Jump to content
Sar

Things that you hate! v2

Recommended Posts

On 12/10/2016 at 11:15 PM, Shill Sham said:

Man, browsing this forum on a tablet is a battle and a half.  I have to keeping refreshing after every thread and subforum.

Download all the system speed up apps you can find. You will be quantum processing in no time.

Or you could just delete all the apps and stale memes you aren't using. Freeing up system space tends to help speed things up and avoid so many reloads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole time of year. I live near a major retail hub. I do not care about Christmas, that enthusiasm died years ago thanks to stupid family feuds, but holy shit just getting out of my area or buying groceries has become a nightmare traffic wise. And I'm fucked if I actually need to drive to the shops instead of taking the ten minute walk to carry heavier loads of groceries.

Do people not understand that it is a dick move to clog up the streets with their cars simply because they couldn;t be assed to wait it out for a parking space in the mall itself? Last year it got so bad some asshole actually half blocked our driveway with his car, then said "It was only for half an hour." It took him three hours. That's right dickead, if there are that hundreds of cars around, of course the number of people will be equal or greater. You ain't getting shit done in half an hour.

I swear if any of that shit happens this year I'm taking a crowbar to the offending car and/or driver and not stopping until they fucking move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like we're quietly not going to have an office Christmas party this year. Almost certainly because some drunken moron got spooked lasted year during lasertag and jumped off the second floor. I hate when one dork goes and ruins it for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an alcoholic. People don't know it, but I'm actually a 53 year old man with syphilis and leprous who lives in a halfway house.

I hate being sober. Alcohol makes me young again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Therapy Sergal said:

When people talk about negative energy with a straight face.

Do you mean people who think energy is a 'spiritual' thing, or do you mean when people discuss negative energy in quantum mechanics?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Do you mean people who think energy is a 'spiritual' thing

This kind of people usually has no idea about quantum tunneling, so yes. I mean them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Therapy Sergal said:

This kind of people usually has no idea about quantum tunneling, so yes. I mean them.

Negative energy is indeed impossible. However, with you mentioning quantum tunneling, you actually have to set it up as if kinetic energy is negative for it to satisfy the boundary conditions of the particles movement through the potential region. Just a note.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy from the gym added me on Facebook.

He started messaging me.

We talked for a few hours.

I showed him the Digimon porn I wrote.

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE is why I hate myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alexxx-Returns said:

A guy from the gym added me on Facebook.

He started messaging me.

We talked for a few hours.

I showed him the Digimon porn I wrote.

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE is why I hate myself.

Don't worry, what you lost with him freaking out by your digimon porn, you made up with me being interested in your digimon porn!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Saxon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38290888

Over 8000 girls have been subjected to genital mutilation recently in England. 0 successful prosecutions. ZERO.

Religious and cultural genital mutilation needs to be stamped out.

Again

whyyyyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saxon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38290888

Over 8000 girls have been subjected to genital mutilation recently in England. 0 successful prosecutions. ZERO.

Religious and cultural genital mutilation needs to be stamped out.

Religion in general should probably just be done away with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents that completely ignore their crying babies when they are in a public place. Please, do your job as a parent. The general public, as well as myself, would greatly appreciate it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Religion in general should probably just be done away with. 

Maybe instead of just doing away with Religion, doing away with the attitude of entitlement that people sometimes try to attach to it. I think religion can be a really great thing and give people a sense of meaning in life, but it becomes dangerous when it starts leading to a sense of entitlement which leads to a sense that they have the right to dictate other's lives. I don't think it's the root of the problem, I think it's the people who develop the wrong attitude that are at the root.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, U-235 said:

Maybe instead of just doing away with Religion, doing away with the attitude of entitlement that people sometimes try to attach to it. I think religion can be a really great thing and give people a sense of meaning in life, but it becomes dangerous when it starts leading to a sense of entitlement which leads to a sense that they have the right to dictate other's lives. I don't think it's the root of the problem, I think it's the people who develop the wrong attitude that are at the root.

