Topic: Manilla vs. Arthurion
On 2008.11.01 at 2:59 am blueczarina wrote:
We got to talking awhile back. About religion. Arthur saved the conversation and sent it to me. I thought it would be cool to get everyone’s take on it.
WARNING: LONG READ!
Derek: it’s thunderstorming here, i’m staring at it
sorry for delay
my kitty’s rain sleep worked
me: no problem… talking about that, i have the itchy feeling we are seeing more storms last few years, here in NL at least. last year 2 windows where blown from my house!
not for you, but i love storms
i’m a geologist
you know that
me: oh i love them too!
Derek: our perspective of time is seriously warped
4.6 billion years
if you do the math
we’ve been around (in a 24-hour day), for the last fucking minute
i’m entranced by rain
me: yup, true. and we might be gone in the 3rd minute again. nothing to worry about
Derek: it, over time, turns mountains into valleys
me: yeah. they even find seashelves in the Himalaya if I’m right, and all continents float away and towards each other again. Mankind is just a little thingy happening somewhere in the universe, earth is not even a molucule inside a tiny bit of sanddust in the shoe of a giant
Derek: there you go
glad you feel like i do
man always concerned about mother earth…guess what? she’ll be fine. man? we’re fucked.
me: i guess you’re not the one to believe in an afterlife, right?
religion and science
i don’t mix
they are one in the same
me: yeah somehow they are, and somehow they aren;t also. religion = based on fear for the unknown and the suffering, and philosophy and science is questioning the things that happen
Derek: science is based on recording observations and then making conclusions based upon those observations. then, you start recording data over a long period of time. example: the sun rises everday. how do we know this? because hundreds of years \"prove\" this. but, how do you explain tomorrow, when the sun doesn’t rise? therefore, it’s still a faith based thought process, even though people like to pretend it’s not.
me: thats too simple for me. The Sun IS => fact by proof, God ISN’T => belief by hundreds of groups of silly people all believing different things.
Derek: wrong though
prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow, and provide your basis
i agree about religion
not about science though
science IS => using past observations to predict the future
that is pure and simple, faith
me: no, I’m not with you completely
I throw a rock at you, it hits you on the head and it hurts badly. Are you going to duck and cover when I throw the next stone?
meaning: we can predict it will hurt again in the future?
Derek: you assume gravity still applies
big assumption, don’t you think?
me: yes, very big assumption, but as all people search for cover for 100,000 years already when a stone is heading their way, it has become a 1:1,000,000+ chance that gravity will disappear on it;s track. Fair belief it will hurt when I throw the next stone, so instead of having faith in gravity disappearing, I accept the assumption of its existence as a fact
Derek: that’s your flaw
\"accept the assumption as fact\"
how is that different that religion?
they are no different
me: because the odds are the other way round
Derek: one = the other
odds are odds
odds are not absolute
therefore, not \"holy\"
therefore, not foolproof
therefore, not laws
just laws as we perceive them at this point in time
me: yup, exactly. we agree on 1 + 1 = 2, this agreement makes life a little more simple for the people when everybody on earth will say the same thing: yes, we agreed on 1 + 1 = 2. But it’s like with the \"truth\", it doesnt exist, nowhere. What we call truth is a simple insight that we think we have, and that changed over the years and centuries. However, some laws, or agreements, never change. 1 + 1 = 2 remains.
Derek: 1 + 1 = 2, as far as I know, will never change. it’s defined by man. how could it change?
it can’t change, it’s governed by man, not the \"world\"
me: but the word \"fact\" vs \"belief\" is not on the same level as 1 + 1 = 2. It’s open to interpretation
Derek: give me one fact not defined by man
we all die
how do we \"know\" this?
