The Ends of Religious Tolerance

[Guest American Woman]

Damn I cannot see the site!!!

{The site you are trying to reach has been blocked and logged by the content filter. The site has been categorized as Violence/Hate/Racism.}

Are you serious? Or are you being facetious?

[charter.rights]

Some no doubt do, but atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of belief.

You don't ~really~ believe that, do you?

[Guest American Woman]

Our pain, suffering and happiness affect nothing in the infinitely immense movement of the galaxies.

They may be important to us, but the the forces of nature they are not in themselves "good or evil" nature knows of no such concepts... they exist only to humans (and are extremely subjective even at that)...

They are important to us. Isn't that why you're concerned about Juliana's pain and suffering? Therefore it is important. Each person is important.

But in light of the immensity of the galaxies, I don't find it odd/unbelievable that there could be some force, some higher power out there, that we can't prove; at least not at this point in time.

At any rate, because of the vastness/infinity of the universe, there are many things we do not have answers to; science cannot begin to answer every question about the universe.

[GostHacked]

Are you serious? Or are you being facetious?

100% serious here AW. I can provide a screencap if need be!

[Guest American Woman]

100% serious here AW. I can provide a screencap if need be!

What's blocking it? A filter that you set up?

[M.Dancer]

You don't ~really~ believe that, do you?

Absolutely. It takes belief to believe so logically, to not believe would take no belief at all.

[GostHacked]

What's blocking it? A filter that you set up?

It is actually a cluster of a few servers at our datacenter that is our intranet firewall/contenct filter/proxy server. It handles all communications from our network to the Internet. Out network spans from Vancouver to Halifiax and many points in between. Our network policy determines what is blocked.

I put the URL into my browser, and since the proxy is set up in my Internet Options (Network connections/lan settings) whenever I make a request to an outside site, there is something that checks it for a few basic things. The site could have already been tagged as such, possibly because someone might have made a previous attempt to view the site. The filter can be set up to check meta tags on websites (keywords that people use to look for certain sites) and if it does not agree with company policy, it's blocked. Some sites can be completely work safe, but sometimes an ad on the page will trigger the filter and block the site altogether.

I have no control over it at all. Otherwise I'd unblock the page my music is on virb.com, so I can listen to my tracks and some of my friends music that they are working on. Virb is classified as 'Social Networking' by the filter, as is Myspace and Facebook and Twitter.

Edit

On another note. Most forums are blocked my the filter as well. This site is not blocked by the filter. Which makes my day more tolerable here at work when I have some downtime.

Edited November 5, 2009 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for the explanation, GostHacked-- now I understand how/why it happened, and it makes sense since it's part of 'company policy.' I didn't think any Canadian internet providers would have a block like that, but then I'm just an ignorant American. You'll have to check out the site when you get home, if you're still interested. But as you said, at least the forum isn't blocked; maybe because it's political rather than personal.

[GostHacked]

Thanks for the explanation, GostHacked-- now I understand how/why it happened, and it makes sense since it's part of 'company policy.' I didn't think any Canadian internet providers would have a block like that, but then I'm just an ignorant American. You'll have to check out the site when you get home, if you're still interested. But as you said, at least the forum isn't blocked; maybe because it's political rather than personal.

I'd figure any forum would be blocked altogether. And since it is political and not personal, that would warrant blocking it as well. But two of my faves are not blocked. Actually this and shacknews are the only forums I visit anyways. There are plenty of ignorant Canucks as well. Trust me.

No ISP are going to block anything. It would be quite hard to permanently block out some sites from an ISP perspective. Much easier on a company network like ours, eventhough we have about 50,000 people using our network at any given time, it's still easier.

Also, I must say I do have the knack for explaining technology in a way everyone can understand. You don't need to use all the geekspeak to get someone to understand computers and the Internet. That ability got me through 4 years of help desk and now 3 years at an IT admin.

But back to your regularly scheduled debate...

[charter.rights]

Absolutely. It takes belief to believe so logically, to not believe would take no belief at all.

So you believe this "religiously"?

[GostHacked]

So you believe this "religiously"?

I would not think so. Because the lack of belief does not equate to belief lacking as being religious.

