86 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

Suit yourself. I'm not sure why you feel the need to insist religion is anathema to science. They aren't in competition.

Many of those scientists see the orderliness of the universe as proof of God, seeing him as a "grand clockmaker", designing the mechanisms and setting the universe in motion. You see the workings uncovered by science as being independant of God, but that's not the only way to look at it. Science hasn't disproven God having a role behind the workings of the universe, it hasn't proven anything either way.

Yep. Ser Issac Newton, arguably the greatest scientific mind in history (and the deadliest SOB in space  ), has several quotes saying things like this. Other huge scientists that expressed the same standpoint are scientists like Mendel, Kelvin, Heisenberg, and so on. 

[Farangbaa]

I didn't edit, but knowing you you'll ignore what anyone else says and see yourself as always right. 
 
Oh no, I don't have the respect of a poster who is always insulting others and being a jerk. How will I live with myself?

It's hilarious that it doesn't show up when I quoted you, don't you think?

As for the latter, you pray, of course. Or maybe get a little sadistic laughter going on knowing I'll go to hell.

Suit yourself. I'm not sure why you feel the need to insist religion is anathema to science. They aren't in competition.

Many of those scientists see the orderliness of the universe as proof of God, seeing him as a "grand clockmaker", designing the mechanisms and setting the universe in motion. You see the workings uncovered by science as being independant of God, but that's not the only way to look at it. Science hasn't disproven God having a role behind the workings of the universe, it hasn't proven anything either way.

I addressed all of this in my post. Everything.

[ZipZap2000]

A Krogasari or a Volcha would be pretty cool. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

A Krogasari or a Volcha would be pretty cool. 

We already have a Krogasari. 

[ZipZap2000]

We already have a Krogasari. 

 

She's an Atheytian Warlord and a champion in the Volus toss. But no Krogasari. 

[Heimdall]

It's hilarious that it doesn't show up when I quoted you, don't you think?

As for the latter, you pray, of course. Or maybe get a little sadistic laughter going on knowing I'll go to hell.


I addressed all of this in my post. Everything.

Not really, you claimed that science has proven that the universe does not need God to function.  I'm saying science has proven nothing of the sort.  Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God  Science can explain how the universe works, but not why it works that way.  You say the universe functions without God, they say God is at work in every function of the universe.  As neither can be tested or proven, you're both free to believe whatever you like.
 
Personally I don't see hostile atheism as an improvement over religious fundamentalism.

[Kabooooom]

Holy ****, I step away for a few hours and this thread legit gets blown up into an evolution debate? I am torn. The biologist in me feels morally obligated to correct this guys incorrect mindset on evolution (btw bro, Darwin lived 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory has advanced quite a bit since then. Framing your argument in such a manner is hilariously ineffective).

But, I've debated enough of these people to know that nothing changes their mind. To me, evolutionary theory is an incredibly accurate and sound scientific theory...but I also spent 7 years studying biology, and four learning medicine and how biology influences anatomy, physiology, and pathology.

To me, I can draw from the combined knowledge of these fields to form a big picture. And evolutionary theory forms the cornerstone of that big picture. It is simply inseparable from all other scientific facts in the biological sciences.

Debating these people...its impossible. You can't educate them, it took me years to learn these things. You can't convince them that they are wrong - religion has solidified their worldview and steeled their resolve. It is circular argument followed by circular argument.

So the biologist in me weeps when reading his posts. But the pragmatist in me says **** it, best to just ignore them. It is what it is.

[Heimdall]

Holy ****, I step away for a few hours and this thread legit gets blown up into an evolution debate? I am torn. The biologist in me feels morally obligated to correct this guys incorrect mindset on evolution (btw bro, Darwin lived 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory has advanced quite a bit since then. Framing your argument in such a manner is hilariously ineffective).

But, I've debated enough of these people to know that nothing changes their mind. To me, evolutionary theory is an incredibly accurate and sound scientific theory...but I also spent 7 years studying biology, and four learning medicine and how biology influences anatomy, physiology, and pathology.

To me, I can draw from the combined knowledge of these fields to form a big picture. And evolutionary theory forms the cornerstone of that big picture. It is simply inseparable from all other scientific facts in the biological sciences.

Debating these people...its impossible. You can't educate them, it took me years to learn these things. You can't convince them that they are wrong - religion has solidified their worldview and steeled their resolve. It is circular argument followed by circular argument.

So the biologist in me weeps when reading his posts. But the pragmatist in me says **** it, best to just ignore them. It is what it is.

Just the one poster making the creationist claim actually. The other argument is related, but neither side disbelieves evolution.

[goishen]

Debating these people...its impossible. You can't educate them, it took me years to learn these things. You can't convince them that they are wrong - religion has solidified their worldview and steeled their resolve. It is circular argument followed by circular argument.
 

