[Guest]

I don't suppose I need to introduce anybody to the news item about the Dove World Outreach Center and its much publicised planned burning of the Qur'an, and the predictable outrage from the Islamic world. On the face of it, there's no moral dilemma here. The Rev Terry Jones is a media ***** stirring up trouble, most of which will not land on his doorstep. If he goes ahead and burns the Qur'an, there will be riots and other repercussions. The efforts to stabilise Afghanistan and Iraq may be adversely affected. People will die as a result, probably quite a lot of people, and probably quite a lot of them will be innocent bystanders.

However, I can't help but feel that there is something of a dilemma in this. Freedom of speech can not be an absolute right, for sure. If you are in a crowded cinema and shout "FIRE!" (without cause), you are responsible for the resulting stampede and any lives lost in it. If the Rev Jones burns the Qur'an, you may say he is responsible for the lives which will be lost as a result, but also you might say that those lives will be lost because of religious people believing that they can dictate to the rest of the world what we can and cannot do, and responding with violence when their demands are not met. Should the world allow itself to be held hostage by Islam, forced to comply with what Islam wants? Of course the burning of the Qur'an is an unnecessary, provocative and insulting gesture, but so what? Are we to live in the sort of world where such gestures cannot be made?

[EDM]

Might as well address this before anyone brings it up: I'm not suggesting science is infallible. Mistakes are made, and theories are appropriately thrown out when that happens. However, when experiments are repeated leading to the same results, obviously that should give people *some* incentive to accept the conclusion, irrespective of the implications it may have on their other beliefs.

....Unless the experiment is wrong, of course....(i'm talking in reference to math.....)

In an equation: if you say "4+6-2*3 = 24", that would be wrong.......but it look like it could make sense if you do it directly...

but if you break it in parts, you end up using the BODMAS rule........so "4+6-2*3 = (4+6)-(2*3) = 4, which would make more sense (although my math is probably wrong, anyway...)

[Izzy]

From what I've read this afternoon, it seems that science doesn't take anything as "true". Only expalanations that make sense. For example, we see the light of the Sun, feel it's heat, Earth "seems" to be orbitating it, so the most obvious explanation is that there's a giant fireball there. But science doesn't take that as absolute and undeniable truth. There are other, more complicated explanations. In fact, after quantum mechanics, scientists realized that nothing really exists. Everything is nothing. Or maybe I just read it wrong. I think I'm gonna read it all over again (actually I don't really have a choice).

It's a very existentialist view of science, but these factors must be taken into account because we experience the objective world subjectively, so to say we know with absolute truth what's going on would be a self-delusion. We can, however, make subjective observations and compile these to for data and reach conclusions for our subjective world. It's a very far stretch to say that gravity isn't "true", but it is "only a theory", meaning it consistently behaves the way we expect it to with out subjective bias. In the objective world, it's possible it may behave in ways very different than from what we've observed, but since we can't really ever live in this world, for all purposes concerned, it's still great that we have an accurate description of how it behaves here. That's the difference between science and religion. Science will admit that it's wrong, religion's will (or, at least should, an omniscience sky fairy wrote your book, remember? ) stick with their original arguments, closing the gaps for their god to hide in.

Lol, and don't try "But Izzy, since we experience the world subjectively, how do we know G-dawg doesn't live in the objective world?" Well, it's a possibility, but remember that our subjective world is merely an interpretation of the objective world, it doesn't exactly leave much room for anything to hide. We can still see/feel/touch/smell/hear what's going on.. just.. not exactly how it is. Example. The color red. Lovely color, yeah? It's really just a load of particles with a specific energy level and frequency chilling out on my pillow case. I don't see that. I see red. With science, we can still tap into the objective world, but it's tentative at best. However, since science attempts to explain the world we are actually in, I'm not too bothered by it.

Dude, all QM explains is that micro-particles behave in weird ways we don't expect or observe in macrostuffs (lol, word). Technically, nothing exists.. What you actually probably read is that negative and positive energy and mass, were they to cancel each other out, would zero exactly. Until then, I have this load of matter over here, and some antimatter over there. As far as I'm concerned, until they meet, that matter is still there to play with.

@EDM: Wrong experiments are taken into account, which is why they're under constant repetition, scrutinized, and peer reviewed to check for accuracy.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Izzy

[Quag]

strange isnt it how all the interesting threads eventually turn into a debate between science and religion.

EDM im not sure what you mean by religion isnt fairy tales. it is in fact a very good description for what religion is. just because you happen to believe certain fairy tales does not make them either true or not true, it just means you believe in fairy tales or a certain religion. (yes im sayng there is no basically difference between an angel and a fairy if your asking. Both have wings are magical, etc. perhaps they just differ on shape and size is all)

[Guest]

I should have said that in the homework section, cause you really helped me understand this whole thing, Izzy. Thanks.