we therefore believe, hey, 100 gabillion people all died
therefore, we must all die
faith is what you have in the unknown, in the things you cannot touch, cannot see. facts, although they can change, have been proven by large numbers
it’s a matter of definition
what i submit
is that they are one in the same
you cannot define science w/o a form of faith, i.e. the past repeating itself, no matter how long the data stream may be
me: but I’m not having faith in yes or no I’m gonna die, I accept as a fact that I will, as all odds are with that. I might be lucky (or not) and lay my hands on the pill that will make me immortal and stay 25 years old all the time. Thats uncertain, and can be (is not, but can be) part of my beliefs. So in my definition of a fact, I will die as a matter of fact
Derek: the true scientifc method: define problem (purpose), investigate, guess (make an assumption as to what will happen), experiment, observe, make conclusion, this is the simplest form of true science. you conclude based upon the hypothesis given before the experiment
you don’t know that
you accept it, based on past observations
you may not die arthur, as crazy as that sounds
throw history out the window
how do you know?
this may help
nothing is fact until it happens
nothing is fact until the past
me: sidenote, I wrote cartoons on Highschool. My nick was \"Make me a believer\"
Derek: any prediction into the future is a mere guess
i took a class on this bro
you will not sway me
me: no, you are wrong Derek, sorry
Derek: nice nick!
me: this may help
nothing is fact until it happens
nothing is fact until the past <= is what you say
one proton + one proton = ???
what if those two protons chemically react to produce 3 smaller protons?
1 + 1 = 3
matter of semantics, as you alluded to earlier: again, we are discussing man-made limitations
me: or, to say it differently, facts do not exist, we can only try to make a definition of the word fact so that we both can somehow talk to each other about things. But in the end, facts do not exist. Not now, not in the future, not in the past. Same with truth. We interpret, we guess, we talk blabla and call it philosophy, but all individuals have different opinions about the same fact. So we know nothing
i will totally agree with!
therefore….facts do not exist. therefore, science is based in faith
pure and simple
me: no Derek, no. In my opinion you label the word faith on something that shouldnt be labeled like that. Faith is for what we don;t know by the numbers, facts is for what we know by some numbers. (although I agree with you, that we have to believe the numbers they tell us are true, therefore giving a little uncertainty to my story )
you can have 1 number to support your fact, you can have 1,000,000,000,000,000 numbers to support your fact
you still have to \"believe\" that the predicted result (hypothesis) will occur
that is inherently \"faith\"
me: nope, still not convinced. It’s a fact I’m going to die sooner or later, and I’m not having faith that the pill for immortality will be invented in my times
Derek: not the point
me: thats the difference to me
Derek: you can’t prove you will die
until you die
you can’t prove you will die, without using assumptions
assumptions based on past observations, used to predict the future
in my mind?
you will never die
me: i’ve seen my mother dead, all my grandparents, and i think it is a fact that i will go the same way someday
Derek: prove me wrong
using science and logic
me: yeah sure, but thats another way of being alive
you keep referencing past observations to justify what will happen in the future
that is science at it’s basis
prove to me you will actually die
me: it doesnt need prove to see me dead, time will tell I’m going to die. my body will one day stop jumping and humping, and there’s only 0.0000000001 % chance thats it is going to be different
you acknowledge the chance
there is your flaw
the chance is there
it corrupts everything
no matter the odds
me: no, its no flaw Derek. What I mean is, we call the 0.000000001% faith, and we call the 99.99999999% fact. Matter of definition
Derek: i get what you’re saying
both are based in faith
faith meaning = acceptance w/o proof
me: yup, that part I agree, but as I said before: facts do not exist, there is no 100% truth anywhere. Still we call things facts (things that are pretty fair to belief, here you go ) and faith
boils down to semantics
but for me
religion and science are one in the same
just based upon the logical approach to either
me: yeah on your level it is true. but it isn’t the only level how we can define the differences and similarities of religion and science
Derek: not the only level, maybe
but, present to me a more basic level
me: thats easy
Derek: anything else is built up, more complex, extraneous
go back to 100,000 years ago, and imagine you were a Neanderthaler or something
did they discuss these things? no, guess not
me: yup, but pretty fair assumption, as long as we dont find bibles, sciencebooks and things from that period. so, I think they survived on a daily basis, looking for food, a fuck and a shelter
Derek: assumption nonetheless, but carry on
me: those 3 basic things bring uncertainty for the ones amongst the animals that where stupid enough to have feelings
me: uncertainty brings fear, fear needs a cure. a cure needs a doctor. a doctor needs power. the raise of religion was there.