 

 

In other words, they're dogmatic.   Which can be good in some sense, bad in all others.

[Kabooooom]

In other words, they're dogmatic. Which can be good in some sense, bad in all others.

Dogmatism is almost always bad in my opinion. Actually, I can't think of a single situation in which it could be considered an admirable trait.

When I was in school, we were taught this concept called "The Central Dogma" of molecular biology. It was considered so fundamental that it was literally referred to as that. I found the title idiotic. It was practically begging for someone to find an exception to it. And people did. Initially, I imagine it started as a half-joke among biologists, but people really did start to treat it dogmatically. A self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe.

So, in science there can be no room for dogmatism. In religion, similarly, I consider it fundamentally at odds with the modern world. You can be religious and coexist just fine with our modern scientifically advanced society here in 2015. What you can't be is dogmatic or fundamentalist in your beliefs. Well, you CAN, but inevitably you end up in conflict with pesky little scientific facts.

One can only bury their head in the sand for so long before they suffocate. I get the impression that a lot of these people would rather ignore evidence than be confronted with it and force to alter their worldview.

[dreamgazer]

Oh, my. What have I been missing in here?

[goishen]

Dogmatism is almost always bad in my opinion. Actually, I can't think of a single situation in which it could be considered an admirable trait.

When I was in school, we were taught this concept called "The Central Dogma" of molecular biology. It was considered so fundamental that it was literally referred to as that. I found the title idiotic. It was practically begging for someone to find an exception to it. And people did. Initially, I imagine it started as a half-joke among biologists, but people really did start to treat it dogmatically. A self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe.

So, in science there can be no room for dogmatism. In religion, similarly, I consider it fundamentally at odds with the modern world. You can be religious and coexist just fine with our modern scientifically advanced society here in 2015. What you can't be is dogmatic or fundamentalist in your beliefs. Well, you CAN, but inevitably you end up in conflict with pesky little scientific facts.

One can only bury their head in the sand for so long before they suffocate. I get the impression that a lot of these people would rather ignore evidence than be confronted with it and force to alter their worldview.

 

Well, I'm talking more about stuff like eye-witness accounts of crimes, etc.  "I know what I saw, and it wasn't that car."  That is, of course, assuming that people don't lie.  Which is a whole other can of worms that we won't get into.

[SolNebula]

Oh wow the posts we have here.....some atheists are as much fanatic and dogmatic as the religious zealot. Could you please stop with this? The topic in reality was very interesting. To OP tbh i hope they don't change that much. I like my asari and krogans the way they are.

[fyz306903]

Allopatric speciation. 

Don't want to be a nerd, but I think it would actually be Peripatric speciation. (original species inhabiting new niche rather than a physical barrier separating the two). 

[Farangbaa]

Not really, you claimed that science has proven that the universe does not need God to function.  I'm saying science has proven nothing of the sort.  Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God  Science can explain how the universe works, but not why it works that way.  You say the universe functions without God, they say God is at work in every function of the universe.  As neither can be tested or proven, you're both free to believe whatever you like.
 
Personally I don't see hostile atheism as an improvement over religious fundamentalism.

Again:

Explaining complexity (the universe) by adding something more complex (God) into the equation is LAUGHABLE. That's not how complexity works.

And we seriously have to stop acting like religious beliefs shouldn't be attacked. That they are somehow exempt from any form of critism.

That being said, you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but as soon as you speak out in public about your beliefs, I'm free to critize it.

[Belgrade_Phantom]

Not really, you claimed that science has proven that the universe does not need God to function.  I'm saying science has proven nothing of the sort.  Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God  Science can explain how the universe works, but not why it works that way.  You say the universe functions without God, they say God is at work in every function of the universe.  As neither can be tested or proven, you're both free to believe whatever you like.
 
Personally I don't see hostile atheism as an improvement over religious fundamentalism.

 

 

Exactly no one had proved that God exist but also no one had proved that does not exist either so............but n o one did prove couse they are trying to find evidences on wrong way , It's impossible to find material (phyical) evidence for something what is not in physical (material) form.

 

[Farangbaa]

Exactly no one had proved that God exist but also no one had proved that does not exist either so............but n o one did prove couse they are trying to find evidences on wrong way , It's impossible to find material (phyical) evidence for something what is not in physical (material) form.

And this is why God has no place in any scientific discussion. Science is about testing things and gathering evidence to support your claims, with God you can't do any of this.

You're free to believe in a magician on a cloud that has you under 24/7 surveillance in the grand reality show called 'Getting into Heaven', but that magician has zero place in a scientific discussion.

[Belgrade_Phantom]

Nope U wrong , If something was not in physical form and available to our 5 senses does not mean that does not exist.

