Quote:

There have been sciences in the past, notably phrenology, that utilized empirical methods, only to find out they were WAY off.  Alchemy is another.  Here's a list of scientific "facts" from 20 years ago as well, that science discovered to be untrue (kind of like how "the world was flat" was seen as a clearly observable fact not long ago).

---

Quote:

To me, you're describing what the scientific method DOES, not what it IS.

---

Quote:

What it does with the tools provided to it. The more advanced the tools, the more we realize our tools were wrong in the past. And the farther we get from where we were, the less what we once called "science" looks like science as we know it at all. At what point does it take on a new name? Evolution, you think new ways of exploring the world will not evolve? Perhaps ones that are so radically different from what we now call science, that it requires a term of its own?

---

Quote:

The scientific method is a process of assumptions. And THUS FAR, those assumptions protect it from being disproven because it must work within it's own assumptions, and since it is our best method of inquiry at the moment, we have nothing to inspect science itself with.

---

Kickle said:

Heh, you're mighty protective of something that is emotionless, and thus without need of protection.
It's strange how much we can place ourselves into our beliefs.

---

Quote:

What the fuck is this nonsense?

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

To me, you're describing what the scientific method DOES, not what it IS.

---

What do you mean?  Rejecting bad science is part of the scientific method, and this search for meaning through refined observation is representative of an ideology, one which rejects that which can't be seen, can't be tested.

Quote:

What it does with the tools provided to it. The more advanced the tools, the more we realize our tools were wrong in the past. And the farther we get from where we were, the less what we once called "science" looks like science as we know it at all. At what point does it take on a new name? Evolution, you think new ways of exploring the world will not evolve? Perhaps ones that are so radically different from what we now call science, that it requires a term of its own?

---

The size of the universe is 12,000 light years in the bible, by the uniform measurement of the speed of light.  However, we can directly observe that the universe is 93 BILLION light years in size.  There is no physical law or manner of excuse that can reconcile that difference.

Quote:

I don't recollect the bible ever saying the universe is such and such size...

I am interested how science says the universe is a given size. What lies beyond it if it has a border/size?

Ferris said:

So what part of religion does make sense and how does it make sense?

---

Well I mean, how do you define "sense"? Technically God can be anything so that makes it impossible for God to not exist since anything exists DURRR

Don't even bother with these guys Ferris

Quote:

I don't really see anyone arguing about this from a righteous standpoint.  Since it all stems from belief anyway.

---

Kickle said:

You want my opinion? In the way that science neglects -- emotionally.

---

You think science is heartless, and that is your sole justification for religion?

You must have never stared into the stars.  This is what life is all about my friend:

Quote:

I don't recollect the bible ever saying the universe is such and such size...

I am interested how science says the universe is a given size. What lies beyond it if it has a border/size?

---

Kickle said:

Science itself is heartless, because it is a method that circumnavigates emotion. That's why it was created. Emotions were getting in the way of the kind of knowledge we can now achieve, so we cut them out of the process.

In this way, religion is a method of exploration which revolves not on objective experience, but instead much more so on the inner, subjective experience.

---

Bernackums said:

Quote:

I don't really see anyone arguing about this from a righteous standpoint.  Since it all stems from belief anyway.

---

Out of curiousity, what does what righteousness stem from if not belief?

---

Fraggin said:

Bernackums said:

Quote:

I don't really see anyone arguing about this from a righteous standpoint.  Since it all stems from belief anyway.

---

Out of curiousity, what does what righteousness stem from if not belief?

---

Depends upon your definition of truth and where your truth stems from. Biblical Truth, Historical Truth, Scientific Truth, Irrefuteable Truth.

It takes a degree of belief to even put stock in scientific teachings. If you have never seen the universe for yourself, how do you know the method of your experience is not rooted in untruthfulness?

Water is made from Hydrogen and Oxygen, Have you experienced this, or were you simply taught this?

How do you know that for certain, this is truth without following the scientific method on your own?

How do you know that subatomic particles actually exist?

You see, every facet of what we accept as fact withou verification by a set of trusted standards requires a degree of belief.

---

Quote:

What of that is to be respected above the beauty of understanding, really understanding?

---

Quote:

Religion has done nothing but prevent the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, and curtailed creativity and freedom.

---

Ferris said:

Fraggin said:

Bernackums said:

Quote:

I don't really see anyone arguing about this from a righteous standpoint.  Since it all stems from belief anyway.

---

Out of curiousity, what does what righteousness stem from if not belief?

---

Depends upon your definition of truth and where your truth stems from. Biblical Truth, Historical Truth, Scientific Truth, Irrefuteable Truth.

It takes a degree of belief to even put stock in scientific teachings. If you have never seen the universe for yourself, how do you know the method of your experience is not rooted in untruthfulness?

Water is made from Hydrogen and Oxygen, Have you experienced this, or were you simply taught this?

How do you know that for certain, this is truth without following the scientific method on your own?

How do you know that subatomic particles actually exist?

You see, every facet of what we accept as fact withou verification by a set of trusted standards requires a degree of belief.

---

I've stared through the lens of one of the world's largest telescopes, I've seen electrolysis of water splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen, I've been to Lawrence Livermore Labs and seen the magnificent machines, particle accelerators, that smash atoms together at unbelievable velocities.  I've done this with mine own eyes, and nobody can tell me that what I've seen does not exist, for to me as an individual, there is no existence outside of my own.  I exist, people exist, the Earth and Sol System and Milky Way and countless other galaxies exist.  I have not seen god or evidence of a god and therefore he does not exist.

---

Kickle said:

Quote:

What of that is to be respected above the beauty of understanding, really understanding?

---

Nothing. Some people just do it in different ways. What's wrong with that?

---

Quote:

Quote:

Religion has done nothing but prevent the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, and curtailed creativity and freedom.

---

From YOUR perspective, which is hardly scientifically sound.

---