Not all Atheists should be saved - they can be useful.

[Zombie Dave McCaig]

it wouldn't matter what I say or have said, since my outlook on things is fundamentally different then yours you'll always come to your own conclusions.

Maybe so, unfortunately.

but again, this is what I took issue with

"When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll"

thats the rhetorical point that made me say "I love those rhetorical scientifical questions like
"If I can prove something that I currently can't would you believe me?""

I think you missed me posting that this was a bullshit question. Do not mistake this for science- no scientist would say this.

my response was not against science as a whole just the link Brian left but now took down. so please don't make it about our history of conversations and your misunderstandings as to my position with science and religion. It wouldn't matter how clear I am about it since it doesn't fit into your paradigm you will always take issue. thats cool, but maybe its not me being unclear but some people holding on too tight to what they believe they can't wrap their head around me critiquing something I still respect.

Ok, that's cool.

History has not debunked religion,

yes, it has.

just the people who use it to manipulate the masses for the people in powers will.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

But if its impossible to disprove god then science should ask the rhetorical question "what if it did would you change your mind" and then call them stupid if they say no...everyone in that particular scenario ends up sounding stupid IMHO.

This question is not scientific. It's impossible to ask this question following the rules of science, since it falls outside of the rigid parameters of scientific study.

but I really don't think you can judge my stance since I feel you have totally time and time again misunderstood my attitude. Maybe you might want to listen better and not with the Snakebite hates science ears.

Ok, well- maybe it's your approach. If you don't hate science I'm open to hear that. BUT - what I hear is that you don't really accept science for what it is, or accept the rules it follows. I don't understand why.

I respect all faiths, they are the same.

See? Science is the antithesis of faith. Faith does not fall under the umbrella of science at all.

We're all trying to find the truths.

This I agree on

With quantum physics we're finding perception can change reality.

No.

I know thats only one aspect of it but still something we've just scrapped the surface of.

Quantum physics is fundamentally wrong in many important ways, In the same ways that Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. It describes a system in a makeshift way without understanding it. It's flawed in that it fails to grasp the structural reality of spacetime "particles/waves" , but it's the best we have right now to make certain things make sense. That said, it does not change reality.

so, what if Science does prove the existence of a grand creator, whatever you want to call it, but what if it was aware, intelligent and was responsible for what we experience?

Impossible. It's entirely impossible for science to contemplate god.

What if we find the galactic core has consciousness

We would possibly eventually be able to measure it.

and each core is intentionally responsible for all things in our particular galaxy and that same consciousness is what some call God, would you believe? would you let go of all these scientific ideas of what god isn't and become a man of god so to speak? or would you deny it three times?

Sure I'd believe it. But what you're suggesting is almost certainly untrue.

cuz thats exactly what the article Brian left said in its reverse. but the question is avoided the same way the people he is judging avoid it.

I highly doubt that. But I have no way of knowing, since the article is no longer linked to.

so again, my beef, in this case, is with the author who claims science as his faith of choice.

Science is not a faith. IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FAITH.

I do see trends across the science community and that trend is intolerance towards people of religious faith and thats divisive which is unhealthy.

Not really.

just sayin. you don't agree, fine. go with god.

I'll go with god right after I hang with Santa.

[edited to clarify view of quantum physics in blue.]

[Sweeney]

...but I do see trends across the science community and that trend is intolerance towards people of religious faith and thats divisive which is unhealthy.

It's pretty much the opposite - religion being viciously intolerant of science, scientific theory and evidence that in any way whatsoever contradicts religion or the bible.

Dover High school, Pennsylvania is a classic case of religion vs science, where religion was trying to eliminate parts of science, or forcibly make religion a part of science.

Documentary is nearly two hours long, and completely debunks 'Intelligent Design' showing it to be complete religious garbage.

I can't find the link to the original whole video online, but the same thing is here in 6-7 parts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[SNAKEBITE]

I'm not defending the religious institution, I know their shortcomings, but its the institution most of the time and not the word itself.

and you're right, its not a conspiracy theory its right in front of our faces. one only needs to look. its no secret to me than men and their ego driven needs use such things to manipulate people. if you think thats a conspiracy then you aint payin' attention.

but again, not my original point.

both sides of the argument have their short comings and short sightedness but its not the foundations fault. its the people who think "I think therefore I am"...more like "I think therefore I thought".hahahaha

I was hard core into religion but it started late in my life. early teens. wasn't brought up on it. then I was hardcore against it, now I'm realizing
it was just early forms of finding answers and understandings of all things. Like science. different ways of going about it, but fundamentally to me its the same. I know that pisses people off on both sides but I really don't care. more people think like me so I don't feel alone

and it seems we all misunderstood each other in the last couple pages...so we all agree, Fuck Brians Link. hahahahaha

on a side note did you see the season finally of Bullshit? My buddy just called me to tell me that Penn and Teller totally outted the Vatican
and how Bush did a private pardon before left office for the Pope so noone can sue for the child molestation...fuckin insane!! thats awesome
,
I wish it was all over the news though.

