|
|
Post by Gran Gran on May 2, 2011 21:43:16 GMT -5
snog?
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi 
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on May 2, 2011 22:31:55 GMT -5
Basically what you see Katara and Aang doing in my profile pic. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on May 3, 2011 9:52:33 GMT -5
^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by Appayipyip the Klingon on Jun 6, 2011 22:18:49 GMT -5
I believe they coexist perfectly.
I was just debating this on another forum, and in much shorter terms, I pretty much explained that I believe God created what we OBSERVE in science.
I also see parallels between the Bible and science (as in the order of which things appeared, the landscape and then simple animals, and then more complex animals)
Also, just something I've always wondered: where did the first bits of matter come from? What exactly was it made of, and where did that originate?
Absolute nothing becoming something seems a bit...odd to me.
|
|
Splendi
Combustion Man 
I've lost my place but I can't stop this story..
Posts: 5,664
|
Post by Splendi on Jun 7, 2011 0:20:27 GMT -5
I can answer that for you. Our planet started off in a pre-biotic soup of sorts. The primordial soup theory states that life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that formed amino acids, which then ended up creating proteins. This is supposed to have happened at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago. This happened in a non-oxygenated environment- but as the elements shifted and oxygen came into play and the atmosphere became more like the one we know currently, autotrophs began to form, and a life of sorts truly began.
This has been recreated in experiments where a controlled environment was filled with the same gasses filling the pre-biotic atmosphere. Amino acids formed, and protein synthesis began.
I learned this in my AP Biology class (in which I earned a 4 on our AP-esque class final) this year, in case you're curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Appayipyip the Klingon on Jun 7, 2011 1:54:08 GMT -5
Quote: "The first pieces of matter that were suddenly spawned into existence 14,000,000,000 years ago have eventually led to everything that we have today" -First post on this thread
That's what I'm talking about, not Earth. I mean matter in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Jun 25, 2011 23:45:40 GMT -5
I believe that God carefully planned out the Universe and then started it all with the Big Bang... He/She then set forth the evolutionary time line, eventually leading to the creation of Humanity about 8,000,000,000 years later. I do not believe in many of the miracles stated in the Old Testament. I do, however, believe in Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God itself into human form to spread His/Her word... Science and Religion go hand in hand; Religion explaining how we came into existence and Science explaining why this Universe works and how we can improve upon it for ourselves. What you propose is a poor sort of coexistence. It's picking and choosing, arbitrarily filling in scientific gaps with religion. In doing so you compromise science, but not religion. (To not believe in the entirety of the Bible is not compromising religion, it's just forming a personal religion inspired by existing texts.) You ignore the scientific method in your reaching of a conclusion in regards to the creator and the nature of Jesus Christ. If an uneven compromise like that constitutes an ideal form of coexistence, then so does the relationship between the United States and the indigenous people of North America. Religion and science are made what they are by the presence of faith and the scientific method, respectively. Faith and the scientific method are by definition mutually exclusive entities. The best a society of faith can hope for is religion keeping out of science's way. But it doesn't, and humanity suffers as a result. The inherent nature of faith is selfishness and arrogance. You see so many people going about with so many different faiths, just as sure of theirs as you are of your own and with exactly as much reason to do so, and you say "I'm right, they're wrong." You don't have any reason to think this other than "I'm me. I'm special. The feeling in my gut grants me cosmic insight that other people don't have." When you strip away the flattering trappings and ornaments that we've chosen to dress it up in, that's what faith is. At its core, it's nothing more than societally condoned egotism. It can never go "hand in hand" with science. |
|
|
|
Post by Appayipyip the Klingon on Jun 26, 2011 19:00:00 GMT -5
"The inherent nature of faith is selfishness and arrogance. You see so many people going about with so many different faiths, just as sure of theirs as you are of your own and with exactly as much reason to do so, and you say "I'm right, they're wrong." You don't have any reason to think this other than "I'm me. I'm special. The feeling in my gut grants me cosmic insight that other people don't have.""
I respect other people's beliefs no matter how stupid they may be in my eyes.
Even if simple faith gets me nowhere, I would at least like to die knowing I had a belief I stood up for.
