AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-05, 17:00   Link #1101
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
No, I'll let my analogy stand. A sundial is, after all, a proven way of telling time.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:00   Link #1102
Ithekro
Space Battlecarrier
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
That would be "a stopped clock is correct twice a day, but an clock that is off by several minutes will never be correct"
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:02   Link #1103
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Unfortunately, that is the wrong kind of assumption to make. There are flexible religions that are supposed to change in the face of errors and changes, such as the initial state of Shinto (before we got the static State Shinto and all the problems that brought about). The belief that religions are incapable of admitting error is in itself an error, given that it ignores the development of religions. Just as Protestantism is a growth out of Catholicism, religions are capable of admitting errors (in terms of doctrines) and changing.
Protestantism is NOT proof that religion can change. It denies that Christianity made an error; only that the Catholics read the Holy Book wrong.

Science grew out of Alchemy; but you would never consider Alchemy as Science. The only way Abrahamic religion adapts is by literately starting brand new sects. The idea is that the holy book is never wrong, you just have to read it differently.

I remember the story of how one of the earliest female scientists proved Isaac Newton got one of his equations wrong; she was vindicated after much hard work and testing. No one went back and retroactively claim that Newton got it right and we merely read his book wrong.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:06   Link #1104
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, I'll let my analogy stand. A sundial is, after all, a proven way of telling time.
Are you sure that whatever way of telling time (understanding this world) is quite proven? Would a sundial ("unproven" nature-based, essentially religion) be as proved as a mechanical clock (science)? One cannot quite say that.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:07   Link #1105
flying ^
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaRealist View Post

Religion is already on the short path to extinction. It's sad that we are still debating about this in 2012.
nope.jpg

new projections show it's stronger than ever in the USA... EU will soon follow.

liberals are on the wrong side of history and will go down the tubes due to the abysmal reproductive rate of liberals (particularly white people) and immigration.

go savor this article below

The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think

Population change is reversing secularism and shifting the center of gravity of entire societies in a conservative religious direction.

Spoiler for :
flying ^ is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:12   Link #1106
Ithekro
Space Battlecarrier
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
There have been a lot of things removed from that book over the millenia. Things that are considered wrong in some way and thus removed from the canon. Plus there are religious scientists that try to find what was right and wrong within the context of that book (or series of "books" perhaps). Some have come to different conclusions based on archeology of locations in the bible, or caligraphy of the original text or writing style to see who wrote it and when and thus check to motive to see if that part is "really the word of God", or just some angry rabbi with an agenda for or against the crown of Judea.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:13   Link #1107
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakoo View Post
religion itself isn't evil, it's needed for human, humankind need an answer to "what happens after life" and it's something science won't ever answer. The problem is how people take too strictly what was written, and on this point we have those same extremist people on the science side.
I don't know. Faith and beliefs have always helped people to deal with the questions of life but in a strict sense religion has little to do with faith. I can't really see much benefit in worldly organizations to manage beliefs. The words of prophets, regardless of denomination, tend to spread pretty well on their own by word of mouth. The clergy often seem very adapt at stamping out faith and replacing it with rituals and worship of the organization instead. In the worst cases it causes social stagnation, apathy, and the entrenchment of the powers that be.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:19   Link #1108
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Are you sure that whatever way of telling time (understanding this world) is quite proven?
It has its (well known) limitations, but yes, within those limitations, it's passed all the tests it was submitted to.

Quote:
Would a sundial ("unproven" nature-based, essentially religion) be as proved as a mechanical clock (science)?
All clocks are based around natural phenomenons. They're all science. Religion would be faith time-telling. It would be asking a ouija board for the time. Nature-based doesn't mean unscientific. Science is the bastard child of empirical reality (nature) and logic. It's when you think faith trumps either (or often, both) that you've got a religion.

Quote:
One cannot quite say that.
And why not? It's like the difference between Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity. They have different limitations, and one is clearly more primitive, but they're both scientific. At least, one can use science to show that sundials work well enough within the right conditions.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 17:22   Link #1109
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It's when you think faith trumps either (or often, both) that you've got a religion.
This is most likely where we deviate. Religion does not necessarily trump empirical reality (nature) and logic, yet quite a few people believe that to be the case.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 19:16   Link #1110
NinjaRealist
Battoru!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Can I just say that is one of the largest piece of BS I've ever heard in any format? There is no superior or inferior way of thinking, given the limitations of humans. The fact that people think science is the answer is the same kind of idolatry that anti-religion people accuse the religious of, and in fact I believe them to be no different from the extreme religions that they speak down of.
I never said science is the answer. I said science is the most useful and valid form of reasoning we have available to us as human beings in 2012. There is a subtle but important difference.

You're attitude seems to suggest that you view religion as some kind of immortal constant that will always hold the same weight in our lives.

