science vs religion

JamesB5446

Daz555 wrote:

Most important thing about placebo is that it is as effective as homeopathy.

Now there's a good review!

St Mark

Professor Wiggle fitting the latest argument enhancer to subject B5446

JamesB5446

Anyone else feel a draft in here?

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Stop being a moron.
If you have the evidence show it.

Either that, or admit that I'm the best cyclist in the world because you can't find anything proving I'm not.

Then what, you're going to ask about wave/particle duality, or gravity, or newtonian mechanics?
Get over yourself. Like I said, it's a well established phenomenon, go educate yourself and quit being a jackass.

JamesB5446

You really are a bit of an arse.

I've never once said that the placebo effect isn't real. I know plenty about it and know that it is real. All I said was that I'm not sure if it is as effective as the real medicine. This for some reason has inspired you to act all big and clever. Perhaps it is, perhaps you know it is and enjoy the feeling of knowing something that others don't know. I'm off work at the moment after being ran over so I've got plenty of time to look things up if you want to at least point me in the right direction.

Can you at least do it without being a gigantic fucking twancunt though? I really am interested to learn more on the subject, it's fascinating stuff.

Gazlar

Right, Time to reply

JamesB5446 wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

Yes you have, that's why there are many different sects within each religion, such as Catholicism, Methodism etc and then there are many theological divisions within those divisions.

So you can be Catholic without believing in the Catholic definition of god? I'm not so sure about that.

At no point do I say that you can be a Catholic without supporting the main views and teachings of the Catholic Church, what I do say is that there are different sectors of in this case Christianity in which you can pick which best suits your views and then within those denominations there is certainly room for interpretation on a number of issues. An example of this is the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury supports Women Bishops but opposes gay marriage. These are just two example issues but there are many theological interpretaions within a sect.

JamesB5446 wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

Yes

Starting personally with my Nan whose faith kept her going when she lost her husband and daughter in quick succession. Speak to her and she will happily tell you that her faith In God's will was what kept her going

Or an aloholic colleague who found god and has been sober since.

These are small scale but then think about charities who we're formed by religious groups to carry Out God's work, charities like St. John ambulance, red cross and crescent, salvation army or Samaritans. Not only do people benefit from receiving their help but they help the people who are involved by giving them activity, friendships, satisfaction in their life.

Then the work of missionaries and active religious members in general.

Don't get me wrong I'm not religious but I'd never tell or even think someone was an idiot for having a theological belief. The time belief becomes problematic is when people are unwilling to accept people's beliefs, tell them they are wrong, etc etc. This counts for religion on religion or religion vs other such as science.

It's interesting that when people say that religion causes war some will say "no, no, people cause war" then in the next breath say that religion inspired all these great acts.

Again at no point have I said that religion doesnt become an incendary force for war, what you asked me was to give examples of what good religion has done for people so I did. Interestingly if you take the example of war and ask what have wars been about, is it solely religion, what about political war? wars about greed and territory or against different races. The common denominator in all of these is that it involves two or more parties with differing views, one trying to outdo the other, in many situations (WW2 a good example of this) a case where one side has taken an intolerence to a different parties way of thinking (example the Nazis/Jews) and then another side steps in as they feel what is happening is morally deplorable (Britain stepping in after the invasion of Poland)

If you were to take your view that religion is stupid people should stop believing in it and force people to believe in what you think, then that kind of attitude historically is one of the greatest starters of conflict. To say that religion should be stopeed as it can lead to conflict is like saying Football should be stopped because it can lead to hooliganism, gangs of supporters with different loyalties fighting over something. But then when you look further into it, how many people take something positive from Football? Things like the opportunity to play some sport, be part of a team, have a social day watching a game with friends and family. Religion is the same, whether you believe in it or not, what gives anyone the right to criticize someone elses belief if its not harmful? I'm certainly not criticizing your belief in a scienfitic world, what I will stand here and criticize is your intollerence and lack of acceptance of peoples differing beliefs, because to me, that is the biggest evil in the world.

JamesB5446 wrote:

As for your nan, how do you know she wouldn't have coped without religion?