Alot of that exist beyond the perception of our 5 senses and there are many scientists from different areas who study such a things , well people use about 8% to 10% the capacity of brain and people created the entire perception of reality based on these 5 senses which we have , but what If people used 50% or 70% of brain capacity , probably some new senses would be opened to us and we would be able to experience the things and to see the new perceptions which we could not even imagine.

That is similar like a world of micro organisms , untill the microscope was invented people did not know that paralell with us exist one completely entire world of micro organisms and If u said that to someone from that age they would thought U are insane , so probably in the distant future the development of science and technology will allow us to "peep" into that world beyong our 5 senses an to perceive the new dimension of reality.

[Display Name Owner]

My biology's rusty and I haven't studied it since A Levels, but wouldn't the fact that the whole thing of colonisation involves settling planets that are ecologically suitable and then tailoring those planets to suit our biology ensure that genetically there shouldn't be any major mutation? It seems more to me that they might become new races rather than new species, depending on the environment.

 

As far as interests go, I don't think that would make them a new "species". Like, they recently stumbled on a tribe that's had no contact whatsoever with the modern world, and they're still human. Also, the colonies would be founded on the importation of existing cultures, so I don't think they'd be too different. They'd probably develop their own cultures over time, but in that sense they'd just become new nations. Which I think might be quite a cool thing.

 

 

Because they will develop different interests. We're supposedly sending them there to do what we want them to do. Them seeing us as strangers or even dictators is bad for us. That's what the second generation will think of us unless we avoid it somehow.

 

That's an interesting point though. Makes me wonder what they're even settling a new galaxy for. Expanding beyond Earth makes sense, expanding into Andromeda seems a bit... greedy. There's no way they could have come close to settling the whole Milky Way, so... why?

[Belgrade_Phantom]

Back to the topic .

Well people who'd colonized Andromeda maybe would kept the physical features of humans but with a time they would be distanced from the people from Earth , their memory on Earth would begin to fade and they would no more identify themselves with a people from Earth.

[Heimdall]

Back to the topic .

Well people who'd colonized Andromeda maybe would kept the physical features of humans but with a time they would be distanced from the people from Earth , their memory on Earth would begin to fade and they would no more identify themselves with a people from Earth.

Yes

Is that a problem?

[Kabooooom]

Nope U wrong , If something was not in physical form and available to our 5 senses does not mean that does not exist.

Alot of that exist beyond the perception of our 5 senses and there are many scientists from different areas who study such a things , well people use about 8% to 10% the capacity of brain and people created the entire perception of reality based on these 5 senses which we have , but what If people used 50% or 70% of brain capacity , probably some new senses would be opened to us and we would be able to experience the things and to see the new perceptions which we could not even imagine.

That is similar like a world of micro organisms , untill the microscope was invented people did not know that paralell with us exist one completely entire world of micro organisms and If u said that to someone from that age they would thought U are insane , so probably in the distant future the development of science and technology will allow us to "peep" into that world beyong our 5 senses an to perceive the new dimension of reality.

This is so off base that I don't even know where to begin. First off, we have more than"five senses". That is an archaic, elementary school level of interpretation of sensory perception in the mind.

Secondly, and more importantly, we use ONE HUNDRED percent of our brain. The belief to the contrary is popular among people uneducated in science, and popularized in BS Hollywood movies like that one that came out last year. Doesn't make it any less false.

Literally every paragraph of every post you write has a scientific inaccuracy that you present as a truth. I implore you to please research a little before you post.

[SolNebula]

Yes

Is that a problem?

 

Well it doesn't make sense at all. Earth is the human homeworld, Every human feels attached to his homeplanet. Every organic being is attached to its origins and roots. It's just how things are.

 

On a general note Atheist people in this thread are to an ISIS level of dogmatism...offending other people belief isn't that great nor polite. Please refrain from insulting or attacking different sensibilities...especially considering your enlightened and scientific mind. Thanks

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Again:

Explaining complexity (the universe) by adding something more complex (God) into the equation is LAUGHABLE. That's not how complexity works.

And we seriously have to stop acting like religious beliefs shouldn't be attacked. That they are somehow exempt from any form of critism.

That being said, you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but as soon as you speak out in public about your beliefs, I'm free to critize it.

On this site they are not allowed to be attacked. From the Site Rules that you agreed to in order to post here: 

 

Do not troll or make personal attacks
Trolling and attacking others, in any form, is not allowed. Trolling is posting with the intent to provoke an emotional response from another user. 
Examples include:

• Non-constructive feedback or comments.
• Personal attacks: Do not insult, degrade or criticize any person or group of people. Personal attacks are hurtful and destroy useful discussion. Examples of personal attacks include calling someone stupid, saying "you suck," "I wish you would die," or "you should be fired."
• Attacks on groups: Attacking groups of people, companies, or user locations, including, but not limited to, home countries, is prohibited.
• Intolerance/Hate: Attacks specifically regarding race, politics, religion, or sexual orientation are grounds for immediate suspension or banning.