FAO: Stupid people.
Comments
-
-
I had a catholic upbringing, had to go to mass every Sunday until I was in my mid-teens and although I still have some sort of belief but it certainly isn't catholic anymore, and unlikely to ever be any sort of organised religion. I hate people trying to push their viewpoint on to me - and this applies not just to religious people but also people that go out of there way to disprove things. The only time I think you should criticise a person's religion is when they use it to justify making someone else suffer. The only other time it annoys me is when it gets mixed up with politics and law, for example I think it's ridiculous that a large number of Americans would only vote for a christian president.Santa Cruz Chameleon
Orange Alpine 1600 -
I have placed all of my faith, love and trust in our saviour, Lord David Icke0
-
If parents stopped telling their children what to believe, would religion, as we know it, die out in a single generation?
As for going out of your way to disprove things, isn't that curiousity and desire to learn something that should be encouraged?
I doubt someone like Stephen Hawkings does his work becuase he wants to disprove religion. He does it because he wants to know what happened. If what he finds disproves some religion's view on the world then so be it. Just like new discoveries often disprove existing scientific theories.0 -
I doubt it would. A lot of people "discover" religion later on in life, as an apparent answer to their troubles, or as something to hold on to in times of doubt or despair. It could possibly mean more to these people than it would for someone who was pushed into it as a child, because they consciously went down that path of their own free will.bails87 wrote:If parents stopped telling their children what to believe, would religion, as we know it, die out in a single generation?
I reckon it must also have a lot to do with human nature's questioning fascination. We, as people tend to seek answers, and will gravitate towards something that gives us those answers.
I don't agree with that. Someone like Hawking, has gone out of his way to discover the truth and understanding. It was not motivated by the desire to prove anything else wrong, but by a desire to understand.bails87 wrote:As for going out of your way to disprove things, isn't that curiousity and desire to learn something that should be encouraged?0 -
bails87 wrote:As for going out of your way to disprove things, isn't that curiousity and desire to learn something that should be encouraged?
Yes, I totally agree that we should always be pushing to learn new things. But, as the original post says I doubt Steven Hawkings started out his research by going "right, this week i'm going to disprove God" he just wanted to learn new things for the sake of learning new things.
EDIT- Yehaa beat me to my point, and probably worded it better to!Santa Cruz Chameleon
Orange Alpine 1600 -
I also had a Catholic upbringing. Bizarrely, I went to the same school as Andy (although many, many years apart...). Not sure what I believe in now TBH. According to the National Census, I'm a Jedi Knight... :?
I believe in fate and karma, but not really from any sort of religious point of view. I also believe there's nothing after death, no after life, you're just dead.0 -
Of course there's something after death. For most people it's called a funeral
0 -
The concept of disproving things isn't a problem, it's what the scientific principle is based on.
Create a theory
Test it
If there's no evidence that the theory's wrong, keep it
If there is evidence that it's wrong, then either reject or amend the theory
Mathematical theories can be proven, but scientific theories cannot. They can, however, be disproven, which is how scientific advances are made. Take the theory of the earth being the centre of the universe. By observation, this was proven to be incorrect, so new theories were formed to better explain the available evidence.
This does not mean, however, that everything can be disproven. As I said in the OP, the existence of God cannot and will not be disproven, ever. If he/she/it exists, he/she/it is something incomprehensible and unmeasurable by humans.0 -
im sorry, but scientific theory's can be proven, acording to scientific process, this is what should happen:whyamihere wrote:The concept of disproving things isn't a problem, it's what the scientific principle is based on.
Create a theory
Test it
If there's no evidence that the theory's wrong, keep it
If there is evidence that it's wrong, then either reject or amend the theory
Mathematical theories can be proven, but scientific theories cannot. They can, however, be disproven, which is how scientific advances are made. Take the theory of the earth being the centre of the universe. By observation, this was proven to be incorrect, so new theories were formed to better explain the available evidence.
This does not mean, however, that everything can be disproven. As I said in the OP, the existence of God cannot and will not be disproven, ever. If he/she/it exists, he/she/it is something incomprehensible and unmeasurable by humans.
Observation, something is observed and a theory is made as to why/what happens/heppened
Next experimantation/more observation is made and the theory gains either suport or discreditation
Finally, if the results are repeatable, clear and undisputable is is classified as fact.
For E.G Water is a gas(steam) at tempratures over 100 deg C.
This is obvioulsy observable, repeatable and is a fact. But At some point, a long time ago, it would have been a theory, and an observation.
And this is my probelm with Evolution, there is no real proof, and no way to prove it. There never will be and therefore it will only ever be a theory, and cannot be presented as fact... im not saying it is, but some do view it like that.