Speaking of Religion, I wan't to subscribe to this religion .. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16721

Regardless of why this guy got fired (I am thinking it's much more than just beleiving in GW) The courts have set a really bad precident. Maybe I'll start another thread with this one.

[cybercoma]

The moment you have "faith" in science, it becomes religion. Unfortunately, it's a matter of pragmatism that people put their trust in scientists to come to correct conclusions about the physical world; however, that trust is a matter of faith, since not everyone can understand nor conduct scientific studies themselves. Science doesn't eliminate religion. Instead, it makes the answers that religion provides all that much more important. It requires a bigger leap of faith, but the questions become more crucial. Only the most dogmatic believe literal interpretations of the Bible that would have humans riding dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Those that accept evolution and scientific evidence and have faith in the science that came to those conclusions can also have faith in the religious answers to why it all started. Space and time came as a result of the big bang, theoretically. What was there before the bang? Maybe something Divine set it into motion, maybe it didn't. It doesn't matter though because neither negates the other, as is commonly misconceived by atheists and theists alike.

[charter.rights]

The moment you have "faith" in science, it becomes religion. Unfortunately, it's a matter of pragmatism that people put their trust in scientists to come to correct conclusions about the physical world; however, that trust is a matter of faith, since not everyone can understand nor conduct scientific studies themselves. Science doesn't eliminate religion. Instead, it makes the answers that religion provides all that much more important. It requires a bigger leap of faith, but the questions become more crucial. Only the most dogmatic believe literal interpretations of the Bible that would have humans riding dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Those that accept evolution and scientific evidence and have faith in the science that came to those conclusions can also have faith in the religious answers to why it all started. Space and time came as a result of the big bang, theoretically. What was there before the bang? Maybe something Divine set it into motion, maybe it didn't. It doesn't matter though because neither negates the other, as is commonly misconceived by atheists and theists alike.

REAL science requires a healthy skepticism. Those who hold on to scientific conclusions as if they were fact are as bad (if not worse) than those who believe that any God-entity could be destructive.

Edited November 6, 2009 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

So you believe this "religiously"?

No. To believe it religiously would be to believe it either logically or inspite of logic.

[GostHacked]

The moment you have "faith" in science, it becomes religion. Unfortunately, it's a matter of pragmatism that people put their trust in scientists to come to correct conclusions about the physical world; however, that trust is a matter of faith, since not everyone can understand nor conduct scientific studies themselves.

However, if we did understand the science, we would be able to duplicate the experiments and arrive at the same conclusions as those scientists. The books are out there, and you can do the work independantly. But in the end, you will be able to arrive at the same conclusion as science does.

This might not be the best analogy but:

I have a so called 'faith' in automobiles, simply because the science and technology has been proven over the years. Most of you have no clue what is under the hood of your car or understand the math and physics and engineering that goes into a vehile. You will trust (have faith in) it outright to do what it is supposed to do, because the concept has been proven time and time again. Many of us have no clue how to fix a vehicle either. But yet you trust your mechanic will be able to fix it. What I am getting at here is that science has shown you all the work, kind of like long division.

I trust the science. It got us to space, it got us to the moon, it got us all this technology we see today and the communications network we call the Internet. That is proven science. Computers are proven science. Science can be scrutinized and most scientists welcome the challenge on their findings, simply because they want to know if their science is valid. Even if you have faith in your science, and if you can't prove it, and provide no evidence, then the theory or concept dies right there, and you have to start over, you have reached a dead end. Start a new hypothesis.

Science doesn't eliminate religion. Instead, it makes the answers that religion provides all that much more important. It requires a bigger leap of faith, but the questions become more crucial.

Actually it is quite the opposite. The more science we learn, the less room there is for the guesswork that is religion. It requires no faith at all actually. Science has the notes and the work and the data/evidence to proove things beyond a doubt. There is no room for this kind of thinking in religion because you have the answer before you ever knew there was a question. Total backwards compared to science.

Only the most dogmatic believe literal interpretations of the Bible that would have humans riding dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Those that accept evolution and scientific evidence and have faith in the science that came to those conclusions can also have faith in the religious answers to why it all started.

