Duracell Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 when you say you need to understand religion to understand the world what exactly do you mean duracell? Also the religious texts are extremely important and fundamental to religion How can you argue against religion if you don't understand it? How can you comment on US foreign policy, on the situation in the Middle East, without understanding religion? What happens when you meet someone with a completely different world view to you? Science explains how stuff works, religion attempts to explain why stuff works. And in the world, it's the reason why a lot of stuff happens. You just have to turn on the news for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'm going to have to resist replying to it (as hard as it is) but as always you raise some good points Duracell. You just know when you read these threads who is going to be involved and we always end up going in circles. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> I have no idea what you mean. It normally ends up as pages and pages of youngram agreeing with everyone doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 How can you argue against religion if you don't understand it? How can you comment on US foreign policy, on the situation in the Middle East, without understanding religion? What happens when you meet someone with a completely different world view to you? Science explains how stuff works, religion attempts to explain why stuff works. And in the world, it's the reason why a lot of stuff happens. You just have to turn on the news for that! good good 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> religion is different to almost everyone who adheres to it and even those that don't, I think from the view you make it is important in the understanding of the world to understand religion. What happens to me, well we usually talk it out, agree to disagree and leave each other 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 How can you comment on US foreign policy, on the situation in the Middle East, without understanding religion? What happens when you meet someone with a completely different world view to you? But you're not talking about scientific issues now are you? You're talking about understanding how religious people act, which is kind of obvious. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Science explains how stuff works, religion attempts to explain why stuff works. And in the world, it's the reason why a lot of stuff happens. You just have to turn on the news for that! Again, you seem to be shifting the argument. Religion only explains why people do things. "How" stuff works and "why" stuff works are kind of the same thing from a scientific perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 But you're not talking about scientific issues now are you? You're talking about understanding how religious people act, which is kind of obvious. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Yes, I'm talking about how people act. No, I'm not talking about scientific issues. Yes, I think it is obvious. What I am getting at, is explaining a simple statement I made to a poster who didn't understand what I was getting at. If you don't know anything about religion, you can't argue against it. You can't argue against anything you don't know about. Again, you seem to be shifting the argument. Religion only explains why people do things. "How" stuff works and "why" stuff works are kind of the same thing from a scientific perspective. See, I'm not talking from a scientific perspective. There's other ways to looking at the world from a scientific perspective, or a relgious perspective, even. When I said "why", I mean the purpose something has. Science (well, good scientific practise anyway!) looks at things objectively and deals with facts. Anything beyond that is speculation. If somebody did create the earth, why? Science doesn't do anything to answer that. My main point was anyway, and my argument has certainly not shifted here, is that science and religion are equally important, regardless of your views on both. You can't argue one side without understanding the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Right ok, gotcha now. Science (well, good scientific practise anyway!) looks at things objectively and deals with facts. Anything beyond that is speculation. If somebody did create the earth, why? Science doesn't do anything to answer that. And, sadly, neither does religion. My main point was anyway, and my argument has certainly not shifted here, is that science and religion are equally important, regardless of your views on both. You can't argue one side without understanding the other. See you at first I thought you were just stating a blanket "science and religion are equally important", but now I understand you meant just when in a debate of science vs religion. You're totally right there, most internet warriors are either one or the other, arguing from a position of ignorance. That's what's especially annoying when you hear the religious calling evolution a "only a theory" and other such rubbish that they don't understand even the fundamentals of what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Right ok, gotcha now. And, sadly, neither does religion. No, but I don't you find it fascinating that it attempts to? Guess that's why I applied to do theology at uni. And the fact not many others do suggests that most people aren't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No, but I don't you find it fascinating that it attempts to? Guess that's why I applied to do theology at uni. And the fact not many others do suggests that most people aren't! Guess I don't find "[a] god did it" to be much of an attempt to explain anything! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Guess I don't find "[a] god did it" to be much of an attempt to explain anything! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> that's only what one religion says, some say the earth is God etc. I enjoy that more than "two atoms collided, apes came out and they later became humans and bananas"* *just so you know, my knowledge of evolution is better than that 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='^_^' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I like to refer to the universe as god. I'm not religious in anyway, never have been, don't conform to any kind of belief except that science can explain things. It's said that god is everything, and everything is the universe. Everything that inhabits the universe has been here since the dawn of time, including the materials that make up your body. That's pretty cool I fink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I would do a degree in theology if it directly led to a job I would love to do, I might end up doing it later in my life at the open university or something. I knew what you meant but I wasn't sure if you meant how to understand the earth or how people behave duracell. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Also the monotheistic religions say god did it not just one, e.g. Judaism and Islam both claim god did it both different religions but both monotheistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Everything that inhabits the universe has been here since the dawn of time, including the materials that make up your body. I'm back! Whilst you may believe that (and that is fine) its not the position of science at all. The dawn of time is 13.7 billion years ago, this has been independently verified by multiple methods of dating all yielding the same answer, no coincidence. [url=http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/11feb_map/]http://science.nasa....2003/11feb_map/ The link above is the oldest image in the universe, this caused a massive stir about 10 years ago, it confirmed a big bang explosion beyond doubt. If god exists, he created the big bang, that is the only concession science can give to religion now. The early universe contained only 4 elements which explains their absolute abundance everywhere in the universe, Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium and Lithium (the lightest of elements). You and I (what makes us up) are the result of massive stars undergoing a supernova explosion and this didn't occur for another 200 million years post big bang after the weakest of all four fundamental forces (gravity) began the arduous task of accumulating matter in a scattered universe. Crudely put, if enough hydrogen accumulates together, pressure and temperature builds (logical), the hydrogen begins to fuse (Nuclear fusion) creating helium and a star is born. Throughout a stars life the helium begins to fuse together forming heavier elements. These heavier elements also will fuse again, this happens until Iron is formed. Iron is incredibly dense and sinks to the core of the star and begins to accumulate, the gravitational field of the star (if big enough) will distort due to the heavy core and will eventually collapse in on itself and cause a huge explosion (a supernova). Up until this point we have only half a periodic table (everything including and below Iron). Now we have the conditions to do some very unnatural chemistry, Iron is the most stable element in the universe and forcing unwilling neutrons and protons into its already stable nucleus forms the other half of the periodic table (allowing life as we know it). So the gigantic star explodes releasing its bounty of elements which will eventually form (with gravity's help) asteroids, planets, comets etc. These will most likely form in orbit around another giant celestial object (a star) forming a solar system which inturn will orbit in conjunction with other solar systems around a giant black hole forming a galaxy. Only the most gigantic of stars form black holes and the only the most gigantic of gigantic stars will form giant black holes. I think its amazing to know we're all essentially made of star dust, I find this more fascinating than saying God made us, if he did, he did so indirectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm back! Whilst you may believe that (and that is fine) its not the position of science at all. The dawn of time is 13.7 billion years ago, this has been independently verified by multiple methods of dating all yielding the same answer, no coincidence. [snip] I think its amazing to know we're all essentially made of star dust, I find this more fascinating than saying God made us, if he did, he did so indirectly. Great post, I was only explaining thing (which is kind of "evreything"!) to the kids the other week. I think they got it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wow, this is deep 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wacko:' /> and a conversation that's always going to go round in circles regarding who/what actually made mankind. All I know is, when you think about it, it's confusing, but when you look at the science aspects, it kind of makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Great post, I was only explaining thing (which is kind of "evreything"!) to the kids the other week. I think they got it... Cheers. It does annoy me I guess when people are happy to go with science when it effectively saves their loved ones from cancer, enables us to build incredible wonders of engineering and powers our energy hungry lives. Yet, we apply the exact same rigorous scientific principles to explain how life has evolved and where we have come from and suddenly science is wrong, its right on non-contentious issues that don't conflict with religion but we're either misinformed or worst still blasphemous when it comes to challenging truths claimed by a religion. There is absolutely no agenda in science, it deals with evidence, if the evidence suggested a God then we'd report it as such. The "only a theory" thing is overused to. The first and second law of thermodynamics are technically theories and allow us to power our homes, there is just as much confidence and evidence in the "theory of evolution" etc. yet it is continually disputed. I don't really appreciate religious people with no understanding deciding what we've got right and wrong when the exact same principles are adhered to across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralRam Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Definitely a firm believer in evolution but I also think devolution in the human race is also beginning to happen. The strongest survive, as well as the weakest. Diseases that wouldn't have been carried in the gene-pool are now free flowing and our reliance on technology will further make us weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 its strange that this bloke has so much affection from the fans.He doesnt talk about the club and is not a very nice bloke either.A very bitter man. Purely on his playing ability during my formative years Dangerous! He became a postman after didn't he? Its not like they are bad tempered miserable sods is it? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The strongest survive, as well as the weakest. Diseases that wouldn't have been carried in the gene-pool are now free flowing and our reliance on technology will further make us weaker. Totally agree. Science is big business, most pathologists suspect that but the drugs industry like any other has to turn a profit. A topical issue on this is the realisation that the latest deadly strain of bird flu was facilitated by the routine vaccinations of chickens. Building "artificial resistance" against a virus is a losing battle, breed several billion humans and a small percentage will be different to the rest owing to rare mishaps in putting the genetic code together (evolution), most will die as its an unfavourable change (disease/birth defects) but a few will have an advantage (stronger/disease resistant) allowing them to outlive the rest and more importantly pass these genes to the next generation. This happens with viruses not over a period of thousands or millions of years but in some cases hours or days. Antibiotics work on the basis of culling 99.99% of the foreign invaders, by doing so it just so happens they are inadvertently facilitating more hardy and deadly strains to inflitrate the rest of the population. In nature, the virus may either be overcome by the body's immune system or kill its host, the population is thus kept in check, we now have a situation where most are surviving but we're sat on a timebomb with the potential of strains that become lethal to everybody in the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So, there is good cause to say science will be the downfall of man in that respect. Are we ever going to refuse helping people because ultimately it is not good for the whole population? I'd have been dead at least once possibly twice by now if it wasn't for modern medicine (I'm one of the lucky 7% that got treated to appendicitus) but in the cruel world of survival you could argue that death before old age due to disease and infection is vital...Darwin certainly said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralRam Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Science will definitely be the downfall of man be it global warming, AI, Nuclear weapons or a gradual decline. That being said it could be the saviour when the Sun burns itself out or an Asteroid hits. But I am guessing we will be long gone before any of that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.