PLAYER57832 wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Firstly, i off course was referring to the theory of gravity, i was just being lazy.
Secondly, what i was trying to point out is that the argument "it cannot be proven false" is completely worthless.
No, it is the very foundation of science.
Ok, i see what you`re saying, however, I`m sure you`ve figured out what i`m getting at too.
Just the tired old Russel`s teapot.
IMO, just because "it can`t be proven false" isn`t a very good reason to believe in something.
I`ve seen you respond to the "green guys in trees" or whatever saying you wouldn`t really mind, unless dire consequences come from such a belief.
I basically agree with that on a personal level, in the sense that you can believe whatever you want as long as it isn`t doing any damage.
However don`t you see that when such a belief is widespread enough, negative consequences appear?
I think the examples of such things are plentiful, you can probably think of enough yourself, from suicide cults to very bad examples of mixing religion and government.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:
What i was trying to point out however is that in the case of most believers (perhaps with the exception of those who have had things which might be considered miracles happen to them), the level of faith necessary isn`t anywhere near to the level of faith necessary in the scientists case( oh and i would hope most scientists wouldn`t stake their reputations based only on a dream, without any other support whatsoever )
I can see you don't know a great many real scientists... those working on ideas, that is, not just the techs who implement and test the ideas.
You mistake the standards necessary to be published in a scientific journal, which are
extremely narrow with the standards necessary to
begin research, which are very broad. That someone can even ask a question and formulate a
plausible test is enough to seek funding and grants. And, yes, their reputation can be made or broken simply based upon the choices they make, rather than just the quality of their science. Behind and beside every noble laureate are hundreds or more scientists who just happened to choose the wrong idea to follow.
It was not so long ago that the whole idea that bacteria might cause ulcers or a virus cause cervicle cancer were each considered plain ludicrous. Yet, a few scientists persisted and recently each got the noble prize for their discoveries.
I`m not sure what we`re arguing here anymore. I admit i know very little about real or non-real scientists. However do you really think the amount of faith necessary for a scientist to pursue one of his ideas is anywhere in the same region as the guy saying "I don`t need proof, i have faith" or "jesus said it, it`s good enough for me" or believing the earth is flat and all trips to space were hoaxes, or the guys in westboro baptist church, and so on and so forth.
PLAYER57832 wrote:You want miracles to prove faith? I see miracles every day I look out my window. Real, bonafide miracles! I have had experiences that confirm my faith to me, though some are personal and others are just not easy to explain to someone else, particularly over the internet.
I see them too(the ones you see every day i mean). I guess i just interpret them differently.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:We shouldn`t just "respect each others opinion", we (as a society) need to really discuss this issue, religion needs to stop being that "sacred" thing and needs to start being seriously debated(outside of internet forums and obscure documentaries i mean)
I like to discuss anything (pretty obvious, I guess
). But, most people just don't have time or energy. Also, too many people plain get offended when others disagree at a serious level. I, too think we are better off when we
can discuss things, but we are in the minority in that. AND, it is important to remember the root of most manners rules ... to make others comfortable in our presence.
When you have to work and live next to someone who has very differant ideas or beliefs from your own, sometimes it is best to just leave certain issues aside ... to "agree to disagree".
You seem to look upon adhering to a religion the same way you`d look at deciding never to eat rice again, as a personal choice that shouldn`t affect anyone else too much.
However as i said earlier, i think that many such beliefs (and other sentiments which i think are out of place nowadays, like the exaggerated nationalism a lot of people still have) have many consequences, the majority of which aren`t positive.
This doesn`t mean i think religion should disappear immediately, but i absolutely think we should all work towards removing the "sacred" status which leads to the offense you said some people feel when posed a serious religious question.
By doing this, and bringing religion more and more into casual discussions, people will start thinking about it more thoroughly, after all, if we can debate and discuss politics or sports openly, why not religion?
And ultimately, religion should become exactly like any other topic, open to criticism and even ridicule.
After all, if someone claimed that red brings him good luck, therefore he has decided to vote for a party with a red emblem, because he is convinced they will be lucky, i would wager he would get his fair share of ridicule.
That is not to say that all religious people fall in that area. A lot of people have perfectly reasonable reasons for believing in whatever they believe, however the "my bible says gay is evil, so it is, but i refuse to also accept all the other shit" and such crowd should definitely get out from under the protective umbrella of "sacred" religious ideals, and be ridiculed.
Note: I am not talking about this on a personal level, i wouldn`t go to work tomorrow and laugh at anybodies belief, i`m just explaining the direction in which i think society itself should head
