-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Atheism
- Thread starter dangerousdave
- Start date
Why do you choose to believe the World is round? What mad thoughts and dreams lead you to this outlandish theory? Do you believe in Tarot? witchcraft? Astrology?Hetairoi said:
Religion and Science are polar opposites.
I can't think of two more unsimilar Human Concepts.
It's an odd and slightly menacing thing to say.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
The Illusion of Gravity - it might all be flat after all...henryscat said:
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
The guy who wrote dilbert had a theory about no gravity, essentially it was if everything doubles in size every second then the earth would swell to meet the object, rather than the item fall to the floor.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants"
Perhaps Newton shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure his forebears had made no mistakes in their calculations - performed the exact same experiments they did - just to make sure.
Perhaps Einstein shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure that Newton had not made any mistakes in the calculations that his forebears had made, performed the exact experiments that Newton had done that his forebears had done - just to be sure that whilst Newton was devoting his life to making sure that his forebears had made no mistakes Newton had made no mistakes.
Perhaps Hawking shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure that while Einstein had not wasted his life whilst devoting his life to be absolutely sure that Newton hadn't taken any kind of a wrong turn that he...
Where was i?
Oh yes - On The Shoulders Of Giants.
Perhaps Newton shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure his forebears had made no mistakes in their calculations - performed the exact same experiments they did - just to make sure.
Perhaps Einstein shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure that Newton had not made any mistakes in the calculations that his forebears had made, performed the exact experiments that Newton had done that his forebears had done - just to be sure that whilst Newton was devoting his life to making sure that his forebears had made no mistakes Newton had made no mistakes.
Perhaps Hawking shouldn't have been so accepting. He should have devoted his life to making sure that while Einstein had not wasted his life whilst devoting his life to be absolutely sure that Newton hadn't taken any kind of a wrong turn that he...
Where was i?
Oh yes - On The Shoulders Of Giants.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
If you believe without experiencing, how is it not like religion? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just saying I don't understand atom bombs yet believe in nuclear technology. I believe in things more complex than I can understand, because they sound right to me. I' not saying go back and repeat everyones experiments, if the scientific community* accept it then I'm willing to believe too. It is a belief though, like it or not you don't really know. The main (huge) difference is scientific beliefs are based on many experiments by many people, and that beliefs change over time as new knowledge is gained, rather than some 2000 year old book.
* i.e. more people that understand things I don't
* i.e. more people that understand things I don't
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
I think the problem is simply one of semantics. You believe in nuclear technology in the sense that you are confident of its truth, you don't have faith in it. You may not understand it, but can be sure that if you studied it in the necessary depth you would.
People have faith that god is behind the workings of the universe but cannot demonstrate it. Any doubts you may have about the workings of nuclear physics would be dispelled rather rapidly if someone dropped a nuclear warhead on your head.
People have faith that god is behind the workings of the universe but cannot demonstrate it. Any doubts you may have about the workings of nuclear physics would be dispelled rather rapidly if someone dropped a nuclear warhead on your head.
MyCult
SEO to the FACE
Excellent quote which illustrates my every point.henryscat said:
I think he overeggs the Arts/Humanities point mind. Though I was once told that "Truth has no place in the study of History" which I do believe - meaning the study of History is a discussion, argument, opinion etc.
Exactly like religion and faith.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Occasioned by an article by a chap(man) called...Simon ChapmanJenksie said:
...there was an interesting war of words in the (yawn) Guardian that is instructive, if a little in the tl;dr territory, for those less interested.
A rebuttal of the above appeared in the letter pages from one;
David Hockney
Bridlington, East Yorkshire
Yes that Hockney - for it was he - that ran thus
All very well and good - a small argument, perhaps, but perfectly formed. Formed in such a way as to ellicit a favourable opinion toward the benefits of smoking to the smoker and a denial of the harmful effects thereof.David Hockney said:
But what of the rebuttal of this rebuttal?
As far as i'm concerned, the interesting point lies here,Professor Simon Chapman said:
Herein lies the difference between religious belief and scientific understanding.
Mr. Hockney is entirely welcome to his 'belief' that smoking is not harmful; after all, his own experience tells him that this is so.
He is, however, quite wrong. Outside of his own experience, the harm that smoking causes exists, whether he 'believes' it, or indeed experiences it, himself or not.
Ask yourself this - is this a matter of opinion, or a matter of fact?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
I remember once reading about a WW1 German pilot who noticed that the bursts of individual anti-aircraft shells never seemed to form straight lines and a shell never seemed to burst where one had before. On this basis, he devised a tactic, whereby he flew through the nearest burst when they stared firing at him and then straight from that one to the nearest burst to it, and so on. He survived the war.
It's probably a rubbish theory, but it's also probably true(ish).
It's probably a rubbish theory, but it's also probably true(ish).