On the other hand many will say that Creation by an inteligent designer also has no proof, and this may be so, but it has no less proof that evolution, and to my mind does have some pretty good reasoning behind it.... i dont have blind faith, true faith cannot be blind, true faith is based on what you can see and discern to be true... therefore i cannot have faith in evolution, but i can and do have faith in am inteligent designer, becouse from what i can see, thats the most logical explantion.I like bikes and stuff0 -
"The peppered moth story is simple, easy to illustrate, and makes intuitive sense. When newly industrialised parts of Britain became polluted in the nineteenth century, smoke killed lichens growing on trees and blackened their bark. Pale coloured moths which had been well camouflaged before when they rested on tree trunks became very conspicuous and were eaten by birds. Rare dark moths, which had been conspicuous before, were now well camouflaged in the black background. As birds switched from eating mainly dark moths to mainly pale moths, the most common moth colour changed from pale to dark. Natural selection had caused a change in the British moth population. The moths had evolved."
proven evolution in action.0 -
Nope. Honestly, no scientific principle can be completely proven (I'm doing a physics degree, this is drilled into us hard). There are indeed theories which are well enough tested to be classified as fact, but that doesn't mean that they're considered proven. If there's even a single good piece of contrary evidence, then the theory will be thrown out or amended.
However, in the real world, this would be incredibly unwieldy. There are things which we accept as being true, because of the lack of contradictory evidence, for the purposes of ease.
Take Newtonian gravity. It was accepted for hundreds of years, until the beginning of the 20th century, when a couple of small problems were discovered by new techniques of observing cosmological effects. Einstein came up with a better theory of gravity, which explained these newly discovered phenomena. However, we still often use the Newtonian theory in our calculations, because, especially for situations arising on Earth, they're a damned good approximation, and a lot simpler to use than Einstein's model.
Oh, and it isn't a fact that water is a gas at temperatures above 100 Celsius. The temperature at which water evaporates is dependant on the pressure the water is at. At standard atmospheric pressure, then the water will indeed boil and evaporate at 100C. Change the pressure, however, and the boiling point changes.0 -
Evolution has more evidence to support it that creationism.
Whilst we're on the topic, and whilst nobody seems to be a knee jerk easily offended type...
0 -
joshtp wrote:
im sorry, but scientific theory's can be proven, acording to scientific process, this is what should happen:whyamihere wrote:The concept of disproving things isn't a problem, it's what the scientific principle is based on.
Create a theory
Test it
If there's no evidence that the theory's wrong, keep it
If there is evidence that it's wrong, then either reject or amend the theory
Mathematical theories can be proven, but scientific theories cannot. They can, however, be disproven, which is how scientific advances are made. Take the theory of the earth being the centre of the universe. By observation, this was proven to be incorrect, so new theories were formed to better explain the available evidence.
This does not mean, however, that everything can be disproven. As I said in the OP, the existence of God cannot and will not be disproven, ever. If he/she/it exists, he/she/it is something incomprehensible and unmeasurable by humans.
Observation, something is observed and a theory is made as to why/what happens/heppened
Next experimantation/more observation is made and the theory gains either suport or discreditation
Finally, if the results are repeatable, clear and undisputable is is classified as fact.
For E.G Water is a gas(steam) at tempratures over 100 deg C.
This is obvioulsy observable, repeatable and is a fact. But At some point, a long time ago, it would have been a theory, and an observation.
And this is my probelm with Evolution, there is no real proof, and no way to prove it. There never will be and therefore it will only ever be a theory, and cannot be presented as fact... im not saying it is, but some do view it like that.
On the other hand many will say that Creation by an inteligent designer also has no proof, and this may be so, but it has no less proof that evolution, and to my mind does have some pretty good reasoning behind it.... i dont have blind faith, true faith cannot be blind, true faith is based on what you can see and discern to be true... therefore i cannot have faith in evolution, but i can and do have faith in am inteligent designer, becouse from what i can see, thats the most logical explantion.
Your first section I don't agree with.
Its never taken as fact in physics but is taken as the most current accurate model, This was the first thing my physics profs told me at uni. You can mathmatically prove some things but otherwise all you can do is provide evidence in terms of tests to support the theory.
Look at wave particle duality for instance, two distinct theories for the same thing, why because we don't actually have a conclusive theory so we use wave theory and particle theory to describe actions depending.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Evolution has more evidence to support it that creationism.
Whilst we're on the topic, and whilst nobody seems to be a knee jerk easily offended type...
+++ 0 -
True dat.whyamihere wrote:Oh, and it isn't a fact that water is a gas at temperatures above 100 Celsius. The temperature at which water evaporates is dependant on the pressure the water is at. At standard atmospheric pressure, then the water will indeed boil and evaporate at 100C. Change the pressure, however, and the boiling point changes.