Evolution does not deal with how it all started. Evolution deals with small changes in groups over long periods of time. If you wanted to discuss the origins of the universe and the earth, then that is another field of science altogether. Christianity, Catholisism, Judiasm ect ect all changed their world view to include evolution simple because the scientific data supporting it is enourmous!. Also concepts of, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not orbit the earth, and the earth is definately round. Religion has had to change their views several times because science has proved essentially beyond a doubt that what science discoveres is truth.

Space and time came as a result of the big bang, theoretically. What was there before the bang? Maybe something Divine set it into motion, maybe it didn't. It doesn't matter though because neither negates the other, as is commonly misconceived by atheists and theists alike.

String Theory. And at this point it is still a theory/hypothesis. We have nothing at the moment to test the theory. We will be able to test this theory in the future, but in the end it might prove to be a dead end.

Religion has been at the same dead end for a long time. Several times they have had to back up, and try another path themselves, which is bringing them to another dead end.

[charter.rights]

However, if we did understand the science, we would be able to duplicate the experiments and arrive at the same conclusions as those scientists. The books are out there, and you can do the work independantly. But in the end, you will be able to arrive at the same conclusion as science does.

This might not be the best analogy but:

I have a so called 'faith' in automobiles, simply because the science and technology has been proven over the years. Most of you have no clue what is under the hood of your car or understand the math and physics and engineering that goes into a vehile. You will trust (have faith in) it outright to do what it is supposed to do, because the concept has been proven time and time again. Many of us have no clue how to fix a vehicle either. But yet you trust your mechanic will be able to fix it. What I am getting at here is that science has shown you all the work, kind of like long division.

I trust the science. It got us to space, it got us to the moon, it got us all this technology we see today and the communications network we call the Internet. That is proven science. Computers are proven science. Science can be scrutinized and most scientists welcome the challenge on their findings, simply because they want to know if their science is valid. Even if you have faith in your science, and if you can't prove it, and provide no evidence, then the theory or concept dies right there, and you have to start over, you have reached a dead end. Start a new hypothesis.

Actually it is quite the opposite. The more science we learn, the less room there is for the guesswork that is religion. It requires no faith at all actually. Science has the notes and the work and the data/evidence to proove things beyond a doubt. There is no room for this kind of thinking in religion because you have the answer before you ever knew there was a question. Total backwards compared to science.

Evolution does not deal with how it all started. Evolution deals with small changes in groups over long periods of time. If you wanted to discuss the origins of the universe and the earth, then that is another field of science altogether. Christianity, Catholisism, Judiasm ect ect all changed their world view to include evolution simple because the scientific data supporting it is enourmous!. Also concepts of, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not orbit the earth, and the earth is definately round. Religion has had to change their views several times because science has proved essentially beyond a doubt that what science discoveres is truth.

String Theory. And at this point it is still a theory/hypothesis. We have nothing at the moment to test the theory. We will be able to test this theory in the future, but in the end it might prove to be a dead end.

Religion has been at the same dead end for a long time. Several times they have had to back up, and try another path themselves, which is bringing them to another dead end.

Sure, religion has been at a dead end....but that does not prove the non=existence of a God entity. Like science, when a theory fails, it is time to start looking an another direction.

I also have no reason to prove to you that there is a God-presence in this world, since to do so would require you do abandoned your current limited thinking patterns. So suffice to say that my knowledge and understanding has been tested and is repeatable. Miracles are an everyday experience for lots of people. Your skepticism is warranted, but does not prove anything either way.

[ToadBrother]

The moment you have "faith" in science, it becomes religion. Unfortunately, it's a matter of pragmatism that people put their trust in scientists to come to correct conclusions about the physical world; however, that trust is a matter of faith, since not everyone can understand nor conduct scientific studies themselves. Science doesn't eliminate religion. Instead, it makes the answers that religion provides all that much more important. It requires a bigger leap of faith, but the questions become more crucial. Only the most dogmatic believe literal interpretations of the Bible that would have humans riding dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Those that accept evolution and scientific evidence and have faith in the science that came to those conclusions can also have faith in the religious answers to why it all started. Space and time came as a result of the big bang, theoretically. What was there before the bang? Maybe something Divine set it into motion, maybe it didn't. It doesn't matter though because neither negates the other, as is commonly misconceived by atheists and theists alike.

The problem I have with your point of view is that it predisposes that the Universe must in any way obey our particular conceits and prejudices. Whenever I hear someone declare "What came before the Big Bang", it tells me they probably don't understand what is meant by the Big Bang. As Stephen Hawking said, asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking "What's north of the North Pole?"

As to the leap of faith involved in science, it hardly seems like one, beyond a fundamental maxim that the Universe is ultimately explainable. If it isn't, then science, at some is pointless. If the only way to solve problems is to say "A deity did it" then you haven't solved a problem, you've ultimately admitted that you don't the problem is solvable.

I have no quarrel with theists who accept science, but sometimes I think even they, in a way, somewhat fear and distrust it. They accept what they cannot reasonably deny, but are always looking for some gap in our knowledge to park their beliefs, putting up signs declaring "Beyond this point there be monsters!" Inevitably our knowledge moves beyond that point, and thus they are forced to pick up stakes, move a bit further and do it again.

[GostHacked]

Sure, religion has been at a dead end....but that does not prove the non=existence of a God entity. Like science, when a theory fails, it is time to start looking an another direction.

Here is the difference though. Science starts out as a notion/hypothesis, through experiments we get a theory, we test that theory to see how it relates to the physical world. If the theory does not pan out, then it is scrapped and we start over. This is how science works and has worked for thousands of years.

Religion has had to back up from their answer, search another path reaching another dead end, and not having any real logical method of searching out this knowledge. All of it was already given to you. This is the exact opposite of how science works. How you can say they are compatible is beyond me.

Science only deals with natural physical, and not the supernatural,,, this is important to understand because if you are dealing with supernatural things, you are not using science, however you may use science to debunk supernatural things, ... perfect example is Ghost Hunters, they rule out all natural physical causes before they come to the conclusion of 'hmm interesting but we don't know'. This is where science stops, and religion steps in, and at that point since no science is involved, there can't be a working theory/hypothesis.

I have faith in homo-sapien sapien.All our knowledge about the physical world was discovered by the works of mortal human beings. And most of the science still is true today.

I also have no reason to prove to you that there is a God-presence in this world,

You and every other god-believer out there has taken this approach.

since to do so would require you do abandoned your current limited thinking patterns. So suffice to say that my knowledge and understanding has been tested and is repeatable. Miracles are an everyday experience for lots of people. Your skepticism is warranted, but does not prove anything either way.

You have not been tested in anything if you are not willing to prove anything to someone like me. I am always willing to listen, however I rarely, if ever, get the same consessions from god-believers such as yourself.

I have nothing to fear, so I will put my cards on the table. You game?

Edited November 6, 2009 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

REAL science requires a healthy skepticism. Those who hold on to scientific conclusions as if they were fact are as bad (if not worse) than those who believe that any God-entity could be destructive.

While that is certainly true, that wasn't my point. Because you do not know all the ins and outs of astrophysics (unless of course you are an astrophysicist), you need to have faith in the findings of the scientific community. Furthermore, it takes leaps of faith by the scientific community to expand knowledge. Sometimes experiments are carried out where scientists will "assume" something to be the case, in order to find out another something. This happens all the time in inquiry. I'm not talking about people that refuse to acknowledge new conclusions because they dogmatically hold onto outdated knowledge. I'm talking about making irrational assumptions through faith as a means to attaining rational conclusions.

[ToadBrother]

While that is certainly true, that wasn't my point. Because you do not know all the ins and outs of astrophysics (unless of course you are an astrophysicist), you need to have faith in the findings of the scientific community.

You don't have to though. There are plenty of resources out there that you could, if you wanted, gain sufficient familiarity with any given theory to weight it and determine the veracity of the research involved.

Furthermore, it takes leaps of faith by the scientific community to expand knowledge.

Huh?

