who need it at that time because I love them?
How about to accompany a person when he/she need it because I love them?
How about just sit and listen to someone story because he/she want to share his/her problem with me?
These kind of acts don't need a tool and each goal achieved by motivation alone.
...So, it is right. Everything started from motivation not from a tool.
ah that's just a disagreement of definition. I have addressed the issue in this post above. (i think it was to ttwen)
On the topic of the plane analogy, the pilot represented the will/thought/motivation where the plane was the physical manipulation. I'm sorry to give you the wrong impression of the analogy, it wasn't the best analogy anyway. But after this post, im sure its smoothed over.
Quote by honoonotobiraFirst, I am not going to compare between human and animal as an example.
What the chimps and other animals do is only based on instinct about how to survive.
actually, chimps form (although primitive) basic social structures and culture, do not be so quick to distance humanity
from the animal kindgom, we are after all, advanced, intelligent animals.
Quote by honoonotobiraSecond, religion teachs moral good and I'll give you one example about it. Only religion (Christianity) teachs to give mercy onto someone who hurts you deeply. It teachs to forgive someone who is actually not worthed to be forgiven.
This teaching usually become the most difficult to do by a believer because usually people want to take revenge.
Religion teachs not to divorce, religion teachs to loyal to your partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend), religion teachs to give more and not to take more etc.
:sweat: ill just reply this with the same line you quoted me on...
Quote by fmp111in short, the bible merely reflects morality, it is not the SOURCE of morality, which lies inherently within the formation of society itself.
The morals it teaches is merely a reflection of the moral need, originating from the very function and structure of society....
Quote by honoonotobiraI don't think every each of them really heard god's voice directly. I believe, their leader or elder who told them that he/she heard god speak to her/him and god told him/her to blow the twin tower or to blow a chosen place in Bali etc.
Ah but it was faith that allowed them to do it. Where is the source of this faith? religion.
Quote by honoonotobiraFirst, it's for believer and for non-believer who used to be a believer.
Second, how about the wind?
...are you suggesting there is no empirical evidence for the wind? what do leaves blow around in then? what is present in storms etc that knocks over builidings and trees? Just because you cant see something doesn't mean its not empirical. You can indirectly infer the existence of wind from your other senses (in this case touch) and as i have previously stated, its effects upon other objects.
Quote by honoonotobira I knew it already, you can read again my quote.
And let me remind you that you're the one who wrote that science is a tool. Read below.
but here is a short summary of it: Science is a tool of humanity, that is all, a tool can be used for both good and evil without any inherent evil within the tool.
....*sigh* alright... The scientific method is an intellectual tool, technology created through the application of scientific understanding is the physical tool...
to houkiboshi
Quote by houkiboshiEven if we give proof, someone who's got healed by just believe and pray to God, you will just take it as a lie, correct?
No not a lie, just not sufficient evidence. Here is what it would take to prove faith healing solidly (this is a simple outline): Get a bunch of sick people (eg 1000 people) from all around the world, stick them in a lab, get them to pray, monitor their healing. Repeat this process for different people, different age groups, genders, races, socioeconomic class etc if the percentage of such people get healed is significantly greater than the percentage of a similar group that healed naturally (ie no medicine, but no prayer), then we can have some reasonable evidence.
i mean if faith healing worked, why would we even bother with medical research at all?
to moderator Spystreak
Quote by Spystreak I'm only going to give this warning once, after that this thread gets the lock and warnings will be issued. KEEP IT CIVIL OR DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL
I'm seriously tired of this crap. It's not a hard concept. If you don't have anything nice to say step away from your computer and walk away.
Firstly, warning noted.
Secondly, this depends upon what you mean by civil, if you think that the criticism of religion upon
intellectual/logical grounds (for which this thread was created) is uncivil then lock this thread immediately.