I'm saying that Science is only a part of the larger evolution of human thought. It is merely the reasoning tool of our current epoch, and like religion before it, it will surely be replaced, eventually, if we don't kill ourselves first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flying ^ View Post
nope.jpg

new projections show it's stronger than ever in the USA... EU will soon follow.

liberals are on the wrong side of history and will go down the tubes due to the abysmal reproductive rate of liberals (particularly white people) and immigration.

go savor this article below

The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think

Population change is reversing secularism and shifting the center of gravity of entire societies in a conservative religious direction.
Don't you realize that The American is published by a conservative think tank, which is essentially a conservative propaganda machine? Do you expect me to seriously consider propaganda as evidence?

The only places where the population of religious people is increasing are developing countries in Africa and Asia.

In the developed world the population of religious people is dropping at an exponential rate. Here is a link to some evidence from a far less biased source, scroll down for statistics:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
NinjaRealist is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 19:38   Link #1111
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaRealist View Post
I never said science is the answer. I said science is the most useful and valid form of reasoning we have available to us as human beings in 2012. There is a subtle but important difference.

You're attitude seems to suggest that you view religion as some kind of immortal constant that will always hold the same weight in our lives.

I'm saying that Science is only a part of the larger evolution of human thought. It is merely the reasoning tool of our current epoch, and like religion before it, it will surely be replaced, eventually, if we don't kill ourselves first.
Well, for starters, I do not agree to science being a form of reasoning given that it is a system not a method. As I have been saying, there is a difference between science and scientific method.

Immortal constant: No, it's a matter of not believing one system is superior to another, which in your initial way of stating, made it seem science is superior to religions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaRealist View Post
The only places where the population of religious people is increasing are developing countries in Africa and Asia.

In the developed world the population of religious people is dropping at an exponential rate. Here is a link to some evidence from a far less biased source, scroll down for statistics:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Well, let's see..... Unless you're saying both Japan and Korea are developing countries, the belief that the population of religious people dropping in all parts of the developed world is incorrect. Furthermore, not believing in a specific religion and being an atheist is quite different. One thing that I do question about that site is how they managed to include atheists into "no religion" when there is a separate category.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 19:38   Link #1112
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
I don't like however, being FORCED to have Health Insurance. Regardless of who's idea it is.
I don't think anyone likes the idea of being forced to buy something. But when it comes to healthcare, we're currently stuck. At present anyone who's uninsured can receive care by walking into an emergency room, as long as their situation is dire enough (and depending on the hospital, "dire" is an extreme exaggeration).

If they lack insurance, who pays for it? The hospital can take it on as a charity case (which I presume ultimately means that the government covers it), or they can simply take the financial hit. In either case, we're paying for it in some form. Worst-case scenario, the hospital goes under. We haven't paid for it financially at that point, but it's worse, because then our care options are diminished.

The other aspect to that is that care at the emergency room tends to be very expensive. It's not designed to be a primary care setting, and it's very cost-inefficient from that perspective. Additionally, treatment is usually inexpensive if a problem is caught early, and the cost rises very quickly as the problem worsens. With that in mind, it makes sense to give people an incentive to go to the doctor early.

Forcing everyone to have health insurance covers all of those problems. It means that nobody is a freeloader, because everyone is paying in. Additionally, if people have health insurance, they're more likely to make use of it, right? So maybe they'll get their annual check-ups, and maybe their problems will be caught and dealt with earlier, saving the entire system time and money.

The alternative, as I see it, is that we choose a more spartan view of things. No health insurance? Tough - no treatment, even if it means that you'll die from something that was easily preventable. That would prevent people from making use of services that they didn't pay for, thereby driving up costs for everyone else. This wouldn't necessarily drive costs down, but to explain why gets into a talk about how insurance works - regardless, it's about the principle of people getting service for something that they didn't pay for.

My opinion is that the spartan view is pretty bad. I like to think that we look out for one another and have each other's best interests at heart; that we value life over money. Despite my view, the reality is that someone has to pay for healthcare. Instead of taking the extreme and denying care to people who have no insurance coverage and can't afford the medical services, I think it would be easier (and better) if we just mandated that everyone had to have health insurance.

If anyone has other ideas about how best to solve the problem that we're currently facing, I'd be interested to hear it.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 19:41   Link #1113
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Re: Religion x Science / Religion vs. Science / Etc.

Hm, wonder if we should have someone start a "religion" thread to discuss this as it's gone away from the original topic of this thread. This, of course, will be a heated topic -- so as I jokingly said previously -- Are we grown up enough for this thread yet?
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 20:13   Link #1114
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
Re: Religion x Science / Religion vs. Science / Etc.

Hm, wonder if we should have someone start a "religion" thread to discuss this as it's gone away from the original topic of this thread. This, of course, will be a heated topic -- so as I jokingly said previously -- Are we grown up enough for this thread yet?
Judging by this small taste, no.

I will say however that fewer people are claiming to be devoted to the organizations of religion. That is, people still believe in God or some other thing, but that doesn't mean they are Catholics or even Christians. They're just people believing what they want, as the freedom of society allows them to. This is a trend that has accelerated over the last century.