Again, I'll say what I've said to many people: To me, the belief that all we can trust is science is somewhat pessimistic. I mean really. If all we can trust in are the things right in front of us, there's no point. If there's nothing after death we may as well just die and get it over with, for no item can help us there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Jun 27, 2011 0:35:30 GMT -5
I respect other people's beliefs no matter how stupid they may be in my eyes. Even if simple faith gets me nowhere, I would at least like to die knowing I had a belief I stood up for. What I say about the arrogance of faith doesn't have anything to do with the "respect" that is given to those of different beliefs. To respectfully disagree is still to disagree, and it is in that act of disagreement that arrogance is found. A Muslim believes in the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad. They believe in the legitimacy of these things for EXACTLY the same reason that a Christian believes in the legitimacy of what they believe in. That reason is faith. Faith is a personal thing, and what one has faith in varies from individual to individual. So when a Christian disagrees with a Muslim, they're saying "Even though we have the exact same reasons for our beliefs, I think mine is right and yours isn't." The man of faith places a disproportionate degree of value on his own intuition. He feels that deep down inside of him that there must be a God, this God with these texts, he knows in his heart that he's right. And in knowing that, he's knowing that others are wrong. Because his intuition is better than other people's. That's what faith is, and that's also what egotism is. Again, I'll say what I've said to many people: To me, the belief that all we can trust is science is somewhat pessimistic. I mean really. If all we can trust in are the things right in front of us, there's no point. If there's nothing after death we may as well just die and get it over with, for no item can help us there. So you believe that which is nicest to believe? The more "pessimistic" something is the less true it is? And to think that all this time I've been figuring the unknown was the unknown, when in fact it's whatever's the most pleasant possible option! I sure am glad that Amelia Earhart's off having a gay old time on a secret island made of candy. |
|
|
|
Post by Musogato on Jun 27, 2011 14:25:11 GMT -5
Nn, I don't think it's faith that is arrogant so much as certain individuals who wield it. The very definition of faith is to trust in something one has no control over, whether that is faith in a person to make a good decision; faith that a situation will turn around; faith that you put your money on the right bet; or faith in a higher power. To believe in something that one has no concrete proof for or a hand in shaping it, is humbling, not egocentric. But when that humbleness turns into arrogance, or is used as a weapon against others, that is a symptom of the individual, not of faith itself. To lasso everyone of faith to that symptom is as misguided as it is to over-generalize any other group of people.
It seems to me that the problems you're addressing is not so much a flaw of the subject matter than it is the flaws of humanity. If people were as passionate about cats vs dogs as they were of religion vs religion or religion vs science, similar kinds of problems would still come up. What someone chooses to follow is as personal as it is to choose anything else in their life, so of course people will be defensive about their choices. It doesn't matter what that choice is, it's the human action/reaction that makes the difference.
Besides, the 'agreeing to disagree' is found in every category known to man. Even if the statement is as basic as "people need food to survive," someone will disagree with it or find a way to work around it. That's just how humanity works, because we all have our own minds and wills. Is respectfully disagreeing egocentric, or just personal preference? I think there can be a gap between the two.
As for believing only in science, I agree it's a bit pessimistic (although maybe more nihilistic), but in the sense that it only includes what is currently proven. There is always new knowledge to be gained, so I would think it would be a humbling choice as well, but it can be thrown around just like how religion can thrown around. There are a lot of scientific theories, like there being ice on Mercury which is a lot closer to getting confirmed or not, but there's a lot about this world and universe that science doesn't know of yet either. To completely disregard those unknowns because they haven't been proven yet, or the hypothesis isn't strong enough yet, seems limiting to me. I understand why it would be kept in the theory zone of course, but it shows to me that even science requires some faith, even if it is defined by other words and rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paraiba Ocean on Jun 27, 2011 22:50:08 GMT -5
I can answer that for you. Our planet started off in a pre-biotic soup of sorts. The primordial soup theory states that life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that formed amino acids, which then ended up creating proteins. This is supposed to have happened at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago. This happened in a non-oxygenated environment- but as the elements shifted and oxygen came into play and the atmosphere became more like the one we know currently, autotrophs began to form, and a life of sorts truly began. This has been recreated in experiments where a controlled environment was filled with the same gasses filling the pre-biotic atmosphere. Amino acids formed, and protein synthesis began. I learned this in my AP Biology class (in which I earned a 4 on our AP-esque class final) this year, in case you're curious. I think the original question precedes that even - where did the pre-biotic soup come from? I took AP Biology and I took the exam, and I'm a former Biology major, but even then, it doesn't answer where the pre-biotic soup came from. I can see how we go from the creation of Earth to current age (at least based on current theory), but I'm really at a loss for where it came from before the starting point you listed. I also agree with Jade about the difference between the individual and the faith itself. Religions in general were produced by cultures in order to serve as an answer to questions they could not answer, which are often seen in folk takes, old myths, legends, etc., and serve as a comfort for life after death. I don't think it is arrogance that created these, but fear of the unknown - which is common of human nature. However, arrogance does come into play when instead of keeping one's personal beliefs to themselves turns into "My religion is better than yours." |
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Jun 28, 2011 19:57:20 GMT -5
I believe that you misunderstand me. A person of faith can be selfless in many ways, but what I'm saying is that the core concept of having and maintaining a specific faith is egotistical in that it equates to either a failure to detach from one's own perspective and properly analyze the rationale of a person of a different faith or an overestimation of the cosmic significance of one's intuition. Both of those options embody an aspect of narcissism and arrogance. The egotism can end there, or it can continue into the rest of the individual's behavior and thought process, but either way it must infect the nature of having faith. My point here is what is wrong with faith itself (beyond the usual "it's irrational") more so than what is wrong with a person of faith. Although it is that as well, just not to the degree you seem to think I'm insinuating.
