| 4/27/2008 2:49:10 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | 
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| and Lees come on, we all know there IS a Boogy man,lol
| | 4/27/2008 3:08:52 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 89
| Belief in a "Boogy man" is not so much of a reach for some who have belief in spirits. And Since they are all invisible, there is some interchangeability....
| | 4/27/2008 3:18:29 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| any unconscious being has the potential to become the boogey man. I have known lots of them in my life.
| | 4/28/2008 3:23:08 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | 
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 33
| The religious cannot argue science effectively. They simply do not know what they’re arguing. Science has a set of rules. These rules are set, yet the religious tend to attempt the subversion of science with absolutions. These are the four rules simplified for the average shmuck…
1. A theory is created from a hypothesis based from an observation.
2. Though the scientific method, science attempts to disprove its' own theory, thus finding where it is weakest.
3. Upon finding the weakest variable, science refines this theory, thus creating a new theory. See step one.
As we can see, the processing of the theory is in constant loop. Because of that we see the most important of the rules which most people cannot quite wrap their heads around. They refuse to accept it. It is thus:
4. Theories NEVER become facts.
Arguing something that is theory to be fact is an absolute. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. If you ask a scientist how time reacts in relation to gravity, the response is, "I don't know. Here's the working theory." When someone argues something to be a science fact, they too are not arguing science. There are no “science facts” no matter how widely accepted a theory is. Now, sometimes a theory may become a law, but any science law is only as good as the theory which backs it. All it takes is one bit of new knowledge to cause a theory or law to become obsolete.
The religious have absolutes. The existence of a god, or goddess, or other supernatural being is a given to them, thus not open for falsifablity. This absolute kills their argument against science immediately. So when the religious attempt to argue science findings, they cannot fathom why this system won’t bend to their liking. Essentially, Science meets at the football field waiting to play football. Religion comes to the football field with a basketball. Science says,”No, we’re not playing that game, we’re playing this one.” Religion says, “Okay.”, and still attempts to throw hoops over the goalpost. Religion cannot play this game properly.
A flawed problem religion will have is the effort they put into working backwards from a conclusion. One does not say,”The Lock Ness Monster exists, now let’s go prove why it exists, or not bother proving it at all and just assume it’s true!” With this problem, they’ve ignored the first rule, in which one must come up with a hypothesis based on an observation. One must observe something first, not assume it. I will spare everyone the cliché of what it means to assume.
Science does not prove “how a god created everything” or “how this creation works” because science does not declare creation as a given. That is religion talking. Science is the absolute non-absolute, declaring nothing factual. Placing a deity within this system is putting an absolute where one does not belong.
Religion and science serve two entirely different functions. Religion is not there to explain how two atoms may or may not occupy the same quantum state. Likewise, science is not there to hold your hand and tell you everything is going to be alright, and that there is for a fact some creator. If the religious cannot acknowledge the four rules, especially the fourth, then they should not argue science at all. Little men in the television indeed… heh.
| | 4/28/2008 5:32:33 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | 
adameve
Lacombe, LA
age: 46
|  Let me say to you this, I believe in science. Science is cool if I what to make a bomb I can learn.
But i have been save already.
What you need to know I have the truth about Jesus.
Iam not looking to get save or wondering if it true.
I know i am save . listen i am save.
And you can if you really want to know the truth you can have it and believe me this is what you will say.
I Been Save; know doubt!!
is this you or this or this I love you Jesus Yes i will keep trying to tell the lost sheep.
| | 4/28/2008 6:04:38 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 33
| Thanks, Adameve. You've just shown the absolute of which I speak. You "know" the unprovable is a fact. This is truly what separates religion from science.
| | 4/28/2008 6:45:43 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
adameve
Lacombe, LA
age: 46
| And Thank you burnkitty. Hey you a great person and cool and fun and like to laugh. That cool.
[Edited 4/28/2008 3:44:02 PM]
| | 4/28/2008 9:18:22 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 89
| burn, good post!
********************************
"In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary
rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't
grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for
astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic
credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science.
-- Richard Dawkins
| | 4/28/2008 10:48:41 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | paradise16
Rockford, IL
age: 49
| Wouldn't a father reward or punish his own children according to his/her acts? Punishment can be in various forms. And rewards motivate, to keep us in the right direction, they can be just a word of praise.
| | 4/28/2008 2:22:24 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| Burnkitty,
If you mean, a religious person, as in ONE that is rigid, or repetitive, you might be right.
But to say that spiritual people cannot argue science well, is a completely rediculous statement. By far and Away, there are more spiritual scientists, than not.
science reinforces faith in a creator, It doesn't even attempt to disprove it, that is a false conceptualization of science.
ALl religions deal with spiritual being, All science deals with the realm of Physical being.
The fault isn't with either or type of logic, is in trying attempt to explain one with the other. It isn't possible. It isn't a matter of apple and oranges. It is a matter of apples, The jar applesauce is canned in. 2 completely different things, that happen to need each other to coexist.
| | 4/28/2008 2:34:07 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| A parent might reward or punish, but that doesn't make the parent right.
A big part of the problem with this world is that through unconsciousness parents rewarding and punishing what THEY view as Right or Wrong behavior, and they are completely wrong.
Parents reward or punish, and steer their children toward the behavior that they think will make life the easiest for their child.
Most often especially in America, it is materialistic crap that people value, and they reward their children for things like being prettier than other girls, or the Boys being stronger or bigger than the other boys. In other words, they emphasise what is beyond the childs control as positives and or negatives, and therefore actually give the child none of the " guidance" that they are blessed with a child to provide.
Children do not belong to the parents, They are not extensions of the parents, They are there own seperate people. It isn't the parents job to reward or punish, It is their job to guide their children in the childs behavior so that they understand right from wrong behavior, and recognise the rewards, and avoid the problems of life, by teaching them what they should value, and how their behavior determines their circumstances only, NOT their worth, and they are perfect and whole from birth, and their value is not measured by possessions or " accomplishments" or roles they play.
There is alot of talk about values in America but no one really understands the concept.
| | 4/28/2008 4:53:03 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 89
| "How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have
originated, we do not know; nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the
world, so deeply impressed on the minds of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief
constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable,
appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is
that it is followed independently of reason."-- Charles Darwin,
| | 4/28/2008 5:53:08 PM | Insight into the "religious" mind | |
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 33
| Science does not reinforce any faith in a creator, nor does it deny the existence thereof. It is an impartial system, and does not care what spiritual beliefs one has. But if one cannot discuss science by its' rules, then one has no business discussing it at all. When one says science "proves" a creation, they attempt to add the absolute, thus not discussing science.
| | 4/29/2008 4:02:07 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | jrbogie
Red Bluff, CA
age: 59
| Well said indeed.
| | 4/29/2008 4:08:26 AM | Insight into the "religious" mind | | jrbogie
Red Bluff, CA
age: 59
| But to say that spiritual people cannot argue science well, is a completely rediculous statement. By far and Away, there are more spiritual scientists, than not.
And those "spiritual scientists" do a piss poor job of arguing science regarding spirituality.
|
|