Personal Religious Practices

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
klystron powiedział(a):
We show record ice coverage in the antarctic wit h average ice melt this year and yet I still see the rise in sea level blamed on melting ice.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Surface area isn't volume. Put an ice cube on a plate, let it melt, and partially refreeze it. It now has more surface area. Is there more ice?
 
klystron powiedział(a):
Just because we do not observe something does not mean it does not exist. Also remember the fundamental quandary of quantum mechanics. The act of observing something often creates things to observe.



Correct. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion?



The first commandment means that God is God. We aren't to worship other Gods. It doesn't say "you must bow down and pray to me 12 times a day and sacrifice your wife and first three cats to prove you love me."



The issue I had with your post is this specifically:



I've never ever heard anyone say that you have to "fool God" and I've never heard any Christian (and I live in the Bible belt I hear it whether I want to or not) that the only thing you have to do to go to heaven is believe in God. The fact that you make a blanket statement about "Christian apologists" saying that is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.

My big thing on the whole "religion vs science" thing boils down to this. As I've stated before I am a professional scientist. That said, I see a lot of agendas puhed in the scientific community. One of those is God does not exist despite no evidence to the contrary. It's extremely difficult to prove a negative. Any logic class will tell you that.

Logically I accept that there's a possibility that I am wrong. I'd love to see science prove it one way or another. However I would not throw the scientific method under the bus and just say "God does not exist, science blah blah" because that's just another excuse to not believe.

In conclusion, I apologize if my words were harsh in the previous post. I honestly read it as "Christian apologists claim you have to fool God" as opposed to you explaining your take on it. I wouldn't have been as negative if I had read it correctly.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I don't think the scientific method means what you think it means.
 
1. Your professed faith (I.E, Protestantism, Hinduism, Ibadism, Dudeism, etc)
Christian Lutheran

2.. Anything else you want to say about that.
To be honest I Don't normally talk about what I believe in unless I am asked or it's in an open discussion I will go to a family church some Sunday mornings and I am happy to go and practice it. However that being said other then that I do not force what I believe in onto others I feel like there is no need for it because it's just religion I respect what every one belives in because at the end of the day we should not judge Someone based on religious beliefs but the type of person they are :)
 
StallChaser powiedział(a):
Surface area isn't volume. Put an ice cube on a plate, let it melt, and partially refreeze it. It now has more surface area. Is there more ice?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

You are absolutely right. From what I've read with today's report of record antarctic ice coverage it seems that coverage is changing. What's interesting to me however is that increasing ice requires the water below it to be cold. If it's warm then it would crack. That suggests the volume could be there. I read some stuff about melting ice brings more cold water which freezes on the surface. That's true, but if that were the case then I'm not sure why it isn't happening in some of the western parts. I keep up on the ice coverage stuff because my boss and I argue about it a lot. :)

Holdek powiedział(a):
I don't think the scientific method means what you think it means.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Actually I very much do. You start with a hypothesis, make assumptions or connections based on that, then do experiments to try and prove it. You may find that your hypothesis is false and you will have still followed the method. What it does not mean, however, is that you take a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence and say that something else of which you have no supporting evidence to the contrary is wrong. For example, there's a lot of evidence for evolution. There's no evidence that says God didn't create it. However, many scientific minded people seem to say (in my experience, so take this as hearsay) that God doesn't exist and didn't create man because evolution is "proven." However, finding fossils and studying genetic material does not mean that God doesn't exist. That's quite a leap. It would be scientific in my opinion to, assuming you believe the evidence points to evolution, and assuming you do not find proof God does not exist, to use this as a way to further research creation.

I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind about religion. I'm arguing that we stop speaking as if something is true based on evidence for something completely separate. Nobody here is doing that so I am not targeting anyone. I just find it to be an interesting discussion.

I find that in the scientific community people get very invested in their work and start to lose focus on the actual science part. For example my friend who spends all his time trying to disprove particle/wave duality. I went to a conference he gave in San Francisco and one guy started shouting and threatening him. Security had to escort him out. (This was an event room rented at a hotel.) Many more people were shouting at him but only one guy got truly crazy. Perhaps it is not possible to remove human emotions and agendas from anything we do.
 
klystron powiedział(a):
Actually I very much do. You start with a hypothesis, make assumptions or connections based on that, then do experiments to try and prove it. You may find that your hypothesis is false and you will have still followed the method. What it does not mean, however, is that you take a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence and say that something else of which you have no supporting evidence to the contrary is wrong. For example, there's a lot of evidence for evolution. There's no evidence that says God didn't create it. However, many scientific minded people seem to say (in my experience, so take this as hearsay) that God doesn't exist and didn't create man because evolution is "proven." However, finding fossils and studying genetic material does not mean that God doesn't exist. That's quite a leap. It would be scientific in my opinion to, assuming you believe the evidence points to evolution, and assuming you do not find proof God does not exist, to use this as a way to further research creation.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

No, because creationism is unfalsifiable and can't be subject to the scientific method.

klystron powiedział(a):
I find that in the scientific community people get very invested in their work and start to lose focus on the actual science part. For example my friend who spends all his time trying to disprove particle/wave duality. I went to a conference he gave in San Francisco and one guy started shouting and threatening him. Security had to escort him out. (This was an event room rented at a hotel.) Many more people were shouting at him but only one guy got truly crazy. Perhaps it is not possible to remove human emotions and agendas from anything we do.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