Final point here and the answer is because I know her. Not the answer you were looking for was it? But you won't get it because we are into the realms of conciousness and the Human experience, which science has no answers for. What I have given you is anecdotal evidence to support the claims but if you want something quantifiable in a scientific sense then its up to you to disprove my theory by firstly working out scientifically what conciousness is and then working out how to callibrate it. Your argument from an earlier post of "its not up to me to disporove something" wont wash as there have been many developments of theories in science which have not only proved their point, but also had to disprove an existing theory, so ball is in your court there. My friends Nan has Alzheimers and her belief that the resedential homes cat is her dead husband it clearly to most minds barmy, but it provides her with comfort, does it hurt anyone, nope, so why does she need to be told differently. The same reason I wouldnt tell my 95 year old nan that shes a moron for putting her faith in God, it makes her happy and it hurts nobody.

Which brings us onto the bigger question of why can't science understand the human conciousness? Science is limited in the fact that it can tell us how, but not the bigger picture of why, for what purpose. Take electricity as an example scientists can tell you exactly how it works, but can they tell you for what purpose it first existed, no because nobody knows.

The reason for everything is a pschological guessing game. Yes the world may have been created with the big bang, but again for what reason? Is it a natural phenomenon or could it be that the world was created by a Deity and that Science is merely the understanding of the mechanics of how it works much in the same way that man created the car and mechanics is the understanding of how that works.

I'm not saying I believe that but what I am trying to illustrate that to believe in science you need faith too, faith in that what you believe is right. Science cannot answer every question so you have to have faith that one of the unanswered ones doesnt come along and bugger up every theory that has ever been believed. What science cant do is tell us how and why we feel what we feel, and if we didnt have that, we wouldnt live we would exist and I know which I would rather do.

Chunkers1980

Well said Gaz.

YeehaaMcgee

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Well said Gaz.

Plus faithful potato.

Daz555

Gazlar wrote:

Which brings us onto the bigger question of why can't science understand the human conciousness? Science is limited in the fact that it can tell us how, but not the bigger picture of why, for what purpose. Take electricity as an example scientists can tell you exactly how it works, but can they tell you for what purpose it first existed, no because nobody knows.

The reason for everything is a psychological guessing game. Yes the world may have been created with the big bang, but again for what reason? Is it a natural phenomenon or could it be that the world was created by a Deity and that Science is merely the understanding of the mechanics of how it works much in the same way that man created the car and mechanics is the understanding of how that works. .

This is just typical of the arrogance of the human condition - the assumption that the universe owes us a "why" or that there is a purpose to it.

An assumption sat on a foundation of zero evidence. Sounds a bit like a religious faith to me.

JamesB5446

And a total lack of what science is.

Science is not what we as a species collectively know, it is the process of finding out things be testing them. It's not science that can't explain things, it's people, we just don't have the knowledge yet. When most people thought that a god or gods created the earth, that wasn't science being wrong, that was people.

Chinley Churner

Gazlar wrote:

Which brings us onto the bigger question of why can't science understand the human conciousness? Science is limited in the fact that it can tell us how, but not the bigger picture of why, for what purpose. Take electricity as an example scientists can tell you exactly how it works, but can they tell you for what purpose it first existed, no because nobody knows.

A well thought out and worded post but this statement is fundamentally flawed. There is no "purpose" or design in the natural world, intelligent or otherwise.

YeehaaMcgee

No, but human curiosity drives mankind to question why, as well as how.

Gazlar

JamesB5446 wrote:

When most people thought that a god or gods created the earth, that wasn't science being wrong, that was people.

Prove that that's wrong though scientifically, prove that the big bang want a religious phenomenon without saying well because science says so, where is your proof that science isn't the mechanics of a religious world, were you there? Is science always accurate? Until you can do that it's wrong to tell people their belief system is wrong, but until then you have to have faith in what we already know, like scientists of other days had faith in what they, sometimes erroneously understood. As science evolves more and more people move away from religion but that's through their own inquisition and their own minds asking questions of faith as science answers more but at the moment you are arguing a traditional but flawed argument such as religion against a more modern argument in science which is flawed by error and incompleteness and at the moment some people are gap to stay with their current belief supplier as they are happy with it.

After being brought up at a church school I made that transition at an early age and moved away from a theological belief. When I went to secondary school I was one of only 3 lads raised in Christian belief in my class and it have me an insight into how important people's faith was to then be It Islamic, Hindi, Sikh or Buddhist.