The rise of atheism, or agnosticism, equally correlate to the rise of the sciences. As technology advances, so too does our understanding of the universe we live in, and as a result our spirituality is undergoing another revolution/evolution as we seek to balance our knowledge and wisdom.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 20:20   Link #1115
NinjaRealist
Battoru!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Well, for starters, I do not agree to science being a form of reasoning given that it is a system not a method. As I have been saying, there is a difference between science and scientific method.
No offense, but you couldn't be more wrong on this point. All of science as we know it owes everything to the scientific method. Science means the fields of applying the scientific method. Thus the scientific method is science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Well, let's see..... Unless you're saying both Japan and Korea are developing countries, the belief that the population of religious people dropping in all parts of the developed world is incorrect. Furthermore, not believing in a specific religion and being an atheist is quite different. One thing that I do question about that site is how they managed to include atheists into "no religion" when there is a separate category.
There are exceptions to every trend.

For the record, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the all-powerful God known as RNG aka Probability.

You could say that random chance is just that, but I say that random chance is essentially God.
NinjaRealist is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 20:24   Link #1116
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaRealist View Post
No offense, but you couldn't be more wrong on this point. All of science as we know it owes everything to the scientific method. Science means the fields of applying the scientific method. Thus the scientific method is science.
No, science is a system of organizing knowledge obtained, preferably using the scientific method. The scientific method by itself can be used in almost any situation, including studying religions. The incorrect use of the term science (if we go by the original meaning) is what causes people to forget that science is a system, not a method, and frankly I believe that contributes to the people being mislead by what they think is science.


Original topic: So, apparently Romney came down to only a two percentage points difference with Obama according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on today. This will get interesting.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 20:49   Link #1117
NinjaRealist
Battoru!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
No, science is a system of organizing knowledge obtained, preferably using the scientific method. The scientific method by itself can be used in almost any situation, including studying religions. The incorrect use of the term science (if we go by the original meaning) is what causes people to forget that science is a system, not a method, and frankly I believe that contributes to the people being mislead by what they think is science.
No, as I've said, all of what is truly Science (not what ignorant people THINK is Science, which seems to be what you are talking about) is created using the scientific method. Thus it is a system of utilizing the scientific method.

Quite simply anything that does not use the scientific method is not science.

You are talking about the misconceptions that the general public have about what science actually is.

For example, it is true that many people think Psychology is a Science, when in reality, Psychology is not a science at all. We have a term for these sorts of things, they're called Pseudo-Sciences.

You have to differentiate between Pseudo-Science (doesn't use the scientific method, isn't science) and Science (uses the scientific method). I'm sorry if ignorant people are misled into thinking that Pseudo-Sciences are Sciences, but that does not devalue Science.
NinjaRealist is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 20:58   Link #1118
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
It seems we are in a position where we cannot agree. I'll just have my last word on this matter: To me, the belief that only science, which is nothing but a system in the end, can utilize the scientific method is the same kind of fundamentalist idolatry that people accuse religions of. The modern usage of the word science to include the way of pursuing knowledge is basically a bastardization of what science actually is, the organized system of the collected knowledge. As long as there is this difference in view (science as a system and science as the method), it will be difficult to converge our views.

To be blunt: I see your notion of science to be the very contrary of what science is supposed to be, resulting in only legitimating science as the sole system to look at the world in when taken to extremes. But of course you're welcome to your views, given you keep pressing on with the modern usage of the word science.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 21:04   Link #1119
NinjaRealist
Battoru!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
It seems we are in a position where we cannot agree.
That certainly seems to be the case. You certainly come off as an intelligent, informed person so I can only assume that our differences of opinion are due to deep seated insurmountable differences in perspective, most likely based on disparate life experiences.

Yet anime brings us together.
NinjaRealist is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 21:08   Link #1120
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I don't think anyone likes the idea of being forced to buy something. But when it comes to healthcare, we're currently stuck. At present anyone who's uninsured can receive care by walking into an emergency room, as long as their situation is dire enough (and depending on the hospital, "dire" is an extreme exaggeration).
We're already forced to buy car insurance. I view being forced to have health insurance as a similar deal. If you don't have it you're harming society as a whole by freeloading off of Emergency rooms (which as you noted are not really the right place for primary care).


@Religion: I think Religion has changed a lot over the last 200 years. In olden days, there were two branches of Christian thought. A more spiritual branch, which focused on the personal experience of god, and the more rational, which was based on studying scripture and tradition, and rationally describing moral laws and the universe based on that, and minimizing the importance of direct revelation from god. For most of Christian history, it was the rational side of Christian thought that was dominant, while the spiritual side was quite fringe.

However, since the Scientific revolution, most of those who on the "rational" side of the church have ceased believing. Their belief was based on reason, and with the advances of Science the rational arguments for belief in Christian doctrine are very weak.

But belief based on direct revelation through spiritual experience has not been harmed, so that subset of christians have continued to be fervent believers. Because of this, all the christian denominations are being steered in an "evangelical" direction, with a focus on the "personal relationship with god", rather then practice and legalism. Christianity hasn't changed, but it's believers have.

If Christianity seems less based on reason today, it's because the only enthusiastic participants left are the ones who have experienced god speaking to them. Without spiritual experience reinforcing your beliefs, it becomes very easy to be swayed towards non-belief. People tend to believe in things if they have good reason to, and without religious experiences, they have no good reason to believe.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.