Having an existential crisis

j00t_sl said:

why is it that as soon as someone says he's religious, everyone comes out of the woodworks to call him crazy?

Click to expand...

I don't think Cad went off on you because you stated you were religious. I think he did it because you took it a step further and equated non-religious scientific research with religious faith. You backed away from that here, but are still making some pretty silly claims. Being taught something is not "fanaticism," I don't understand why you're going down this path. You used an incorrect word to describe something, not the end of the world, why double down? This is the kind of thing that drives these religion/anti-religion back and forths.

chaos_sl said:

I don't think you are in any position to tell people what is welcome in a particular forum. If his post offends you so much put him on ignore and go see an OB about that weepy pussy of yours.

Click to expand...

You got around to saying this more than a week after my post? Comon, bro.

A true bro would have been on top of that shit, I have let you down.

chaos_sl said:

I don't think Cad went off on you because you stated you were religious. I think he did it because you took it a step further and equated non-religious scientific research with religious faith. You backed away from that here, but are still making some pretty silly claims. Being taught something is not "fanaticism," I don't understand why you're going down this path. You used an incorrect word to describe something, not the end of the world, why double down? This is the kind of thing that drives these religion/anti-religion back and forths.

Click to expand...

well, firstly i appreciate the non-biased response. secondly though, i think people on this board have a tendancy to read half a post and then respond emotionally and errationally to imagined slights and insults. though, being the author of my own posts, i'll take responsibility in not being as clear as i could or should have been. i don't think i ever said that non-religious scientific research was the same as religious faith. i said that some people can be fanatical about their own personal beliefs in science. that doesn't mean that science as a whole is fanatical or that the scientific community are fanatics. i'm not equating science and religion. i'm not equating anything. science, by definition is exact. religion, by definition, is not.

let me put it this way... there have been people all throughout history that have used scientific research to back up their OWN PERSONAL beliefs... things like, white people are genetically better than black people. that's even something that poeple are STILL trying to argue. and Sir Isaac Newton was utterly convinced of alchemy.

so, i'm not attacking science, or scientists or anything like that. i'm simply pointing out that someone can have an irrationally strong "belief" in anything, even if the thing they "believe in" is something that admonishes faith itself.

Tuco_sl said:

I'm religious. Zero people have called me crazy on here because of it. People are calling you crazy because you're saying stupid things.

Click to expand...

fine.

seriously... is what i'm saying completely retarded or are people stuck on the idea of having faith in science?

because that's not what i'm saying. what if instead of the term "fanaticism" i used the phrase "blind science?"

this is from an article about blind science vs blind faith.

This student was walking across campus with a professor whose field is religious studies. In their conversation, the student happened to mention the resurrection of Christ. The professor's response: The resurrection is inconsistent with the laws of physics. Now, in fact, the laws of physics lie at a considerable conceptual distance from phenomena such as human death and decay and their possible reversal. This particular professor in any case, would have little if any idea where to begin showing that resurrection conflicts with physics?or why it matters, if it does conflict. Indeed, who would? Very few, I would imagine. "Science" was vaguely invoked to end the discussion, just as in other contexts, "religion" is used for the same purpose.

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=104

you're right of course and i conceded that i didn't clarify well enough originally that i wasn't denigrating science. i wasn't saying ANYTHING about science. so for me to even say "bad science exists" would still be disingenuous to my point. bad SCIENTISTS exist. that's my point. my point is that PEOPLE pick and choose what they want to hear, what they want to see, and what they want to believe. and that habit can be applied to ANY medium. that doesn't mean that the medium itself looses worth, or that the medium itself needs to be defended.

it's like someone saying they don't like a specific gold necklace because it's gaudy and then someone responding by telling them how valuable gold is. you're missing the point. it's not about how valuable or invaluable gold is. the issue is that the person thinks this one, very specific style of jewelry is gaudy.

i'm... not wrapping up anything...

seriously people. get some stability that someone can have a differing opinion than you (even if it's not) and be able to have a "grown-up" conversation without devolving into name calling. you are all so stuck on that idea that i said science requires faith. and that science and religion are equal.

the topic was, have you ever had an existential crisis. someone mentioned that only religious losers have existential crises because they need imaginary people to make them feel good about themselves. MY existential crisis came from realizing that these infallible people i grew up with are NOT infallible. i had a lot of people abuse religion AND abuse science and i had to re-identify everything that had been taught to me. it occured to me that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. they can't be for the very reason that every one keeps pointing out. they are two different things.one doesn't disprove the other

but as soon as someone says science and someone says religion, everybody gets all up in arms ready to throw down and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right and the other person is wrong. which, by the way. goes completely against science. science isn't about proving that you are right and someone else is wrong. it's about discovering with concrete fact what is truth. that, to me, does not have anything to do with disproving... well, anything. it can be used to disprove things, of course. but that is NOT it's purpose.

so everybody. lay it to rest. if you don't agree with me, that's perfectly fine by me. if you want to have an adult conversation about it, great. i don't even care if you want to neg me and call me names. perfectly find by me. but the sheer fact that the only response over and over and over again is insults means that you are, exactly, the people i am talking about.

"people can become fanatical about anything, even science."
"you retard, science is perfect."
"i... didn't say it wasn't. i ddn't say anything about science. i said PEOPLE can..."
"no, you are making science and religion equal rabble rabble rabble."

Okay, that's fair. So I guess my question is what did I say that was so offensive? I won't what I said that was stupid as that is a completely subjective statement. But I'm seriously curious what I said that was offensive. I have better things to do with my time than to offend people out of ignorance. No sarcasm intended

When did lumie make another account?

Proof? There isn't any one way or the other. There is however, scientific arguments that one can make that, at the very least, keep the debate for god vs no god very much alive. Scientifically speaking, an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion unless otherwise affected by another force. This means that something had to START everything else. An intelligent force had to guide and direct creation. Which goes along with the next point. All things are contingent meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Meaning that there was a time when they didn't exist. We all know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and yet scientifically we know that there was a time nothing existed. Meaning, again that some force had to create everything. A thing cannot create itself for it needs to exist in order to create.

Scientific proof? No of course not. But I just showed using, more or less, modern scientific principles that I have as much scientific evidence to support my claims as you do to support yours.

But this conversation isn't about proving our disproving god. It's about whether or not people fanatically make scientific claims about something they are unable to scientifically back up and dimly use the argument "it's science" as if they are invoking some case study in a court room.

And again, what did I say that was so offensive? I asked, genuinely. And again I was insulted. This is the grown up thread. Why is the only response name calling?

You're rehashing Aquinas, badly.

Badly because you don't agree, or badly because I've misrepresented some of his arguments?

Read this site, j00t.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page