Posted by reaper47 on Sun Dec 16th at 11:37pm 2007
Also, I have to agree with Yak Fighter there, I got a little excited about this topic and should have relativised. But the thing with the sun revolving around the Earth... it took quite some time to... "convince" the church that it might be wrong. The pope, as far as I know, doesn't even denounce evolution these days.
I think religious stubbornness is more a hindrance than a true stopper for development. Just think of where heavily Islamic countries could be if it weren't for their extreme religiosity. Imagine a Dubai where you can't get a three months' sentence for "harassment of the airport floor" for doing push-ups (although Dubai is maybe one of the most modern and tolerant places in the Middle East).
Posted by French Toast on Sun Dec 16th at 11:54pm 2007
This is not true at all. The Bible is reinterpreted and religious teachings adapt all the time in the face of modern society. This has been seen all throughout history. For example, you're not gonna find any Catholic that thinks the sun revolves around the Earth, despite the fact that Galileo was excommunicated for proving those very things hundreds of years ago. Do you really think every Christian religion treats the story of creation in the Bible as literal fact?
Granted, some modern day issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, are probably not going to be reinterpreted and accepted by mainstream religion, and some religions are less modernized than others *cough* Islam, Baptists *cough*, but to say that religious teachings never change is silly.
Yeah, but by saying that religion contradicts itself, because if the bible is the infallible word of God, then surely the meaning doesn't change?
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada

Occupation: Kicking Ass
Posted by Le Chief on Mon Dec 17th at 12:30am 2007
A lot of the more modern western religions are used as a form of government. They seek to control every aspect of their followers lives. And they will kill you if you argue with them.
Personally, I believe that the only reason why religion exists today is fear. People believe in a certain religion for there own personal salvation (not going to "hell"). Anyway, if god, this apparently nice and loving person did exist, would he send a good person to hell just because they didn't believe in religion? Does a person who believes in religion receive any benefits for believing? If we are so imperfect, than we can surely be excused for not believing in any form of god.
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Mon Dec 17th at 12:58am 2007
What if God made a microwave burrito sooo large that even He couldn't eat it? He wouldn't be all powerful then... woah I just blew some minds!
Words on paper can and do have debatable meaning. Without God himself coming down and yelling in your ear exactly the way things should happen it'll be left up to interpretation.
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by French Toast on Mon Dec 17th at 1:49am 2007
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada

Occupation: Kicking Ass
Posted by Cassius on Mon Dec 17th at 10:04am 2007
Posted by bengreenwood on Mon Dec 17th at 1:44pm 2007
With the whole 'everything had to have something that came before it' thing, isn't time just a matter of perspective? I mean, time is just a way for living things to make sense of the world. Maybe it's not more of a solid, real thing than your perception of colours.
Of course if that's true then maybe things in the future can influence things in the past, or they're interlinked or something. Maybe there are kind of weird patterns that effect the order everything occurs in, like maybe there's a bias toward intelligence/ life developing in one place or something.
Personally I find it hard to believe that intelligent civilisation just randomly evolved here but nowhere else in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox). It's a bit like when you think of all the trillions of possible ways things could have gone that would have led to you not being born, whereas there was only one, ridiculously unlikely chain of events that would lead to your birth. And the latter happened, just by chance.
It'd be like waking up one morning to find the winning lottery tickets from ten different countries that had just happened to fall from the buyers' pockets outside your house, because those lottery ticket buyers were all taking random day breaks in your town/ country. And then Richard Dawkins would just reply to that "well, it had to happen eventually, to someone.".
bengreenwood
member
63 posts
26 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 14th 2007
Location: England

Occupation: Student
Posted by Flynn on Mon Dec 17th at 2:46pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Mon Dec 17th at 7:08pm 2007
Posted by Natus on Mon Dec 17th at 7:22pm 2007
?(?_o)/?
Posted by Crono on Mon Dec 17th at 8:48pm 2007
Colors are far from a perception. Time is a measurement, just like distance. If you really think about it a meter is rather arbitrary and it's a quantification to allow us to understand it. Time is the same thing. What people confuse about it, unlike a distance, is it is not a physical thing.
Because we labeled it and gave it a measurement, people think of it differently.
But colors are not a perception, perhaps the detail of them is, though (as if people had a fourth color band they would see differences in colors, as far as I know, there's only two women on the planet that have them.)
Posted by Cash Car Star on Mon Dec 17th at 9:19pm 2007
Cash Car Star
member
1260 posts
301 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 7th 2002
Location: Connecticut (sigh)
Occupation: post-student
Posted by Le Chief on Mon Dec 17th at 10:53pm 2007
Posted by RedWood on Mon Dec 17th at 11:06pm 2007
Posted by Le Chief on Mon Dec 17th at 11:14pm 2007
This law is false, and I can prove it. Who else thinks I am wrong or is with me?
Posted by Crono on Tue Dec 18th at 12:28am 2007
So, you're saying that if we label something the label which represents that something is meaningless?
These are abstract things we commonly label so we can use them.
If everything is caused by something else, then nothing means anything except for the abstract idea, something, as a species, we cannot communicate natively. And, what light is reflected from an object (indicating the color) has a lot more to do with the material of the object and it's speed more than anything else ... a color indicated all these pieces of data and is a reaction. While the labeling of "red" is arbitrary, it is just a label, it doesn't mean what it is labeling is not a real thing. Just because there are more things in the spectrum, doesn't mean the ones you can readily detect aren't real.
Aaron, you cannot prove it. No one can.
Posted by Le Chief on Tue Dec 18th at 12:53am 2007
Just ask yourself, forget all the rules you know, is it possible, maybe under rare conditions, for energy to be created out of nothing or for energy to be "amplified".
Posted by French Toast on Tue Dec 18th at 3:40am 2007
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada

Occupation: Kicking Ass
Posted by bengreenwood on Tue Dec 18th at 4:19am 2007
Cash Car, there is such a thing as red- the conscious experience of it, at least. And that conscious experience is a real, solid, existing thing, that is different to just the description of it. Maybe if you were describing how a computer deals with red, yeah maybe, but from what people describe of their experience of consciousness, it seems pretty apparent that humans don't process information in the same, non-consciousness experiencing way as computers. Nobody has a clue how the brain works, really. I mean, not at the core level i.e. being able to make one from scratch.
bengreenwood
member
63 posts
26 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 14th 2007
Location: England

Occupation: Student
Posted by Cash Car Star on Tue Dec 18th at 4:53am 2007
Oh, and I know how to make a brain from scratch. "And for this trick, may I present my lovely assistant..."
Cash Car Star
member
1260 posts
301 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 7th 2002
Location: Connecticut (sigh)
Occupation: post-student
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0121 seconds.