I'm gonna go see if its on youtube.

[monkeybutter]

"I was hard core into religion but it started late in my life. early teens. wasn't brought up on it. then I was hardcore against it, now I'm realizing
it was just early forms of finding answers and understandings of all things. Like science. different ways of going about it, but fundamentally to me its the same."

science and religion are the same in the same way a sandwich and crystal meth are. both will solve the problem of 'im hungry' but come on, they're not the same.

[Zombie Dave McCaig]

Snakebite: I am obviously at a loss to understand why you don't understand the rules of science. MB is as well... Can you maybe ask us some questions so that we can clarify things for you? I can only say that science is the antithesis of faith so many times. Science and faith are not oil and water, but I can't think of a better visual right now.

[SNAKEBITE]

lol

you guys are so cute.

[Zombie Dave McCaig]

[monkeybutter]

lol

you guys are so cute.

lol

ur so dumb

[monkeybutter]

"With quantum physics we're finding perception can change reality."

this is a common - and understandable - misinterpetation of what quantum behavior means, and as soon as I get to a real computer ill try to address this point.

[Zombie Dave McCaig]

MB- Please address it in the Science forum, so I can tear quantum behavior a new asshole. IMO the precepts of quantum theory are all kinds of wrong, though the behavior makes sense.

[monkeybutter]

MB- Please address it in the Science forum, so I can tear quantum behavior a new asshole. IMO the precepts of quantum theory are all kinds of wrong, though the behavior makes sense.

I didn't know we had one of those. I'll just copy it over there as well. I'm not some quantum physics expert, I just remeber what they done teached me at college, so I'll be interested in the critique. I know there's been a lot of new work in the area but I havent paid a lot of attention to it.

Ok:

With quantum physics we're finding perception can change reality.

well, kind of, but not really in any way that is at all meaningful. At both extremes of scale - the quantum level where you're talking about where an electron is and at the macro level where you're talking about the curvature of space, your common sense and intuition become your enemy. There are metaphors that can help, but all the analogies break down because of how strangely things act.

So snake is (presumably) talking about the impossibility of observing an object at a quantum level without changing it's position, where the very act of looking at something changes that thing. I think we can all think of the philosophical analogues to this, but taking shelter under the idea that quantum theory embraces the "many realities" idea is false. Put about as simply as I can, you can't observe an object at the quantum scale without altering it because the smallest mechanism on the quantum scale for detecting something is to bounce a photon off it. This is a lot like finding out where someone is by throwing medicine balls around the room and listening for someone saying "oompf." At a quantum level, observing something is not a passive activity like our intuition tells us it is.

There's more to it, things like quantum superposition and quantum entanglement, neither of which make any goddamn intuitive sense, but make perfectly good mathematical sense, and both of which are verifiable and have in fact been verified and used in actual products that (if you had a giant sack of money) you could run right out and buy or make.

But the idea that quantum theory backs up the idea that observing something "changes" reality is really only true at a the smallest of scales or in the most abstract, handwavey way where you want to say that, for instance, the watergate investigation changed our collective reality by revealing bad behavior on the Presidents part and destroying our trust in the office or whatever.

[Jemm]

Ahahahahahaha!!


WOW.

[SNAKEBITE]

"ur so dumb"

there goes those science dudes again with their scientifical wordages.

hey my perception changed this forum! it evolved because of how I see things. awesome!

[monkeybutter]

"ur so dumb"

there goes those science dudes again with their scientifical wordages.

oh, sorry, is this the thread where only snakebite gets to be dismissive?

[joh james]

Really interesting thread. Especially the whole human condition playing out opposites and strict belief systems. Refreshing stuff, gang! I always find it fascinating the lengths the "ego" will go to hold onto the physical universe, as real as it is. Be it through faith, love, science, materialism, denial, compassion, validation, etc... And even moreso, "its" need to project these truths on other "egos".

One energy source, divided into multiple containers, labeled separately, competing, arguing, expounding on their individuality. Desperately seeking to establish each part of themselves as unique, when at their core, your cores, you're all reflections of the EXACT same source. Like people fighting with their shadowy counterparts, or mirrored reflections. Interesting.

Truth. No one has died. No one has been born. No new energy has been added or substracted from the universe's start. The "ego" is a necessary construct for the physical universe, but it's amazing how easily we define ourselves through our beliefs. Thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, all photonic manifestations on a physical plane. Projections of reality. In the physical universe science has proven that, as religion did many a millenia ago. Egos desperate to label the cosmos and it's place in it. All points are valid, all belief systems incorporated into the grand design.

It's still amazing to watch, in this case read, about two glasses of water(energy/people) knocking heads. Especially when they emanate from the same tap. I am both a follower of ancient religions and a hardcore, spank my mother, quantum physics junkie. I've got my own theories on what and who we are, and what's to come based on my own spiritual(physical/non physical) discoveries. Put it in an OGN, 4 years in the making. That much research to cover.

Good luck, all.