I recall something about water boiling at temperatures as low as 60 degrees at the top ov Everest, or something like that.
However, water has a triple point at 0.01C,m where it can be a liquid, solid, or gas.0 -
If I remember correctly, the wave/particle duality is kinda old hat - aren't the current theories kicking around that neither wave nor particle theories are correct?
'Most accurate model' isn't proof. Mathematical theories can be proven. Not 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' or with any other stipulations.0 -
I also like this one:
Santa Cruz Chameleon
Orange Alpine 1600 -
psymon wrote:cee wrote:agreed.
surely it would make more sense when presented with evidence of things like evolution, for religious people to reply...
thing is....there is still so much that science has been unable to explain...
the most sensible religious people I have met have always said...god created all things....evolution was the mechanism by which he created us etc
thats the hip new way the church explains the evidence of evolution....they call it creationism.
and its just as much carp as the rest of the poison they bash on about.
eh...no...creationism is opposed to evolution. it says that god created us as we were... I am saying sensible religious people are saying god created evolution as a process by which to allow us to become. why the bold? I understand what evidence is....its indicatory that something happened.
Remember...science is only fact until we learn more. then facts change.
Does god exist? pass.
did evolution happen? I believe it did...all the evidence points to it.
does that mean it is 100% fact...no. but on the balance of probablities given the evidence...it is the most likely thing. thats all scientific theory is....the most probable based on what we currently know.
Who knows....we might find out at some point that there is in fact a flying spaghetti monster! and that bobby henderson was a prophet!Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
True, but they're still the most commonly used for the vast amount of calculations, since they work in all but extremely bizarre circumstances. Similar to the gravity problem.Tartanyak wrote:If I remember correctly, the wave/particle duality is kinda old hat - aren't the current theories kicking around that neither wave nor particle theories are correct?0 -
hmmm, good point, and sorry, i forgot about the pressure affecting boiling point... DOH! :oops:whyamihere wrote:Nope. Honestly, no scientific principle can be completely proven (I'm doing a physics degree, this is drilled into us hard). There are indeed theories which are well enough tested to be classified as fact, but that doesn't mean that they're considered proven. If there's even a single good piece of contrary evidence, then the theory will be thrown out or amended.
However, in the real world, this would be incredibly unwieldy. There are things which we accept as being true, because of the lack of contradictory evidence, for the purposes of ease.
Take Newtonian gravity. It was accepted for hundreds of years, until the beginning of the 20th century, when a couple of small problems were discovered by new techniques of observing cosmological effects. Einstein came up with a better theory of gravity, which explained these newly discovered phenomena. However, we still often use the Newtonian theory in our calculations, because, especially for situations arising on Earth, they're a damned good approximation, and a lot simpler to use than Einstein's model.
Oh, and it isn't a fact that water is a gas at temperatures above 100 Celsius. The temperature at which water evaporates is dependant on the pressure the water is at. At standard atmospheric pressure, then the water will indeed boil and evaporate at 100C. Change the pressure, however, and the boiling point changes.
Anyway, im not out to say one is better than the other, or to change peoples minds, everyone is entitiled to their own opinion.
Oh, and as for the Butterfly, well im sorry, but thats adaption, not evolution, its still a butterfly, Humans in a hotter climated often have darker skin, better suited to the hotter climate, thats less liabel to burn, but they are still humans.I like bikes and stuff0 -
Yep. String theory explains it in a different way. Unfortunately, it has the disadvantage of making your head explode.Tartanyak wrote:If I remember correctly, the wave/particle duality is kinda old hat - aren't the current theories kicking around that neither wave nor particle theories are correct?
M theory has a different explanation again. Unfortunately, if string theory is like making your head explode with TNT, M theory uses a nuke.
The wave/particle duality theory is convenient, and relatively simple. For most calculations, it's good enough.0 -
Tartanyak wrote:If I remember correctly, the wave/particle duality is kinda old hat - aren't the current theories kicking around that neither wave nor particle theories are correct?
'Most accurate model' isn't proof. Mathematical theories can be proven. Not 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' or with any other stipulations.
thats not entirely true either....
it might be...if we knew everything. but say a new way of thinking emerges that allows us to grasp things in a different way...some proven theories...may then actually be disproven!
but then you get into the messy philosophy part.....Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
forget proof or no proof for a moment.
honest question.....if god is there why is he such an arse?
why has he given me arthritis at 27 years old.
allowed my nan to do nothing but lie in a bed for 5 years before death.
killed thousands in the recent pakistan floods.
as well as the countless lives taken in his name.
why isnt earth a nicer place to be?0 -
Physics is mearly a bunch of models to explain the behaviour as we see it.
