Author Topic: Any Religious People Here? (Read 19956 times)

kyomu · « **Reply #200 on:** March 23, 2009, 03:53:52 PM »

Quote from: Rami on March 23, 2009, 03:51:35 PM

Do you understand how limited mankind's senses are in understanding reality on a greater scale? Are you saying you know reality and what it is? Like I said, to the best of mankind's ability science is the most likely belief system to be right.

But to me, it is based on the capacity of human interpretation.

exactly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

wavelength · « **Reply #201 on:** March 23, 2009, 03:54:31 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 03:47:31 PM

Supeficialy different.

But when it comes to our psycological work, its same.
Both start from some absolute untochable defenition.

Science (natural science that is) has a very strict and clear definition. It is restricted to describing the scientific aspects of the world. God and spirituality are simply no topics of science. Scientists who think differently are mislead followers of an ideology they only believe to be based in science.

kyomu · « **Reply #202 on:** March 23, 2009, 03:58:19 PM »

Quote from: wavelength on March 23, 2009, 03:54:31 PM

Science (natural science that is) has a very strict and clear definition. It is restricted to describing the scientific aspects of the world. God and spirituality are simply no topics of science. Scientists who think differently are mislead followers of an ideology they only believe to be based in science.

Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?

Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.

There is no fvkin difference between them.

lovemonkey · « **Reply #203 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:02:11 PM »

Quote from: Rami on March 23, 2009, 03:51:35 PM

Do you understand how limited mankind's senses are in understanding reality on a greater scale? Are you saying you know reality and what it is? Like I said, to the best of mankind's ability science is the most likely belief system to be right.

But to me, it is based on the capacity of human interpretation.

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 03:13:19 PM

Proof or evidence has to become absolutes at some point. Just because we are limited to the human perception doesn't mean everything is not real.

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 03:23:13 PM

Well, since we are limited to our human minds all the absolutes are interpreted by it. That is something we have to accept. I think we're doing ourselves a big disfavor by not thinking anything is true.

Proof/evidence/human truth has gotten us very far in discoveries and science and seems to work very well. I trust in THAT truth.

kyomu · « **Reply #204 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:04:46 PM »

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 04:02:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Rami · « **Reply #205 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:04:59 PM »

As delusional, crazy, and narrow minded that mankind is, IT has take upon itself to be perfectly capable of describing the BE all END nature of reallity?

Just saying...

lovemonkey · « **Reply #206 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:08:20 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 04:04:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Yes I admit that my way of thinking is a sort of compromise. But I'd rather have a compromise than nothing at all.

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 03:58:19 PM

Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?

Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.

There is no fvkin difference between them.

Let me ask you this:

Who do you think have come up with the best results when trying to explain the natural order and gaining knowledge; western scientists or far eastern philosophers?

wavelength · « **Reply #207 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:09:26 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 03:58:19 PM

Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?

Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.

There is no fvkin difference between them.

A pure scientist cannot argue against a philosopher because he is not allowed to talk about things outside the realm of science in the first place (by definition of science). If he does, he turns into a pseudo-philosopher. Just because he was a scientist to begin with doesn't change anything about the restrictions of science. Spirituality does not compete with science at all, it's purpose goes way beyond that of science.

kyomu · « **Reply #208 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:26:26 PM »

Quote from: wavelength on March 23, 2009, 04:09:26 PM

A pure scientist cannot argue against a philosopher because he is not allowed to talk about things outside the realm of science in the first place (by definition of science). If he does, he turns into a pseudo-philosopher. Just because he was a scientist to begin with doesn't change anything about the restrictions of science. Spirituality does not compete with science at all, it's purpose goes way beyond that of science.

Regardless of purpose, when it comes to the quest of the truth, science is same fragile as religion.
And remember,Spirituality used to be a science for them. It likes archemy turns into quemical.

wavelength · « **Reply #209 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 04:26:26 PM

Regardless of purpose, when it comes to the quest of the truth, science is same fragile as religion.
And remember,Spirituality used to be a science for them. It likes archemy turns into quemical.

Well I was talking about natural science (physics, etc.) as it is defined today. Within it's restrictions, science is not fragile. You won't get any spiritual truth out of science of course, but that's also not its purpose.

kyomu · « **Reply #210 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:36:28 PM »

Quote from: wavelength on March 23, 2009, 04:29:46 PM

Well I was talking about natural science (physics, etc.) as it is defined today. Within it's restrictions, science is not fragile. You won't get any spiritual truth out of science of course, but that's also not its purpose.

ah...I got you.
But here, people was asking if you believe in god or existing...etc.
Not natural science itself.

kyomu · « **Reply #211 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:40:02 PM »

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 04:08:20 PM

Yes I admit that my way of thinking is a sort of compromise. But I'd rather have a compromise than nothing at all.