Sometimes experiments are carried out where scientists will "assume" something to be the case, in order to find out another something. This happens all the time in inquiry. I'm not talking about people that refuse to acknowledge new conclusions because they dogmatically hold onto outdated knowledge. I'm talking about making irrational assumptions through faith as a means to attaining rational conclusions.

Perhaps you could give some examples. In science it's generally seen as a very bad idea to assume conclusions, so what you seem to be saying runs quite opposite to how science actually works.

[Guest American Woman]

Cybercoma, just have to say, I love your "God-Fearing Atheist" tag-line.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Question: Is there a God?

Agnostic: The answer is not possible for us to know

Theist: I know the answer to the question

Atheist: The question is irrelevant

Believe or not I'm in line with Lictor on this. There is no rational reason* to have any belief in God.

*other than a deeply personal one.

Now is there a rational reason not to believe in God?

Doesn't matter, the question is irrelevant

I quite like that.

Damn I cannot see the site!!!

{The site you are trying to reach has been blocked and logged by the content filter. The site has been categorized as Violence/Hate/Racism.}

You don't say!.

Pretty interesting though Mr Dancer.

Lucky you it's vile.

Almost all of the transport and vending of cocaine, heroin, etc. (as distinct from the financiers and directors of the wholesale business) is performed by members of the sacrosanct "minorities," i.e., our racial enemies, most of them imported into the United States by the international conspiracy described by Ivor Benson in the October issue of Liberty Bell. A very large proportion of those drugs are purchased by the same biological trash. There is no point in talking about this major part of the present "drug problem" so long as Americans elect to live in a garbage dump. If, by some miraculous interposition, the Americans should someday decide to clean house, the problem would disappear. If they do not, they will prove that the boobus Americanus is not a viable species of animal life, and again the problem will be nugatory. It need not, therefore, concern us here.

The survival of all species depends on success in eluding or resisting their active or potential enemies, for practical purposes, almost all other species. The lower species, such as rats and rabbits, survive and in favorable circumstances advance their species by being enormously prolific, breeding at an amazing rate 17. (This is also true of the lower species of human animals)

WTF?

Now that we have long since passed the point of no return, it is much too late, of course, to revert to the rational policy of Victorian times and earlier.

The Victorians were Rational?

Space and time came as a result of the big bang, theoretically. What was there before the bang? Maybe something Divine set it into motion, maybe it didn't. It doesn't matter though because neither negates the other, as is commonly misconceived by atheists and theists alike.

According to current theory everything was confined to a sigularity all matter, energy, everything in something about the size of a pencil eraser. This could stretch back into infinity, or there could have been multiple expansions and contractions (doesn't seem likely since the universe is still expanding and at an increaseing rate), or time could be cyclical. And your right you don't have to pick between science and religion unless your a creationist.

One of the most interesting thing's I've come to conclude about scientists is this, They never seem more happy then when they are 1) proved wrong or 2) proving someone else wrong. I guess it's because scientists realize the minute they stop being wrong they stop learning. Science isn't about finding out what's right and works it's about finding out what wrong and doesn't becuase if you eliminate everything that's wrong you inevitably come out right.

Edited November 7, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. - Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science

(http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm)

My son IS an astrophysicist and he can do some of the math in his head. He would concur with Einstein. In fact, in his last years of university he became attached to philosophy because, as he puts it, science does not explain everything. 'everything' is the realm of the philosopher - the first "science" and insofar as the concept of 'God' goes, philosophy hasn't figured that one out yet. The jury is still out. After thousands of years of rational enquiry.

You can choose to believe, disbelieve or sit on the fence, it is up to you. But in the end, it is just a choice. I think we owe it to others to try and respect their choices. It doesn't answer any lofty questions, but it could prevent alot of conflict!

A healthy debate about God is good, but using science to disprove God is like trying to use science to prove/disprove morality or using emotion to measure the size of the Universe. Or using astrophysics equations to figure out why some people lie.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Didn't Einstein say it was silly to believe in God? or maybe he was just taking about a personal God.

[Shwa]

Didn't Einstein say it was silly to believe in God? or maybe he was just taking about a personal God.

From the link I supplied:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)"

Although, I think that sometimes the fates and actions of human beings proceed in an orderly and harmonic way.