On the fairy tale thing, I think "fairy tale" may not be an appropriate term, because a fairy tale is something that was never meant to be taken seriously. Religion is just something you can't prove, but you believe anyway. But I could very well start a religion about The Silmarillion and say that Ilúvatar created the ainur and they created the world through some sort of symphony (that actually sounds like the layman version of the first string theory). That's basically why I don't believe in any religion, though I don't deny the existence of God. I just don't care if He exists.

PS: I bet rookie is going to lock this topic within the next 2 hours, but since the Qur'an thing is over, might as well end the discussion.

[Quag]

actually fairy tales were taken seriuously originally so was mythology, just later on people became wiser and relized it was all bogus. someday hopefully humanity will realize the same thing about religion.

[Guest]

Another thing I wonder: my friend said that there's nothing wrong with believing in science and religion, and he mentioned that several great scientists were religious, such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein. I knew about Einstein, but not about the other ones. But anyway, why do you guys think all these scientists believed in God? Is it the time the lived in? A flaw in their thoughts? Or is there something else?

[Quag]

Why do Christians believe in christianity? why do muslims believe in Islam? why do hindus beleive in hinduism?

For 99% of them they were brought up in their religion and that is all they knew. Their entire society revolves around the predominat religion in their community. (holdays and what not) i would hardly expect a jew who had lost something he desperately needs to go "oh allah please help" me any more than a muslim to pray to shiva for anything. it is so part of their culture that the expressions even become routine. EG "god help us", by saying that it doesnt mean you believe in god necessarily but it does indicate that you are from a judeo-christian background. Darwin sat on his work for years because of the trouble he had reconciling his beliefs with what he had deduced (also fro fear of persecution from others who would try to destroy anything/anyone who disputed their view of the universe) In the end he had to publish because his conviction in his work forced him to modify his view of god, it was too ingrained in him to abandon it though.

If an experiment could be possible where someone was brought up in complete isolation from any hint of religion then when as an adult after studying science extensively he/she was given the texts of all the major religions what do you think would happen? would they believe in one or any of the religions? or synthesize a new one by amalgamating them all? Or possibly say they are all ridiculous and cannot be believed?

[EDM]

Religion has been there long before fairies and other myths......you can't just simply say that there's no such thing as God if more than half the world say otherwise.....even with science being predominant in their lives.....

*But I really think Rookie should lock up this thread.....I get bored of these discussions since no one caves in here.....

[Quag]

Religion has been there long before fairies and other myths

not sure what you mean by this fairy tales and myths were the original religions. the idea of 1 god is incredibly new in human history.

[EDM]

Not gonna explain myself.........figure it out.....

[Quag]

i was giving you the benefit of the doubt, my statement stands fairy tales and myths are the original religions therefore religion could not have been there before them they are the same thing.

i think my previous question about the experiment is an interesting question though give it a shot. but izzy you cannot do that with mice

[Guest]

This experiment looks interesting, but I wonder if it would always yield the same result. Looks like something Pavlov would have tried (Pavlov was mentioned in the text I was reading as well. He had interesting ideas, thought he tortured those poor dogs). I can't conceive the idea of a person being raised without any contact with religion though, so I can't even imagine the outcome of this thought experiment(it's a thought experiment, right?).

Edited September 12, 2010 by archlordbr

[Izzy]

Bleh, tired, just got home, so a few quick points:

Fairy tale and religion are synonymous: they both revolve around magical and imaginary beings in lands, my Mac Dictionary's definition of "fairy tale".

Galileo and Newton were religious because of the time period, similar with Darwin. Einstein was definitely atheist; do some research before you spew "facts". I'm going to be honest, and come off like a major jerk, but I judge my science and history teachers based on whether or not they're atheist. If you teach a language, math, or an elective, okay, I don't expect you to be too into it. You're teaching me science or history? No, know your s'hit and make logical conclusions if you want me to take you seriously.

Regarding the experiment: Hai, it's already been done. See, more or less, pastafarianism.

EDM: "you can't just simply say that there's no such thing as God if more than half the world say otherwise"

READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Goodnight.

[Guest]

Interesting, I really used to think that Einstein was religious, but after reading some of his quotes, it looks like he was more of an agnostic. He was definitely not atheist though, unless he was being sarcastic all along.

Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.

Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it.

What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.

[EDM]

Question: How do you explain miracles....????

you know what? forget it.....you'll talk nonsense and behave stupid as long as this discussion goes.......yes, you have come off as a major jerk, so now, I don't care......this is my last conversation on religion......I believe in God, you don't....let's leave it at that......

And religion has NOTHING to do with your stupid fairy tales.....

(if you can't get it through your head, don't bother answering....)

There, I'm done. Final.....it's over......