I agree with Flynn on this one. All religion has really done in my opinion is cause strife and anguish for centuries, and has been the cause many times of immense losses of life. It has been used as an excuse for so many heinous acts of violence and hate all around the world, and yes, I believe that in this day and age, it should be done away with. I agree that it may give some a sense of meaning in life, but just in general, it has only done more harm than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shiro said:

I agree with Flynn on this one. All religion has really done in my opinion is cause strife and anguish for centuries, and has been the cause many times of immense losses of life. It has been used as an excuse for so many heinous acts of violence and hate all around the world, and yes, I believe that in this day and age, it should be done away with. I agree that it may give some a sense of meaning in life, but just in general, it has only done more harm than good.

I don't really know how accurate that is. Anyone can use it as an excuse for an action, but by no means does that give the general population who follows that religion fault for the actions of that one particular individual. And if not religion it'll be some other avenue for an excuse as to why they commit whatever heinous act it is. People are still going to commit crimes against humanity, even if it isn't on a religious basis. What of the holocaust, rape of Nanking  or The Khmer Rouge period with pol pot that lead to 2.2 million deaths? Those were all based on either ethics or hyper nationalism and resulted in millions of deaths in a relatively short period of time. Of course people have used religion as an excuse to kill, and on that note almost everyone who practices any religion will agree that those who take it to the extreme like that are not followers of the religion and will fight against them spreading their hateful word. Eliminating it won't result in anything better and it won't solve any problems. If anything it'd eliminate charitable foundations. And on top of all that who are we to judge or persecute people for what they believe and gives them meaning in life? Are some people assholes and hurt others? Yes, but that's true for any follower of anything like nationalism, where they fall in society (hence desires for material gains), and other things. So I think it's unfair to simply say, it's all bad and get rid of the thing as a whole. Why would you make that assumption if you're not even religious yourself? In the grand scheme of things, it's no more good or bad than anything else that can be used as an excuse for causing people harm (and that's a very long list of things). So elimination of it won't help anything or really benefit anyone. It'll just make people come up with more creative excuses as to why they can dictate lives and hurt others. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shiro said:

I believe that in this day and age, it should be done away with.

Religion is the brake of society. If you push it too hard you will not achieve anything. But if you dont use it at all your trip will end at the first corner. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@U-235 I agree Religion had its place back in the day. But not anymore.

Tally up all the good religion does that secular groups can't do just as well. False sense of satisfaction doesn't count. Nor do any un-provable claims of salvation and afterlife. I mean real tangible benefits that no secular group is capable of providing.

Then tally up all the bad that only exists because of religious practices.

I think long term we should aim to eradicate all religions via better education. Better education in general is the best way for society as a whole to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno about you guys, but I use religion as something to keep me up. I'm no crazy religious person, but I do believe, and I it helps me feel secure and that things will be okay. I don't know if anyone's truly looking out for everyone, but I believe there is and it helps me get through things.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

@U-235 I agree Religion had its place back in the day. But not anymore.

Tally up all the good religion does that secular groups can't do just as well. False sense of satisfaction doesn't count. Nor do any un-provable claims of salvation and afterlife. I mean real tangible benefits that no secular group is capable of providing.

Then tally up all the bad that only exists because of religious practices.

I think long term we should aim to eradicate all religions via better education. Better education in general is the best way for society as a whole to move forward.

But the question is will secular groups do it, and if so what is the motivation? I don't have enough faith in mankind to believe we'll just do it because it'll make us feel good. We look out for ourselves and that's it, we don't care about others and we cast people to the wayside daily. Religion is also guilty of that, but so are secular groups and foundations. Religion also provides huge psychological benefits, and it's not some false sense of satisfaction but a genuine sense of being and purpose in life. Perhaps you can get that in a secular group, but it's not the same feeling, and I know this from experience. And tally up the bad that exists because of secular groups and see where that puts you a few groups include but are not limited to (Nazis, KKK, The Entirety of Pol Pot's group, The Kim group in North Korea, all the human rights violations in China and Africa based on "ethics" (such as hutus and tutsis which was a massive genocide based exclusively on tribal affiliation), The slaughtering of Native Americans which was based on the need to expand to get gold and natural resources in America, and all the people Stalin and his regime). There are so many more but those are the one's that came off the top of my head at the moment. You're right we need more education, but not as a means to eliminate religion, but as a means to curve the idea that we're somehow unequal and should be treated differently. That's the root of it all. And if religion is taught and done properly, it advocates for the equal treatment of your fellow man, and if anything helping each other. That's the idea of it all. So no, religion very much so still has an important role in society in helping people find purpose and meaning and in guiding those who seek it. And honestly if it was really all that horrible, we'd all be dead by now because

"There are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84 percent of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion,"

That is from the Washington post. So what I'm trying to say is don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Religion is the antithesis of education. It allows us to be satisfied with ignorance. That's the last thing I have to say on this.

This is the last note I have to say on it as well then. I'm a Christian who's also a nuclear engineer and devoted scientist. The particular branch I'm part of not only recommends but actively encourages that we question what we're taught within the faith and how we understand it. It encourages us to explore the world with science and use our findings to guide how we understand faith. So no, it's not an antithesis of education if it's explored how it should be. It can very much so be something designed to encourage it and promote it. My desire to learn about how this world works and the amazing beauty it holds stems from my desire to understand how god created this amazing place I live in. I want to be closer to him so I try to learn more about how everything works to allow me to gain a better understanding of what he's made. I'd think that's quite the opposite from what you just described. Also a lot of early scientists in Math and Physics also held a similar view as to why they are scientist, part of why I adopted it myself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Religion is the antithesis of education. 

If it was so, our development would be stopped in paleolithic era.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

If one of you guys wanna boot up a new thread for this topic, we can take it there.

That way we're not de-railing this one.

I've made all my points and counterarguments that are applicable at the moment to what has already been stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vitaly said:

If it was so, our development would be stopped in paleolithic era.

I said is, as in present tense. I did acknowledge that it had its place back in the day, but I just don't believe it has that kind of relevance anymore.

Sorry to drag this back, but I felt I should clarify myself on that point. Religion to Society is like the scaffolding on a building. Good to get things started, but sooner or later that building needs to stand on its own.

I hate that in a lot of parts of this country, Scripture is still being taught in public schools under the pretense of teaching ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A.) I hate that that I'm this tired and yet my coffee has kicked in and is making me not feel it at the same time. It's just odd and I should probably leave the library and go back to my room.

B.) There was a huge group of people dressed in onesies and a pikachu outfit that handed out candy and I wish I could've been a part of that. I don't know, it was kind of funny but for some reason it just further helped out this sadness I'm already feeling at the moment. It's a bit confusing which is part of the reason I hate it.

and finally C.) 

7 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I hate that in a lot of parts of this country, Scripture is still being taught in public schools under the pretense of teaching ethics.

I entirely agree. Church and state require complete separation. School is a place where things that are taught need to be based on empirical data and evidence (in the case of language I guess on the general consensus as to the proper usage of it). Anything not based on fact/empirical data and concrete science should not be taught alongside factual subjects in any public school system. Sure it's okay to study religion from an academic perspective and it's role in society and how it shaped certain aspects and events in different cultures, but to teach it as truth is cheating students of valuable time in the classroom that is needed for things like math and science. If people want their children to learn about religion, it should be done at either home, their place of worship, or in a private school (and honestly even those I have a problem with, or at least the Christian ones, where they teach from the bible literally and completely disregard science. I can't speak for other religions).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what i hate?  getting into a pattern of staying up late and waking up late.  especially today when i woke up at the time i would have normally needed to be at work.  thank goodness i was off today, but i have work tomorrow.  but going to bed early is, like, impossible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gator said:

you know what i hate?  getting into a pattern of staying up late and waking up late.  especially today when i woke up at the time i would have normally needed to be at work.  thank goodness i was off today, but i have work tomorrow.  but going to bed early is, like, impossible.

Preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

When people think they know what they are talking about but they really don't.

Exactly how I feel talking to GreenPeace advocates when I'm discussing Nuclear Energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, U-235 said:

Exactly how I feel talking to GreenPeace advocates when I'm discussing Nuclear Energy.

Or Trump's cabinet position picks and their stances on world issues.

Or Fox News.

Or people arguing over religion.

Pretty much, ignorant people in general.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Or Trump's cabinet position picks and their stances on world issues.

Or Fox News.

Or people arguing over religion.

Pretty much, ignorant people in general.

I agree with all you just stated, though were the last two bits designed to be directed at me and FlynnnCoyote? I'm not sure, I'm tired and I might just be making shit up in my head, in which case totally ignore that. I'm just not sure given what was discussed earlier in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, U-235 said:

I agree with all you just stated, though were the last two bits designed to be directed at me and FlynnnCoyote? I'm not sure, I'm tired and I might just be making shit up in my head, in which case totally ignore that. I'm just not sure given what was discussed earlier in the thread.

Don't sweat it, bro. I see so much bullshit all over the place, people telling others which religion's deity (or lack thereof) is the best and using it as an excuse to be total dicks to each other. While I personally no not believe in any deities, I am not one to judge.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Don't sweat it, bro. I see so much bullshit all over the place, people telling others which religion's deity (or lack thereof) is the best and using it as an excuse to be total dicks to each other. While I personally no not believe in any deities, I am not one to judge.

I feel ya and I get what you're saying. I was just trying to say why we shouldn't eliminate it as a whole, not that it's superior by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On whether or not religion is bad &c., posing the question that way is no different from asking whether ideas are bad. Assuredly some are. The question should be on the nature of some religions, because you must understand that when a vague idea like religion is treated as a monolith it will swallow up science and atheism and any other set of structured ideas you'd like to throw at it.

 

It's better to try to understand the ideas on their own. Is the idea that humans have an innate value beyond material wealth bad, or is it likely to inspire violence? It's not, but it makes people reflect on their actions with eachother. That particular idea has been adopted by some secular movements, although to my knowledge no one has been able to derive that idea from a materialistic framework. And is the idea that those people can be redeemed even when they have become corrupted? With the other it gives a reason for people to be merciful with eachother. In those cases where there have been abuses,  ask yourself whether the problem was because of an excess of tolerance or a lack of it. And to do even better forget about tolerance and use love instead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jtrekkie said:

On whether or not religion is bad &c., posing the question that way is no different from asking whether ideas are bad.

No, it isn't. You are probably confusing religion with beliefs. The difference is that beliefs are personal convictions, and religion is institutional, organized. And institutionalizing beliefs is oppressive, which is bad regardless of content (although, for clarity's sake, I must say there is an exception to every rule, so you can save time pointing at sikhs).

 

1 hour ago, Jtrekkie said:

It's better to try to understand the ideas on their own. Is the idea that humans have an innate value beyond material wealth bad, or is it likely to inspire violence?

I don't think it's honest to invoke religion as a source of morality. First of all, it's plain false: you don't derive your morals from religion, otherwise, for a christian, there wouldn't be the dichotomy of "wrong" old testament and "right" new testament. You did select the sermon of the mount, but not genocide of midianites, for some reason.

 

Next, I personally am against religion for one simple reason: when left to their own devices, good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But to make good people do bad things, you need religion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SirRob said:

Don't worry, what you lost with him freaking out by your digimon porn, you made up with me being interested in your digimon porn!

I haven't lost him though...? (At least not yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Hisu said:

No, it isn't. You are probably confusing religion with beliefs. The difference is that beliefs are personal convictions, and religion is institutional, organized. And institutionalizing beliefs is oppressive, which is bad regardless of content (although, for clarity's sake, I must say there is an exception to every rule, so you can save time pointing at sikhs).

 

What people think about a thing has nothing to do with the thing itself. A religion can be categorized as a set of beliefs and does not need any more special treatment than another set. It's state of organization is external and has no effect whatever on the foundation, but is some cases reflects development. Whether an idea is institutionalized is irrelevant, but since we're taking about something touching ethics you're probably going to find statements regarding how countering ideas are treated (tolerance.) You sometimes come across the idea that organization is automatically wrong from people who say every belief is arbitrary, but that makes its own difficulties.

 

I don't think it's honest to invoke religion as a source of morality. First of all, it's plain false: you don't derive your morals from religion, otherwise, for a christian, there wouldn't be the dichotomy of "wrong" old testament and "right" new testament. You did select the sermon of the mount, but not genocide of midianites, for some reason.

That was actually Kant. And, for a Christian, there isn't a dichotomy. But to your point, you're going to derive your morals from a couple of positive statements like you do with geometry. That's how Christianity and Judaism work. Others do not, some are much more complicated, some just posit arbitrary statements.

Next, I personally am against religion for one simple reason: when left to their own devices, good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But to make good people do bad things, you need religion.

 

You know better than that. If you define your argument into existence you'll just reinforce whatever idea you started with.

 

For Christians, we don't make a disrinction of good people, but we try to convince them all to value what is good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

That was actually Kant. And, for a Christian, there isn't a dichotomy. But to your point, you're going to derive your morals from a couple of positive statements like you do with geometry. That's how Christianity and Judaism work. Others do not, some are much more complicated, some just posit arbitrary statements.

I'm talking about how do you select statements, because that is your morality. How do you know what part is good and should be followed, and what part should be considered metaphoric, illustrative, etc, and discarded as anything more than a myth? You certainly don't get that from scripture, there's nothing in there about how to cherrypick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexxx-Returns said:

I haven't lost him though...? (At least not yet)

Oh, well then it's a win win! This should be in a things you love thread!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, U-235 said:

This is the last note I have to say on it as well then. I'm a Christian who's also a nuclear engineer and devoted scientist. The particular branch I'm part of not only recommends but actively encourages that we question what we're taught within the faith and how we understand it. It encourages us to explore the world with science and use our findings to guide how we understand faith. So no, it's not an antithesis of education if it's explored how it should be. It can very much so be something designed to encourage it and promote it. My desire to learn about how this world works and the amazing beauty it holds stems from my desire to understand how god created this amazing place I live in. I want to be closer to him so I try to learn more about how everything works to allow me to gain a better understanding of what he's made. I'd think that's quite the opposite from what you just described. Also a lot of early scientists in Math and Physics also held a similar view as to why they are scientist, part of why I adopted it myself.

Religion is antithetical to scientific philosophies.
People who claim they subject their religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence as scientific theories are dishonest and they know it. :\
I wish people who studied science wouldn't use 'ah but I am a scientist' to imply their special beliefs are in any way scientific.

If your understanding of the universe is always going to be curtailed because the requirement that a bronze-age desert god created has to be forced in, then I guess I feel sorry for you. You are distorting your understanding by mandating the inclusion of an unqualified hypothesis.

If it was so, our development would be stopped in paleolithic era.

I think you're failing to mention the pivotal medical and scientific advanced which were permitted in Renaissance Europe after the Church's role as the gatekeepers of knowledge was replaced by scientific endeavor.

Before this turning point dissection had been forbade by the Church, and Great minds like Galileo and Newton were subject to imprisonment for producing scientific theories that were regarded as incompatible with the religious orthodoxy. (Galileo's support of heliocentricity implied Earth was not the fulcrum of existence, as suggested in the Bible, and Newton's decision to classify the spectrum as 6 colours was viewed as heretical because 6 was the number of the beast.)

Time and time again, throughout history scientific endeavor has come up against a brick wall because religious institutes either expressly forbade questioning, or because scientists themselves would not dare entertain hypotheses that did not include God.

Mendelian Genetics for example, which revolutionised the understanding of genetic disease and evolutionary processes, was almost never published, because the study which started it was undertaken by an Austro-Hungarian Monk, who realised that his work implied that genesis wasn't accurate.
And for a very long time scientists would distort their interpretations of the natural world to force the inclusion of God. From Newton's 'prime mover', to nineteenth century geologists who refused to reject Noah's global flood, even when all evidence stood against it.

 

This doesn't mean that scientist should be forbidden from holding individual religious beliefs. It does however mean that we should regard scientists who claim their private religious beliefs are 'scientific' with the utmost suspicion, especially if they contort their ideas unnecessarily in an attempt to contaminate their work with their private beliefs, because there is a very well established history of scientific advancement being precluded by scientists who did just that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Religion is antithetical to scientific philosophies.
People who claim they subject their religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence as scientific theories are dishonest and they know it. :\
I wish people who studied science wouldn't use 'ah but I am a scientist' to imply their special beliefs are in any way scientific.

If your understanding of the universe is always going to be curtailed because the requirement that a bronze-age desert god created has to be forced in, then I guess I feel sorry for you. You are distorting your understanding by mandating the inclusion of an unqualified hypothesis.

Exactly. One of the core scientific principles is to make no assumptions and question everything.

Faith by its very nature requires an assumption to begin with. At their fundamentals, there simply is no reconciling the two, and I think it's this that most of them either fail or refuse to acknowledge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Religion is antithetical to scientific philosophies.
People who claim they subject their religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence as scientific theories are dishonest and they know it. :\
I wish people who studied science wouldn't use 'ah but I am a scientist' to imply their special beliefs are in any way scientific.

If your understanding of the universe is always going to be curtailed because the requirement that a bronze-age desert god created has to be forced in, then I guess I feel sorry for you. You are distorting your understanding by mandating the inclusion of an unqualified hypothesis.

I'm not going to agree with this. What I find as evidence in science is something that stands alone as it's own item. However on that note while it does stand alone I feel it's something that gives me a better sense of how the universe works and how things were created. And with that I feel closer to god. The way I've come to understand the universe god created things, and science is our way of understanding the creation. Scientific evidence and methods are valid and the data that results is valid. For me it's validation of how much power god has, but not inherently evidence he exists. That's where faith steps in. Sure I feel that symmetry of the universe and how I've come to understand physics draws me to believe that god exists, but it's not definitive proof and I'm not claiming that in any way. And lastly, you're honestly being a bit disrespectful. If you disagree that's fine, but you don't need to state you're feeling sorry for me or that my faith is ultimately causing problems. I'm not saying that you're a bad person for not believing what I believe. We're all on different paths and all have a different understanding of how the world works based on how we were raised and our experiences. We don't have to agree and we don't need to even see eye to eye on any of it, but at the very least let's be civil about our discussion on it, please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Exactly. One of the core scientific principles is to make no assumptions and question everything.

Faith by its very nature requires an assumption to begin with. At their fundamentals, there simply is no reconciling the two, and I think it's this that most of them either fail or refuse to acknowledge.

Of course, many scientists do not subject their own personal beliefs to the rigours of scientific investigation.

That isn't just in the case of religion, but also in the case of so-called 'pet theories'. Unfortunately it is widely recognised that changes in Scienctific consensus often occur because the older scientists who won't change their minds to incorporate new facts and evidence die off and are replaced by new people. :\

We have to keep in mind that individual scientists are just as susceptible to cognitive bias, emotional needs and mistakes as any other person, and that it is the average-sum of a great many scientists which forms the consensus which we can invest at least some level of confidence in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Exactly. One of the core scientific principles is to make no assumptions and question everything.

Faith by its very nature requires an assumption to begin with. At their fundamentals, there simply is no reconciling the two, and I think it's this that most of them either fail or refuse to acknowledge.

Yes faith requires an assumption to begin with and you're right about that. It doesn't mean it will translate over and taint my understanding of other aspects of life, such as how I conduct scientific experiments. I'm always going to remains skeptical of data until I have definitive proof to show what is the most plausible conclusion. That's just how science and education for that matter works. There's nothing to reconcile if you don't allow it to lead you blindly in other parts of your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...