Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I was reading an article yesterday that stated on average a supernova goes off every single second somewhere in the Universe (a supernova being an unimaginable explosion of a massive star that outshines entire galaxies and ultimately results in a neutron star or black hole, depending on the initial mass). Anyway, this got me thinking. Forget the bible, forget personal tragedies and global catastrophies, forget all that. Think about the Universe. Why would God go to the bother of creating something as huge, complicated, and ancient as the Universe all just for the benefit of a particularly well evolved ape, and then send his only son (who is human) here at an arbritrary date some 2000 years ago? What is the purpose of other galaxies, black holes, quasars, etc in relation to us? Why on the smaller scale is life so incredibly complex? If we really do posess a spirit and soul, why have we got the most complicated thing yet discovered - a brain. Why are there so many species of life if man is the only important one? What is the significance of the recently discovered species in Antarctica, only revealed because the ice shelves are melting? Is there life on other planets, maybe intelligent life? If so, does this not contradict human's unique place in the world, as described in the bible? It strikes me that religion is truly arrogant on human beings standing in the Universe, incredibly so, as would be expected when based on a book written before science and technology came into being as we know it. Now I know none of the above proves anything, but I'd like people at least to consider what the motives were for God to create the vastness of time and space (a billion galaxies with a billion stars, developed over 14 billion years) all for our benefit. And then, of course, he does all this we can lead a life of perhaps a mere 80 years (if we are lucky), where upon we will die and be judged, and spend eternity in heaven or hell. How can this celestial waste and mismanagement make sense to any sane person? Unfortunately I know the majority of this board are all dye in the wool agnostics or atheists, and are therefore going to hell, but I know there are believers out there, I'd be interested in your opinions on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Ours is not to question why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 According to this website http://www.ps.uci.edu/~silvestr/thesis/THESIS/node4.html Only 5 known Supernovas have been known to exist. Therefore your initial premise is a bit shaky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 maybe all the other "planets" with their intelligent species have their own equivalent to our "God" ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 According to this website http://www.ps.uci.edu/~silvestr/thesis/THESIS/node4.html Only 5 known Supernovas have been known to exist. Therefore your initial premise is a bit shaky. Article in the National Geographic this month about it. I haven't read it all yet but I imagine it involves extrapolation with the assumption the rest of the Universe is similar to what we can observe locally, as well as observation of the remnants of previous supernovas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 maybe all the other "planets" with their intelligent species have their own equivalent to our "God" ?? The bible is wrong then? Are there multiple Gods or is he two-timing us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 maybe all the other "planets" with their intelligent species have their own equivalent to our "God" ?? The bible is wrong then? Are there multiple Gods or is he two-timing us? How many "God's" do we already have on our own planet ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34167 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Scientists are all nerdy twats like Renton. That's my main beef with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 No, it's a fair point. The proponents of Science. But the same could be said of Religion. Or anything really. Basically, it's just the handful of nutjobs spoiling it for everyone else! On the subject of God and whatnot, then it's irrefutable that there is something greater than any of us can possibly comprehend in existence. I'm not saying it's 'God' per se, but there is something beyond Science and beyond our understanding. Even if you subscribe to the major Scientific theories, big bang, primordial soup, etc, etc, it has to be acknowledged that there was SOMETHING from which other things came. And how did that get there in the first place? More on topic, clearly Christians have made man central to the Bible, because they were human. If insects had religion (perhaps they do), I daresay an ant or bumblebee would be the most important. Also, I specifically said Christians, because you seem to be confusing different strands of religion with Religion as a whole. It'd be like me claiming something rang true for Physics so it must apply to Chemistry too. Not every religion has man central to it. However, because the stuff we read and learn about has been codified by man, of course it will heavily involve Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Scientists are all nerdy twats like Renton. That's my main beef with science. More pork than beef in Renton's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 No, it's a fair point. The proponents of Science. But the same could be said of Religion. Or anything