[Guest]

I think miracles can always be explained in a scientific way. When one can prove that they actually happened, that is. Otherwise everyone would start being religious after the first miracle. There's always another explanation. For example, the other day I was waiting for the bus with my friend, and he said "You know, I don't believe in The Secret. I've been picturing the bus coming for quite a while now and it didn't come so far". The moment he closed his mouth, the bus showed up in the corner. What would you call that? I call it an amusing coincidence. I can see why some people believe in God and miracles, and I can see why some people don't, so I try to leave both these groups alone as much as I can. I'm here mostly to learn things, like the whole objective/subjective world Izzy mentioned earlier.

PS: I know you were talking to Izzy, but I answered anyway.

Edited September 12, 2010 by archlordbr

[Izzy]

Alright, give me a miracle. I'll gladly rip it to shreds for you.

EDM, try to look at it objectively (erm, the other definition of objectively, not the one used earlier ). Look, I don't *care* if you believe in G-dog. (Lmao, funny, off topic thing happened yesterday. Friend: I call my grandma "g-ma" when she's not around. Me: Really? I call Gawd "G-dog" when he's not around!) I'm not judging you by it because I don't expect you to have done considerable research in either history or science, meaning it's likely that you don't know the facts based simply on a lack of interest. At what part, exactly, did my arguments become nonsensical (ignoring all the off topic stuff, lmao)? You shouldn't stop caring just because you disagree with the poster.

I actually remembered a Galileo quote that might attest for his atheism, depending on how it's interpreted. At the time, he made some discoveries that contradicted what the church taught, but this could also be an atheistic statement.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei

[Guest]

Well, it's hard to believe in God if you've been through what Galileu went through. It's like Stephen Hawking (who recently withdrew his previous statement that God could have played a role in the creation of the universe). I read on humor blog: "Let's be honest: If you were Stephen Hawking, would you believe in God?". I apologize if it offends anyone, but it's true. Can't blame him for not believing.

[Quag]

WOW EDM i know IZZY can be caustic but really you too?

and yes fairy tales and religion are intermingled despite what you believe. Choosing to believe that the earth is flat does not make it so. I am not trying to insult your belief in god, that is your personal choice but facts are facts myths and fairy tales are what the original religions were. Christianity is only 2k years old. Judaism on which it is based is about another 2-3k older.

IZZY, you said the experiment has been done, where? when? Id love to know as it seems to me it would be impossible to actually do it.

[Izzy]

Er, not the experiment per se, but something minimally different that I feel would yield similar results.

In 2005, Pastafarianism was created as a way to combat the Texas and Kansas school board's attempts to teach "Intelligent" Design alongside Evolution. It's similar to the experiment in the sense that no one had been exposed to it previously, and the religious and non-religious alike regard it as utter bull. The funny thing, the belief uses the Christian doctrines almost verbatim, the key difference being that a Flying Spaghetti Monster with all the omnis on his label created the universe instead of some god that created man in his image.

Since, in reality, most religions sound this absurd, I find it difficult to believe that someone never exposed to faith in the first place would actively choose to take it up.

[Izzy]

Er, not the experiment per se, but something minimally different that I feel would yield similar results.

In 2005, Pastafarianism was created as a way to combat the Texas and Kansas school board's attempts to teach "Intelligent" Design alongside Evolution. It's similar to the experiment in the sense that no one had been exposed to it previously, and the religious and non-religious alike regard it as utter bull. The funny thing, the belief uses the Christian doctrines almost verbatim, the key difference being that a Flying Spaghetti Monster with all the omnis on his label created the universe instead of some god that created man in his image.

Since, in reality, most religions sound this absurd, I find it difficult to believe that someone never exposed to faith in the first place would actively choose to take it up.

[Izzy]

EDM, I made a chart for you. Feel free to dispute any of those points.

[Quag]

Ok Izzy i see where your coming from but i think my idea is significantly different enough. People who believe in or refuse to believe in a religion have come at that conclusion usually through a long slow process over their life. If we remove even the idea of religion from the growth and development of a person then at a later stage introduce a large number of them i think the results would be interesting.

One of the problems i think a lot of people have is when they think of religion they only think of three, Judaism Christianity and Islam. they are 3 similar religions (go ahead flamers attack that, but they are) but if you add Hinduism, Budhism, Wicca, Taosim they begin to be much more dissimilar, also cover a wider range of the human population. We can even have fun and add dead religions such as the greek or norse mythos.

BTW back onto what this topic was originally about seems the idiot suspended the burning. Unfortunately i doubt it had anything to do with him becoming less of a jerk.

[Izzy]

I think it'd be reasonable to predict that the results would be "Wtf are you talking about? What a primitive lot of people you all are..." It would definitely be interesting, even more so if the results actually differ from that.

[Guest]

About the Pastafarianism, that guy didn't even need to create a new deity. He could have requested the teaching of Chuck Norris' "brutal design" along with the intelligent design. Like this:

Chuck Norris once kicked a horse in the chin. Its descendants are known today as Giraffes.

Would have worked pretty much the same way.