If anyone knows of a reason that having faith might not necessitate the presence of conditions that can be equated to egotism/egocentrism, by all means point it out.
(In case it isn't clear, I'm only referring to definition 2 of faith, belief with absence of any evidence. Also, I admit that my earlier declaration that religion demands the presence of faith was erroneous. There are numerous religions that lack faith, although I've personally always disliked the way religion is technically synonymous with "philosophy." It seems like a non-issue though, as this thread strikes me as one referring specifically to faith based religion, since really if you wanted to you could say science is your religion and then bam thread over, the two are in harmony. tl;dr: homonyms suck the meaning out of language and cause the necessity of annoying parentheticals like this one.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Musogato on Jun 28, 2011 23:19:39 GMT -5
Ah, I see what you mean now, thank you for clarifying. Hmm.... I still think it comes down to the individual though, or perhaps how strongly they adhere to the faith in question? Although that would bring in questions of how strongly does one have to be for something in order to qualify for representing it.
I'll introduce myself as a poor example. I am a fence-sitter of sorts. As much as I can listen to and understand my own internal reasoning for following the Bible, I can just as easily listen to and understand why other people choose what they follow. For me personally, part of the humbleness that comes with faith is that (maybe aside from the legit psychics), no one really knows the answer. As much as I believe in the miracles performed by Moses and Jesus Christ, I am in no position to say that the events that inspired Buddhism, or Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion have any less validity than mine. (well except for Scientology, but that is an entirely different conversation. maybe.) Does that mean that I believe anyone not following my God is going to hell? No, but that leads into my next point.
Does that make me a bad Christian for not advocating everything written, or egotistical for not choosing a different religion over my own? Maybe, but I think it's more of a gray area than that. This world is incredibly complicated, and therefore I think the unknown realms must be as well. However, each of us can only go with what feels best to ourselves. Being forced to adhere to something that you don't connect with, that never goes over well. So does that mean there's an inherent egoism involved? Maybe, but I still see it on the same lessened level of personal preference, like choosing one cereal over the other, except with incredibly higher stakes.
edit: The influence of location and upbringing should be considered as well. Although now people have access to all of the world's religions, before it was just what was normal in your area plus whatever missionary groups found their way over. For a lot of people, I think there's a pressure to stick with what they currently have because that is what their family believed for generations. To turn against that is in a way to turn against what they all believed as well. But would that belief still be the same if they had been planted in a different part of the world centuries earlier? No way to tell, of course, but I'd be curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Appayipyip the Klingon on Jun 30, 2011 1:01:56 GMT -5
I said somewhat.
And you really aren't getting my point.
My point isn't that the unknown is whatever the hell we want it to be.
It's that I don't think just laying back and saying "There's nothing to live for" really gets us anywhere.
I also never said everyone's going to happy candy island. That's stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Jun 30, 2011 16:02:16 GMT -5
My point isn't that the unknown is whatever the hell we want it to be. The unknown isn't "whatever we want it to be", you're right. So just because we don't know something doesn't mean that we're free to make wild unsupported claims as to what's out there. Just because the questions of "What happens after death?" and "How did the universe come to be?" are unanswered as of now doesn't mean that we should make something up or otherwise adhere to a belief system with no supporting evidence just because it makes us feel good. Just because the scientific body of knowledge is incapable of fully understanding some things as of now doesn't mean that we won't be able to understand them with progress, and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no scientific answer to the questions. How exactly does "There's no afterlife" equate to "There's nothing to live for"? In my opinion it's quite the opposite - there's not going to be a chance to do anything after my life is over, so I'd best make the most of the time I have. I should make my life more fulfilling, since there's nothing once it's over. But regardless of any of this, just because some people find science unfulfilling and at times a "depressing" worldview doesn't make it any less true. Science is falsifiable and testable and backed up by evidence, whereas religion is based on faith and is in its nature unfalsifiable. |
|