This brings us on to What Daz says about it being so wrong that humans feel they are owed a why are we here? I think it's a wonderful thing people want to know that. It's what drives scientific research and has done from day one. Science is asking questions and solving them and the great unknown is why do we feel, the concept of consciousness which according to a scientific world would be merely a mechanical system of some sort but do we really want to know why? This inquisition and the asking of the why's is also what separates us from animals, it's why we ask questions, why we enjoy, why we love and we why we hate. To solve that would be like solving an RPG, yeah you can still go through the motions but where's the fun of discovery? If we break down or consciousness into a mechanical system then life becomes a process not an experience.

That's why I'm happy we have the why's, why I'm happy for people to believe in a flawed back story, happy for people up be wrong and right as long as it's with respect and not harmful. It's what makes life great and interesting and intriguing

JamesB5446

Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.

Gazlar

JamesB5446 wrote:

Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.

I don't doubt you are in your mind or maybe other people's mind too and if that's the case then fine, that belief doesn't harm anyone if it turns out to be disproved at some point in fact it's what pushes you to be better or the best. At the point someone else says "I'm the best" and makes a case for it that has enough evidence for you to believe it, that's the point you will choose to believe that maybe you aren't the best anymore. If someone says they're the best but hasn't got enough evidence to convince you personally you won't believe, but it's up to them to collate that evidence to satisfy you or not collate it and accept that you think differently

Chunkers1980

Is that all you've got?

Car should have done a proper job on you.

JamesB5446

Gazlar wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.

I don't doubt you are in your mind or maybe other people's mind too and if that's the case then fine, that belief doesn't harm anyone if it turns out to be disproved at some point in fact it's what pushes you to be better or the best. At the point someone else says "I'm the best" and makes a case for it that has enough evidence for you to believe it, that's the point you will choose to believe that maybe you aren't the best anymore. If someone says they're the best but hasn't got enough evidence to convince you personally you won't believe, but it's up to them to collate that evidence to satisfy you or not collate it and accept that you think differently

Nope. It's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the person who doesn't believe them to prove them wrong.

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Is that all you've got?

Car should have done a proper job on you.

Fuck you cunt, that kind of talk would get you hurt in real life.

At least the other people I disagree with can make their points without wishing death or injury on a fellow cyclist. I suggest you have a good hard think about things before you flap your cunt mouth.

Cleat Eastwood

Gazlar wrote:

Prove that that's wrong though scientifically, prove that the big bang want a religious phenomenon without saying well because science says so, where is your proof that science isn't the mechanics of a religious world, were you there? Is science always accurate? Until you can do that it's wrong to tell people their belief system is wrong.....and other stuff

Very well put.

James a few pages back yeeha mentioned religious texts as relating deep and profound moral tales, and as gaz has said so eloquently the human condition is one of inherent joy and pain and loss. We know this without there being any scientific measure for that grief or joy or loss - as each perspective is self encapsulated, but you clearly believe there is a measure- so let me ask you (and I understand that you haven't read the biblical texts you criticise - such are the perils of studying at the altar of wiki) -

So -at what point do you believe those recursive moral tales are made absolute? If you can cut and paste a way to understand that you'll find a way to understand why people need systems to understand themselves and others is what is essentially a pointless existence, but which is in 'reality' rich and teeming and vital.

Cleat Eastwood

JamesB5446 wrote:

Science is not what we as a species collectively know, it is the process of finding out things be testing them. It's not science that can't explain things, it's people, we just don't have the knowledge yet. When most people thought that a god or gods created the earth, that wasn't science being wrong, that was people.

Also this isnt strictly true. If you read any analysis of the babylonian creation myths or the early egyptian texts on the creation of the world you'll find that actually modern science got it wrong. Those creation myths were actuallt details, in part, although some were admittedly wrong, of actual observable physical events (floods and measurements of the turning of the seasons)

They were discounted by science as they were written in a language - mainly metaphor - that our modern world simply did not understand. It wasn't that the people were wrong it was that the langugae they used was unknown to us - our arrogance made us blind..

Again these are rich and powerful texts - they show us a world which we can never visit or experience- they shouldnt be dismissed as readily as you would wish.

St Mark

JamesB5446 wrote:
‘Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.’

I choose not to believe that you are the best cyclist in the world. I don’t need to prove you’re not the best cyclist in the world unless you are making that claim and in which case

JamesB5446 wrote
‘It's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the person who doesn't believe them to prove them wrong.’

