557 réponses à ce sujet

[Trace007]

The ignorance in this thread is childish.



Like a book, you cannot critique something without knowing its content.

So, unless a person posting here has experience in both science and religion, I don't give a damn as to what you say, and nobody else should either.

[Medhia Nox]

RyuKazuha -

I understand and agree. Most people would be bored to tears probably. Just a thought.

I don't have a comprehensive understanding of all philosophy (especially Kant, I do have his works though and I'm "working on them"). Too many philosophers - too little time.

---

If philosophy was touched up, then it would probably have to take one philosopher as "truth" and explore that possibility. Otherwise, we come out with the Matrix.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:24 .

[atheelogos]

T1l wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...
...stuff...

You see, this is why threads like this get locked.

probably... Its a shame too.

[Borschtbeet]

Willowhugger wrote...

"Intelligent force" huh?  Nice euphemism.  I guess this cosmic magician aka "intelligent force" didn't require any "intelligent force" of it's own to come into being.

Religious people=promoting an "intelligent force" only when it's convenient.

Actually, the science behind it, or the theory is basically that our current universe is one that is progressive only up until the point of the Big Bang.  Even in real quantum and spacial physics, time as we know it, did not exist before the Big Bang.  It simply does not exist as a relavent concept before the creation of reality.  Yet, there was something before it.

So nothing really needs to be created before the Big Bang because the Big Bang is when the concept of "when" is relevant.

Prior to the Big Bang, past/present/future (such as such concepts would exist) would all be bundled together because space/time are one.

Nothing needs to have been created before the big bang huh?  Does that include cosmic magicians?

[NICKjnp]

Trace007 wrote...

The ignorance in this thread is childish.

Like a book, you cannot critique something without knowing its content.
So, unless a person posting here has experience in both science and religion, I don't give a damn as to what you say, and nobody else should either.

I do.  Have a BA to prove it...

[Eristik]

Medhia Nox wrote...

That was your rebuttal Borschtbeet?

And I, and my "religious sheep", are the ones who are closed minded to possibilities and change?

I think I'm beginning to understand better.

Don't listen to him, I consider myself atheist because I don't care for religion asking for faith instead of getting the answers I need to understand. He like other closed minded people make the rest of the people that believe or follow the same ideal look bad.

[Borschtbeet]

Personally I find philosophy to be a bunch of nonsense. All it is is the pursuit of truth of things which are all completely subjective.



In other words, there is no point.

[Trace007]

NICKjnp wrote...

Trace007 wrote...

The ignorance in this thread is childish.

Like a book, you cannot critique something without knowing its content.
So, unless a person posting here has experience in both science and religion, I don't give a damn as to what you say, and nobody else should either.

I do.  Have a BA to prove it...

Awesome. What is your point of view?

[atheelogos]

Willowhugger wrote...

...... :mellow:secularism  has a few different definitions and I'm not sure you and me are talking about the same thing here. What is secularism to you and what would you prefer to it?

 I appreciate your commentary.

And I yours:)

[Medhia Nox]

I'm not really listening to him Eristik,



Some of my closest friends are athiests! LOL

[Borschtbeet]

yeah yeah whatever. I'm not trying to get this thread locked. I'm going to punch my punching bag and then go to sleep.

Talking about Christians and other religious idiots gives me violent fantasies.

[Willowhugger]

Nothing needs to have been created before the big bang huh?  Does that include cosmic magicians?

Certainly, in the atheist model, the Big Bang occurred because of some other reason.  But yes, pretty much prior to the Big Bang there's no real need for an origin to anything.  Some people like the idea there's an endless cycle of universes expanding, retracting, exploding, and expanding but there's really no need for it.

I go with there's been a single universe the entire time, created for some purpose by an entity beyond conventional laws of physics (which would have no real relationship to any sort of being that could inhabit the universe or be above it prior to the universe).

It's pure speculation, of course, because we don't have the science really to examine a Pre-Big Bang universe.  We can only guess at how the universe was formed in the early years, though there's some promising experiments.

[T1l]

Borschtbeet wrote...

In other words, there is no point.

There is no point in trying to make sense of the world in which we exist?

You didn't just say that, did you?

[atheelogos]

Willowhugger wrote...

Houkka wrote...