Derek: sorta follow you
me: then, with the assumptions of the religious powers that know nothing, those animals stupid enough to question things, needed more \"facts\" closer at hand. the raise of science was there
but you just described how religion is crap
and i’ve described how science is nothing more than faith in numbers
me: so in the basics, religion is cure for fear, science is questioning things raised by philosophy and rebellion
Derek: i accept religion being cure for fear
science does question philosophy and rebellion
put science on your stove
turn up the heat
boil that shit down
it’s nothing more than a belief in the future, based on past observations
Derek: i’m operating on the philosophical level here, w/ regards to science
playing devil’s advocate
we can operate on whatever level we want, w/ respect to science, but it’s inherently flawed, just by definition
me: already the \"observations\" part makes a big difference, as science dares to question the results every now and then, and religion is a silly belief in facts and truths that have proven to go wrong, or at least the people with the powers in religion don’t want to be questioned anyway. Religion is a manmade thingy from within mankind, science at least tries to look a bit further.
science can’t question the results
not part of the formula
it can only report them
i agree totally about religion
science cannot disprove anything
it can only \"prove\" other things, based upon an experiment
which is operated under controlled conditions, and only gives creedence to past data, if it does in fact, fall in line
we need to post this in the philosophical forum
me: uhu, see that you come up with a few more differences again? and here is another rather important one: science can be done by machines without feelings, religion can only be done by mankind
you can buy a computerized bible
so, um, disagree
both are programmed by humans
me: you cant ask a computer or a shovel or a hairdryer what it \"believes\" but you can give it a scientific task to prove things, over and over again, to add to the numbers
me: and religion just cant do that. We should believe the numbers of the hairdryer (wow, my hair is fry again! hiha! praise my hairdryer!) and not the stories of the pope when he tells us to not use condoms.
Derek: a shovel or hairdryer is operated by humans. they are controlled by us. we control the results, regardless of what the tools \"believe\". all we can do is use our tools to support and give credibility to what we think should occur
me: fry = dry
me: sure, but still the basics of religion are different as the basics of science. feelings vs non-feelings
Derek: but not
Derek: are we discussing whether or not shovels have feelings, or whether or not shovels are tools used to provide data used to support past and future hypothesis’, used in the scientific method?
me: well, you asked me about faith and the same basics and things, and I don’t agree. When we talk about the results and effects, yes you are right, there are similarities in the faith we have in both. But then we only talk about the effects, and not about it basics
Derek: what are the basics then?
me: like I said, somewhat the \"feelings vs non-feelings\" thingy. Never gave that a proper thought, its what comes up now. Maybe there are better words for it, I don’t know
me: But then we only talk about the effects, and not about it basics <= I need to improve that sentence. What I mean is: But then we only talk about how we look upon the effects, and not about its real basics.
me: hahahaha! just did a F5 on the forum and guess what! \"Our users have posted a total of 11111 articles\"
Derek: ha ha!
i’m gonna copy all of this
my head is drained
me: sure, go ahead
Derek: want me to post it?
me: sure, why not
On 2008.11.02 at 6:37 pm Anonymous wrote:
I read this and it’s interesting to read your views on it…although I was interrupted soo many times trying to read it I will have to read it again..
On 2008.11.12 at 12:07 pm Anonymous wrote:
If this was headed \"Manilla ON Arthurion\" I’d have grabbed my camera and made a fortune in Amsterdam.
On 2008.11.15 at 10:22 pm some pumpkins wrote:
that was a fascinating conversation to read
On 2008.11.15 at 10:53 pm blueczarina wrote:
that is an intersting read for sure.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.