Each theory is potentially closer to the truth but still. Like the old pumb pudding atom theories and so on
Its all theories at the end of it. But so is religion its belief and theory untill someone kind of comes up with a new one, then we spread our opinion about.0 -
I think this is a problem with the way that evolution is taught, rather than a problem with the theory itself. Many people cite a problem with evolution as "If humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't there monkeys having human babies?". Indeed, to this end, I saw a guy last week walking round with a tshirt saying "Evolution - where scientists made a monkey out of themselves". Evolution theory DOESN'T say that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that modern humans and modern apes had a shared ancestor, many millions of years ago, and through a series of adaptations which proved beneficial, evolved in different ways.joshtp wrote:Oh, and as for the Butterfly, well im sorry, but thats adaption, not evolution, its still a butterfly, Humans in a hotter climated often have darker skin, better suited to the hotter climate, thats less liabel to burn, but they are still humans.
Take lions and tigers as an example. Different animals, yes? I saw a fantastic documentary a couple of months ago which featured a dissection of them. Turns out that under the skin, they're identical. Essentially, the only difference is the colouring of their coat, with lions being coloured to blend in to a desert environment, and tigers suiting a jungle environment. This is what evolutionary theory is. Lions and tigers would have had a common ancestor, and over time adapted to their different habitats. The common ancestor would have kept being spotted by prey in either situation, and so wouldn't have had anything to eat. The more highly adapted examples would have enough to eat, and so would pass along their genes to their children.
Evolution isn't a fast process. It's a series of tiny adaptations, over millions of years. Those tiny adaptations, though, add up to bigger changes.
It is, however, only a theory, and you are utterly entitled to a different view.0 -
I know youl tell me to shut up becouse your pretty determined that there is no god..... all that, but its humans Fault.....psymon wrote:forget proof or no proof for a moment.
honest question.....if god is there why is he such an ars*?
why has he given me arthritis at 27 years old.
allowed my nan to do nothing but lie in a bed for 5 years before death.
killed thousands in the recent pakistan floods.
as well as the countless lives taken in his name.
why isnt earth a nicer place to be?
Again, you wont belive it, but acording to the Bible (lets presume that its accurate, and is gods word, again i highly dobt you belive this) God created Humans perfect, they would never die, and would have perfect bodies without sickness and pain...... But Adam sinned, and here we are... God's allowing rebeliouse Satan to do his thing and prove he's a muppet, and that he cant rule humas succesfully, before stepping in to return things to their original glory acording to his purpose, this, i belive will be soon.
of cource, you have to belive in a god in the fist place to belive that, and from what i can see, there is nothing to say there is no god, and a whole heap of evidence to say there is.
BTW, im a Jehovah's Witness, and pretty much all the info you would ever need about us can be found here:
http://www.watchtower.org/
and here:
http://www.jw-media.org/I like bikes and stuff0 -
yes, i understand that, and i get it totaly, and i agree that evolution has many plausable idea's, but as a whole, in my mind, it just doesnt add up.whyamihere wrote:
I think this is a problem with the way that evolution is taught, rather than a problem with the theory itself. Many people cite a problem with evolution as "If humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't there monkeys having human babies?". Indeed, to this end, I saw a guy last week walking round with a tshirt saying "Evolution - where scientists made a monkey out of themselves". Evolution theory DOESN'T say that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that modern humans and modern apes had a shared ancestor, many millions of years ago, and through a series of adaptations which proved beneficial, evolved in different ways.joshtp wrote:Oh, and as for the Butterfly, well im sorry, but thats adaption, not evolution, its still a butterfly, Humans in a hotter climated often have darker skin, better suited to the hotter climate, thats less liabel to burn, but they are still humans.
Take lions and tigers as an example. Different animals, yes? I saw a fantastic documentary a couple of months ago which featured a dissection of them. Turns out that under the skin, they're identical. Essentially, the only difference is the colouring of their coat, with lions being coloured to blend in to a desert environment, and tigers suiting a jungle environment. This is what evolutionary theory is. Lions and tigers would have had a common ancestor, and over time adapted to their different habitats. The common ancestor would have kept being spotted by prey in either situation, and so wouldn't have had anything to eat. The more highly adapted examples would have enough to eat, and so would pass along their genes to their children.
Evolution isn't a fast process. It's a series of tiny adaptations, over millions of years. Those tiny adaptations, though, add up to bigger changes.
It is, however, only a theory, and you are utterly entitled to a different view.
thankyou, its nice to meet someone who has respect for others belifes. And i respect yours too. I like bikes and stuff0