I'm having a hard time seeing modern religion in the world of Mass Effect. In a way. The fact that there are intelligent, space-faring alien species living in our galaxy is in a bit of a conflict with, for example, the bible. If these alien species had never heard of human religions before, surely our religions cannot be true, right? Then again, Jahve only informed native americans about the chance to get to heaven in the 15th century, he could have done the same with turians, asari, quarians and the rest.

Catholic Church of all things has a pre-prepared release statement if aliens are ever proven to exist.  I kid you not, they really do.

Yes I do remember reading something about that just a few weeks ago actually.

[Trace007]

Borschtbeet wrote...

yeah yeah whatever. I'm not trying to get this thread locked. I'm going to punch my punching bag and then go to sleep.
Talking about Christians and other religious idiots gives me violent fantasies.

Are you five?

[Borschtbeet]

T1l wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

In other words, there is no point.

There is no point in trying to make sense of the world in which we exist?

You didn't just say that, did you?

No, that is not what I said.  I just think that philosophy is an outdated means of doing so.  We should rely on science and stop wasting time trying to find out things like "what are ethics?" or "how do you define morality?"

This is what philosophy attempts to answer but the truth is you cannot ever have one final answer for any of those questions.  They are too subjective.  One man's killer is another man's hero, you can never make universal sense of it and that is why humans will always find at least some form of conflict despite their common interests.

Philosophy=useless drivel.

Seriously though...I'm getting sleepy.

[Willowhugger]

Albert Einstein's personal religious beliefs were something he wished to keep silent. He did believe that there was nothing wrong with personifying physics. I don't believe that we need to worry about God and the beliefs thereof as they relate to famous scientists.



The choice of religion is a deeply personal one after all. I think everyone follows their own personal religion, formed from their own beliefs (or a system of beliefs that may preclude being called a religion).

[atheelogos]

T1l wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Let's throw more philosophy into these games. I think it would lend to having more in depth NPCs and a more believable universe.

Absolutely. That was one of the things in Dragon Age that made it feel more alive. Belief systems were certainly in place, but none of them were without question - and usually you got to see both sides of the coin. Good writers will make their audience think.

Good post I agree

[OldSchoolChicken]

The portrayal of religion in Dragon's Age was done quite well, although, unless I'm forgetting something, I think we only witnessed or even heard of the one major religion (along with quite a few variations on it). Maybe in coming expansions, outside of Ferelden, we can maybe see another large organized religion or two.

I haven't played ME, but I did pre-order ME2, and one of the things I wondered about was religion, as well as architecture. Too often in Sci-Fi games architecture suffers, as everything is either "futuristic metalic building" or simply "alien style". With the greater quantity of cultured history behind them, you would think there would be greater variations, not fewer. Spaceports might be an exception (think of airports today and how similar they often are).

The effects on religion once people manage to inhabit more than one solar system would be very interesting indeed. As I'm sure the Bioware writers are aware, writers like Asimov are a great to gather some thoughts on the subject.

Simple Christian ideas like heaven and hell would have to be reworked, as well as "end of the world" scenarios. I suppose religions would stop waiting for the end of the world, and instead start waiting for the universe itself to end, probably imploding.

Modifié par OldSchoolChicken, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:35 .

[RyuKazuha]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

That was your rebuttal Borschtbeet?

And I, and my "religious sheep", are the ones who are closed minded to possibilities and change?

I think I'm beginning to understand better.

Yeah, I typically don't let people spin with philosophical mumbo jumbo about arts, paintings, music etc.  None of that is relevant.
My original point was that believing in a cosmic magician makes you stupid.  I gave you a chance to validate that belief and you instead tried to talk to me about paintings, and flowers. 

Well i don't really get your point. You do know, that science has not the power to prove things are "true" in any way, it just wields the power to falsify theories that do not apply to the universe we are able to observe? Assuming we always lack the ability to perceive every given fact at every given time, there is no way to identify truth. After all, the so called "laws of nature" do not reign over nature, but are reigned by nature.

Just because people believe in something, that trancendents our knowlegde and identity, they are not more or less stupid, than someone who assumes there's nothing more than us. Both can't in fact verify their thesis or falsify the other.

Let me give you an example: You should be able to picture a person, that is fully content with the assumption, that there's no entity, that is able to reign over what he does. However, since you ar the one picturing that person, you actually are the one who's able to reign over what this person does, wether or not it believes it.

I'm not stating we are just thoughts of some higher being, but in fact, it's imaginable we are, and we would never be able to confirm, nor to verify it.

Modifié par RyuKazuha, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:35 .