So because some random dude started yelling at a conference, that's in anyway reflective of the scientific community? The only people I'm familiar with that reject quantum mechanics for ideological reasons are fundamentalist Christians and Objectivists (who are basically cultists, and who ironically reject it for similar reasons as the fundamentalist Christians).
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Holdek powiedział(a):
Actually that's wrong. The observer effect changes the nature of what is being observed, it doesn't "create" anything.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Maybe we are just arguing terms. What I was referring to is when you observe something at a quantum level you potentially observe yourself. Thus introducing (creating) something. Poor choice of words. You are also correct that you can very well change the nature of what is being observed.
 
klystron powiedział(a):
There's no evidence that says God didn't create it. However, many scientific minded people seem to say (in my experience, so take this as hearsay) that God doesn't exist and didn't create man because evolution is "proven." However, finding fossils and studying genetic material does not mean that God doesn't exist. That's quite a leap. It would be scientific in my opinion to, assuming you believe the evidence points to evolution, and assuming you do not find proof God does not exist, to use this as a way to further research creation.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Evolution has nothing to do with whether a god exists.

It relates to the diversity of life, not the origin. There is another study relating to the origin of life that is called abiogenesis.
 
I'm somewhere between agnosticism and Deism. I was raised Catholic, but I found a lot of the traditions to be bullshit along with the whole "Instead of trying to solve the pedophilia problem in the priesthood, let's shuffle them around so they can victimize more kids" thing. My stepmother being a zealous convert from Mormonism isn't helping either. She's hinting that I need to find God everytime I talk to her. Fact is, I stopped believing that any God could be all-loving after seeing my Mom come home high off crack when I was a small child. Scared the shit out of me.
 
If religion was a person it'd crap it's pants and jerk off to Sonic

And that's basically my stance on it
 
I believe all socially cool and interesting people go to hell which is why I make a point out of being as much of a sinner as I can be without actually being a douche who screws people over. That's my personal religious philosophy in a nutshell.

What inspired my lack of religiosity is the belief that ultimately, almost all forms of religion were forced onto our ancestors by some other group, which is kind of shitty. There is a story of a pagan king who was convinced by a priest to have himself baptized. He was about to step into the water when he grabbed the priest by the sleeve and asked him: "so if I do this, I will go to heaven right?"
"Yes, you will go to heaven," the priest replied.
"And my ancestors who believed in the old Gods, are they there waiting for me?"
The priest got a bit worried but answered, honestly: "they are burning in hell now."
The king then stepped out of the water, refusing to be baptized. He spoke: "I rather burn in hell with my ancestors then feast in heaven with my enemies!"

So, there you go. I will raise a big bull's horn full of beer with my viking ancestors while all those skinny holier-then-thou-art pansies go to heaven and do crayola magic with Mother Theresa. ;)
 
Non-denominational Christian. Raised kinda like that too. My mom came from a baptist background. Dad from a Pentecostal one. So it wasn't very long before Jesus became more important than denominations.

I studied a number of religions, coming u,p because like any Christian worth their salt I had several serious bouts of doubt. I get along pretty well with Atheists and agnostics as a result. But my questions were eventually answered. I attend church regularly and am fairly active but I don't consider it 'religion' or myself 'religious.' To me Christianity is less about dos and donts and more about a relationship with God.

Suffice it to say, my faith is probably the only reason I'm still alive today.
 
Cuddlebug powiedział(a):
Evolution has nothing to do with whether a god exists.

It relates to the diversity of life, not the origin. There is another study relating to the origin of life that is called abiogenesis.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

This is exactly why I dislike Richard Dawkins. He's a great scientist and I loved reading The Greatest Show on Earth, because it was mostly about evolution, but I just hate when he tries to claim that evolution disproves the existence of a god. Specific gods, sure, but only if you're going by a pretty strict interpretation of the holy text. If you think that the Earth was created in 7 days, Adam and Eve were real people, and there really was a talking snake, then evolution disproves that. If you think the story of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for how sin entered the world, then evolution disproves jack shit about that.
 
Cuddlebug powiedział(a):
Evolution has nothing to do with whether a god exists.

It relates to the diversity of life, not the origin. There is another study relating to the origin of life that is called abiogenesis.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Yes, but I was relaying my personal experiences with past discussions with people both in university and the workplace where people tend to tie the two together (on one side) as if they are somehow mutually exclusive. This whole thing started off as an example.
 
I'm kind of bipolar when it comes to my religion, personal philosophy and my outlook on life. On rainy days, I'm a misanthropic, nihilistic lolcow son of a bitch. Today is different, in that I actually feel alive. On days like this, I'd like to think of myself as a loose Christian with existentialist leanings. On days like this, I believe that there is a God, but not the kind that directly interferes in earthly affairs. He/she/whatever it is... It started things. Will it end? Will I die tomorrow, or in my bed when I'm a grandfather? Who can say, honestly? All that matters is that I am both the narrator, protagonist and writer of a doorstopper called My Life, to be finished at the moment of my death and published when I ascend to Heaven, become reincarnated, etc. It can be unpleasant and incomprehensible like a Faulkner novel, but damn it, it's worth experiencing.
 
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole