Are you religious? Yes/No and Why

[Blademaster]

1,500 ago there was no science.Many people tried to figure things out in different ways, but the procedures weren't clearly defined, the scientific method was created a long time later.

It's REALLY hard for me to take anything you say seriously after reading this.

Modern science =/= science.

Mathematics is a form of science, and it has existed since the dawn of the Uni/Multi/Omni/Infini/Kerbumplyverse. One and one has ALWAYS been two.

Mechanical science has existed since the dawn of mankind, when the dumbest of slope-foreheaded grunting cavemen learned to operate the wheel and the practical application of the flame.

Agricultural science has been in practice since the earliest tribes of humans figured out how to irrigate, how and when to plant and harvest, what to hunt and what for (meat, bone for tools and weapons, skin and fur for clothing, etc.), and how the seasons operate.

Chemistry has been in practice since the ancient Mesopotamians and Sumerians learned that clay could be baked to make tools and weapons, that precious materials could be extracted from ore via metallurgy, that chemical mixture could be fermented into beverages or extracted from nature and used as medicine.

Physics have been known and theorized (albeit philosophically moreso than literally) since the first astrometric maps, the construction of Stonehenge and the ancient Chinese creation of the compass, and the coining of atomism - which indeed happened a bit over 1,500 years ago.

It may have been poorly understood to most, but those who DID understand it used their knowledge for centuries, and much of it - included everything I just listed - is still in use to this day.

Besides, what you state as the evolution of science are only different theories that have been formulated, it's not "what science says" because "science" is not a religion. It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to believe. The many existing sciences are methods to explore and construct, not dogmas.

See

At least scientists TRY to explain things. Their goal is to prove themselves wrong by making new discoveries that can in turn give them new knowledge so that they can later make a new discovery that disproves THAT older one in turn.

Which is why a scientist can have any religion, or none at all.

I never said a scientist couldn't have a religion. A religious scientist can still learn a lot, disproving old theories and formulating new ones about the world around him/her. This is helpful to the scientific community and to the world as a whole.

But if you flip the roles, what happens? A religious person can learn physics, math, chemistry, anthropology, whatever -ology, -ometry, or -ism you can throw at them. Their life belief is still always going to be "God made everything.," and it will rarely change. Which is fine with me.

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.

[Lady Vulpix]

You can take anything people do or have done in the past and call it science, but that won't make it science. Making tools isn't science, and ancient mathematics were closer to philosophy than to what they are now. And I'm talking about the times of Ancient Greece, Egypt, etc. Before that people used numbers to count, but that was all there was to it. And therewas a time when even numbers hadn't been invented, so I don't see where you're going with your "Dawn of the *verse" argument.

As I said, people strived for knowledge, but there wasn't a defined method. The search for knowledge in itself isn't science. I'm not saying that it's worse or less valid, it's just not the same thing.

And sure, setting aside those who convert from one religion to another or just take or leave religion as they change their convictions, religious people will always believe that God (or Gods) exist, just like atheistic people will always believe there is nop God. What's the point you're trying to make?

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.

That sounds funny coming from you. Who's the one who doesn't back up his claims, here and in most other discussions?

[Blademaster]

You can take anything people do or have done in the past and call it science, but that won't make it science.

Science.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge

Holy shit on a hot dog roll! Learning shit and then organizing and applying it is science! You got an exact date of origin for when THAT started to happen?

Here's a hint: I'm pretty sure it was more than 1499 years ago.

Making tools isn't science,

So engineering isn't science, metallurgy isn't science, smithing isn't science, programming a computer isn't science, building a fucking spaceship isn't science...

and ancient mathematics were closer to philosophy than to what they are now. And I'm talking about the times of Ancient Greece, Egypt, etc. Before that people used numbers to count, but that was all there was to it. And therewas a time when even numbers hadn't been invented, so I don't see where you're going with your "Dawn of the *verse" argument.

I know this is Misc. and not Mt. Moon, but I am honestly getting a headache from STUPIDITY.

First off, philosophical or evidential, math is still a science, and even ancient mathematic principles are still in use today. Pi? Euclidean geometry? Pythagorean theory? Do we still use this stuff? Yes. Is it science now? Yes. Was it science then? According to that handy little 'dictionary' thingy, yes it is.

Second, nobody 'invented' numbers. They've always existed. There's a difference between a number and a numeral.

And third, you just admitted the point I've been trying to prove: Ancient Greece, Egypt, and such used math in a systematic, scientific manner. Prior to 1,500 years ago. A time when, according to you, science did not exist.

What's the point you're trying to make?

See

Which is fine with me.

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.

And yes, I heard you the first time. I could easily ignore the topic. But this is a public forum, where all opinions and viewpoints are welcome, and thus are all open to criticism if they sound idiotic. And we all know that when it comes to idiocy, I have a LOT to say.

That sounds funny coming from you. Who's the one who doesn't back up his claims, here and in most other discussions?

Considering I'm the one here with a dictionary and an established knowledge of some basic scientific history, I'm going to assume the 'his' in this instance is you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some Ibuprofen.

[Cirrus]

I do believe in God and such, but I don't even really go to church.......-.

[Lady Vulpix]

Blade: you consistently skip the word 'systematic' in your interpretation of the definition. Just learning things and applying them isn't science, otherwise speaking and walking would be science because they're things we've learnt and apply. You're twisting the definition to suit your needs. There are many useful things that have been created or discovered by means other than the scientific method, so just because we're using something it doesn't mean it was found through science. In any case, it's a semantic discussion about the definition of the word 'science', and that's off-topic on this thread.

But I must warn you that there's a dangerous fallacy in the reasoning: "science is everything we know and use, everything people call science is real and useful, everything that people don't call science is untrue and useless". Each one of those 3 statements can lead to trouble if you believe them and use them in an argument.

[Asilynne]

I agree with LV up there, I thought you at least would understand that Blade, what with your fascination with Schrodingers cat and all.

As for your comment about religion staying relatively the same after thousands of years and science constantly evolving, I think the only reason for that is the thing we "knew" scientifically keeps getting proven undeniably wrong, whereas we cannot disprove without a doubt the beliefs of religion. With the earth revolving around the sun instead of the other way around, that changed because we were slapped in the face with undeniable proof that our earlier beliefs in that regard were wrong. So saying that science is "better" than religion because science is always changing and religion doesn't is an ignorant belief, since science changes because we realize we are WRONG constantly over the years.

You can be religious and still be interested in and study scientific things, as LV also said. So long as you realize that neither science nor religion have ALL the answers, and that the things we learn and theorize may and probably will end up being proven wrong as time goes on, then you can stay open minded about possibilities. Otherwise to believe that we know everything means we stop growing and start dying.

[Link]

I do believe in God and such, but I don't even really go to church.......-.

Why not?

[Heald]

I like that part in the Bible that says you can't be a Christian unless you go to a building known as a church every Sunday.

[Asilynne]

I thought the bible said something like as long as two people meet in my name it's considered a church. I don't go to church either because a lot of people at any of the churches I went to were a bit judgmental, and I don't need a preacher to talk to God for me.

[Blademaster]

Right, I'm tired of being polite.

You know, as much as I enjoy playing quote tag with people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and as much as I could continue shooting down your arguments of systematicism not existing despite libraries and widely observed transcripts dating back to the fucking Babylonians that are still in use today, I think I'm just going to end this here and now:

There are many useful things that have been created or discovered by means other than the scientific method, so just because we're using something it doesn't mean it was found through science.

My argument was originally that religion doesn't evolve, and science does. You disagreed. I cited some examples starting from 1500 years ago. You refuted that science hadn't been 'invented' yet or whatever and that scientific method came about much later.

THAT is my argument. That science existed prior to 1500 years ago. You disagree?

WRONG.

An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (circa 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (circa 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism. By the middle of the first millennium BC in Mesopotamia, Babylonian astronomy had evolved into the earliest example of a scientific astronomy, as it was "the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena."

1600 BC, 1550 BC, and the first millennium BC are ALL older than 1500 years ago, and they had scientific methods.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

Now, I believe I have proven my point. Everyone I have talked to on this matter agrees with me. Friends on TPM. Friends off TPM. My strictly Christian 70 year-old grandma. My 60 year-old dad who as of last year was fucking stupid enough to believe that SPAIN is in SOUTH AMERICA.

Can I PLEASE leave now?

In any case, it's a semantic discussion about the definition of the word 'science', and that's off-topic on this thread.

I'm going to take that as a pre-emptive "Yes.," and assume that the matter will be dropped here, without further response that drips with ignorance, condescension, and/or Mod/Supermod/Admin power plays because I'm being mean to Gabi QQ.

I agree with LV up there, I thought you at least would understand that Blade, what with your fascination with Schrodingers cat and all.

Haven't we already been through this? My extent of knowledge about Schrodinger is this.

Sorry to be so brash, but as I said before, I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts, and that's the direction this debate is going, has gone, and will continue to go.

And my pizza is getting cold, so I can't take it right now.

Ta.

[Heald]

Okay guys, I'm calling a moratorium on any discussion not explicitly related to the thread title. This includes members, mods, supermods, admins, and Norm from Cheers. I'm not taking sides, but please, no one cares.

[Markiss]

I love god and everything but im not religious. I used to go to church a lot a few years ago though.

[Leon-IH]

Mathematics is a form of science, and it has existed since the dawn of the Uni/Multi/Omni/Infini/Kerbumplyverse. One and one has ALWAYS been two.

The concept of Zero did not exist, however.

[Blademaster]

Yes it did, because zero doesn't exist as...

I mean, because zero... exists... ...but it... doesn't... I mean, it's nothing, but it's a thing... that...

...it...

...but...

........uh...

...

*sigh*

Well played.