Let me ask you this:

Who do you think have come up with the best results when trying to explain the natural order and gaining knowledge; western scientists or far eastern philosophers?

Now. All of those famous scientist are mixing up these two things and created the quantum theory.
So, western science based on eastern philosophy.

lovemonkey · « **Reply #212 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:53:15 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 04:40:02 PM

Now. All of those famous scientist are mixing up these two things and created the quantum theory.
So, western science based on eastern philosophy.

LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.

Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?

kyomu · « **Reply #213 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:57:17 PM »

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 04:53:15 PM

LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.

Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?

Niels Henrik David Bohr(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) was very known for his influence from Taoism.
Many scientist who studied physics are buddists.
If you study about Taoism and quantum theory,you will surprised how similar they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_of_Physics

kyomu · « **Reply #214 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:59:59 PM »

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 04:53:15 PM

LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.

Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?

And you dont know....study again.

Quantum theory is not GAINED from over the year.
The birth of quantum theory destroy Isaac Newtons physic concept absolutely.
The quantum theory dont exist based on Newtons theory.

arce1988 · « **Reply #215 on:** March 23, 2009, 05:21:41 PM »

lovemonkey · « **Reply #216 on:** March 23, 2009, 05:43:34 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 04:57:17 PM

Niels Henrik David Bohr(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) was very known for his influence from Taoism.
Many scientist who studied physics are buddists.
If you study about Taoism and quantum theory,you will surprised how similar they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_of_Physics

I stand corrected on that. But I still think it's not fair to say that all western science is based on eastern philosophy just because quantum theory might have a connection. You still didn't answer my question btw.

lovemonkey · « **Reply #217 on:** March 23, 2009, 05:46:43 PM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 23, 2009, 04:59:59 PM

And you dont know....study again.

Quantum theory is not GAINED from over the year.
The birth of quantum theory destroy Isaac Newtons physic concept absolutely.
The quantum theory dont exist based on Newtons theory.

Here I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Or did you?

Every knowledge is gained, what's the issue here?

big L dawg · « **Reply #218 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:15:36 PM »

Eisenherz · « **Reply #219 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:24:33 PM »

Quote from: buffdnet on March 23, 2009, 03:53:04 PM

your all religious because all men
pray in the foxhole. ask anyone who
has been in the service.
which isn't most of you kids
but do carry on

Here comes GB's very own Green Beret to drop in his 2 cents of wisdom that he learned while fighting rebels in Liberia..

Naked4Jesus · « **Reply #220 on:** March 23, 2009, 09:34:11 PM »

Quote from: the anabolic mon on March 21, 2009, 04:00:33 PM

Hey! That horse was knapping, the fucker wasn't dead!

Naked4Jesus · « **Reply #221 on:** March 23, 2009, 09:39:44 PM »

Quote from: EwaBeachBoy on March 21, 2009, 03:41:46 PM

Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?

I hope that was a joke. If it isn't and you actually believe that evolution has anything to do with people coming from monkeys then you really don't know enough to have an opinion. For the record, we share a common ancestor with other primates but that's quite different from saying we came from monkeys.

kyomu · « **Reply #222 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:49:02 AM »

Quote from: lovemonkey on March 23, 2009, 05:46:43 PM

Here I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Or did you?

Every knowledge is gained, what's the issue here?

Thats why you dont know modern science.... $:-\$

The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.

ACTUALY, OPPOSITE CONCEPT.

For the biginner like you.
I explain simply in short word.

Newton= There is an absolute principle and always ver certain...............It s a judeochristian concept.

Quantum= There is no absolute principle and always changing without any rule. Very uncertain........Budism and Taoism concept

If it gains,the quantum theory should stand on the basis of Newton theory.

lovemonkey · « **Reply #223 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:54:15 AM »

Quote from: kyomu on March 24, 2009, 02:49:02 AM

Thats why you dont know modern science.... $:-\$

The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.

ACTUALY, OPPOSITE CONCEPT.

For the biginner like you.
I explain simply in short word.

Newton= There is an absolute principle and always ver certain...............It s a judeochristian concept.

Quantum= There is no absolute principle and always changing without any rule. Very uncertain........Budism and Taoism concept

If it gains,the quantum theory should stand on the basis of Newton theory.

Wow man, go take some english communication classes, because you seem to misunderstand every other thing I write.

What you're referring to is BUILT UP knowledge. It doesn't matter if quantum theory contradicts newtons, that knowledge is still gained.

Quote

The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.

I never said that.

wavelength · « **Reply #224 on:** March 24, 2009, 03:12:02 AM »

Sorry kyomu, but quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It's a scientific theory with the exact same qualities as Newtonian physics. People try to interpret something spiritual into scientific theories all the time, but that's pseudo science, not real science.