JamesB5446

Cleat. No, you've missed the point completely. Science didn't get it wrong, people got it wrong.

And I've not dismissed any texts. I think the myths of all cultures should be taught in schools for example, it gives a good incite into how and why our cultures have evolved the way they have. Don't mistake me as someone who thinks all bibles should be burned just because I don't believe in god.

Mark, that was my point.

pesky_jones

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Is that all you've got?

Car should have done a proper job on you.

Thats pretty low especially coming from another cyclist. I'd be looking out for carma

JamesB5446

?

Gazlar

Gazlar wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.

I don't doubt you are in your mind or maybe other people's mind too and if that's the case then fine, that belief doesn't harm anyone if it turns out to be disproved at some point in fact it's what pushes you to be better or the best. At the point someone else says "I'm the best" and makes a case for it that has enough evidence for you to believe it, that's the point you will choose to believe that maybe you aren't the best anymore. If someone says they're the best but hasn't got enough evidence to convince you personally you won't believe, but it's up to them to collate that evidence to satisfy you or not collate it and accept that you think differently

Nope. It's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the person who doesn't believe them to prove them wrong.

.[/quote]

Read it again James and you'll see that's what I said. Someone who isn't you claims that they are in fact the greatest in the world but you dispute the fact they have to prove it significant enough to satisfy you or accept you don't agree. That's what I wrote clearly last time as well.

To bring that back to science, as scientists answer more questions people will change their views, but only at the point the evidence satisfies their own mind. Look how modern religions have replaced things such as Norse mythology. What you can't do is dictate to someone that their belief is in your opinion wrong, what you can do however is keep finding things out respectfully, keep presenting them and change people's minds that way or accept that they still aren't satisfied.

JamesB5446

Gazlar wrote:

What you can't do is dictate to someone that their belief is in your opinion wrong, what you can do however is keep finding things out respectfully, keep presenting them and change people's minds that way or accept that they still aren't satisfied.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

thekickingmule

JamesB5446 wrote:

Again, prove I'm not the best cyclist in the world.

Ok, well, I'd say that the current best 'cyclist' in the world would be Bradley Wiggins, having won him Olympic Gold and Tour de France.
He isn't sponsored by Cinelli, or called James. He did get run over though. I was concerned about him getting run over though, but not you. Therefore I can dismiss you as being him.

JamesB5446 wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Is that all you've got?
Car should have done a proper job on you.

fark you ****, that kind of talk would get you hurt in real life.
At least the other people I disagree with can make their points without wishing death or injury on a fellow cyclist. I suggest you have a good hard think about things before you flap your **** mouth.

I think we've touched a nerve!

Welcome to the CrudCatcher

JamesB5446

I won the giro d'galaxy. I'm still da bess.

Chunkers1980

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Is that all you've got?

Car should have done a proper job on you.

fark you ****, that kind of talk would get you hurt in real life.

At least the other people I disagree with can make their points without wishing death or injury on a fellow cyclist. I suggest you have a good hard think about things before you flap your **** mouth.[/quote]

a) No it wouldn't, as I'm actually the hardest person in the World, or to go even further than that, the God created universe.
b)Perhaps you should pay more attention to religion, sticks and stones and all that. As I've verberally wished something on you in jest (as you clearly want to hear nothing of the other side and your mind is shut) and you've retaliated by saying I would be hurt.
c)Welcome to Crudcatcher, we welcome you in a ditch, sideways as your car incident.

JamesB5446

a) unlucky for you then that I'm the hardest person in the lab that contains the petri dish that contains the god that created your universe. aaaaah
b) Religion has never stopped anyone having a short tempter, I'm over it now, at the time I spat my dummy out and in real life I probably would have too. I'm aware of my flaws.
c) Hiya.

Gazlar

JamesB5446 wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

What you can't do is dictate to someone that their belief is in your opinion wrong, what you can do however is keep finding things out respectfully, keep presenting them and change people's minds that way or accept that they still aren't satisfied.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

No but that kind of oppressive practice causes more war than church Of England pensioners who want a cup of tea, some company and talk about how good Cliff Richard looks.

Everyone needs a role model be it maybe made up or real, fortunately the crudcatcher has me, who whilst not claiming to be a God, certainly would be regarded as a borderline national treasure