really. Basically, it's just the handful of nutjobs spoiling it for everyone else! On the subject of God and whatnot, then it's irrefutable that there is something greater than any of us can possibly comprehend in existence. I'm not saying it's 'God' per se, but there is something beyond Science and beyond our understanding. Even if you subscribe to the major Scientific theories, big bang, primordial soup, etc, etc, it has to be acknowledged that there was SOMETHING from which other things came. And how did that get there in the first place? More on topic, clearly Christians have made man central to the Bible, because they were human. If insects had religion (perhaps they do), I daresay an ant or bumblebee would be the most important. Also, I specifically said Christians, because you seem to be confusing different strands of religion with Religion as a whole. It'd be like me claiming something rang true for Physics so it must apply to Chemistry too. Not every religion has man central to it. However, because the stuff we read and learn about has been codified by man, of course it will heavily involve Him. I just love the flow of your ideation Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 No, it's a fair point. The proponents of Science. But the same could be said of Religion. Or anything really. Basically, it's just the handful of nutjobs spoiling it for everyone else! On the subject of God and whatnot, then it's irrefutable that there is something greater than any of us can possibly comprehend in existence. I'm not saying it's 'God' per se, but there is something beyond Science and beyond our understanding. Even if you subscribe to the major Scientific theories, big bang, primordial soup, etc, etc, it has to be acknowledged that there was SOMETHING from which other things came. And how did that get there in the first place? More on topic, clearly Christians have made man central to the Bible, because they were human. If insects had religion (perhaps they do), I daresay an ant or bumblebee would be the most important. Also, I specifically said Christians, because you seem to be confusing different strands of religion with Religion as a whole. It'd be like me claiming something rang true for Physics so it must apply to Chemistry too. Not every religion has man central to it. However, because the stuff we read and learn about has been codified by man, of course it will heavily involve Him. I was referring mainly to christianity but also the other Abrahamic religions as these are the most dominant religions on the planet. Mind, I thought most religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism) are based around mankind. What I'm really referring to is a belief in a "personal" God. I just don't see how this tallies with the evidence. Is it arrogant of me to point this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34167 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. There'd be something wrong with me if I didn't dismiss talking snakesssssssss tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 No, it's a fair point. The proponents of Science. But the same could be said of Religion. Or anything really. Basically, it's just the handful of nutjobs spoiling it for everyone else! On the subject of God and whatnot, then it's irrefutable that there is something greater than any of us can possibly comprehend in existence. I'm not saying it's 'God' per se, but there is something beyond Science and beyond our understanding. Even if you subscribe to the major Scientific theories, big bang, primordial soup, etc, etc, it has to be acknowledged that there was SOMETHING from which other things came. And how did that get there in the first place? More on topic, clearly Christians have made man central to the Bible, because they were human. If insects had religion (perhaps they do), I daresay an ant or bumblebee would be the most important. Also, I specifically said Christians, because you seem to be confusing different strands of religion with Religion as a whole. It'd be like me claiming something rang true for Physics so it must apply to Chemistry too. Not every religion has man central to it. However, because the stuff we read and learn about has been codified by man, of course it will heavily involve Him. I was referring mainly to christianity but also the other Abrahamic religions as these are the most dominant religions on the planet. Mind, I thought most religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism) are based around mankind. What I'm really referring to is a belief in a "personal" God. I just don't see how this tallies with the evidence. Is it arrogant of me to point this out? I suspect the short time we have been around science has only discovered a few grains of sand and not the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3587 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers Yes. And they regularly change their position as new things are discovered, but that is part of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Your argument resembles that of the worst kind of Religious zealot, to be fair, which is somewhat ironic. You come across as a little blinkered. Nowhere have I mentioned Christianity as the one true religion; in fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid doing so, which you haven't. The fact is, not all religions agree, obviously. They can't all be right, obviously. But not all scientists agree. It's all the same. That's what bothers me about this Religion versus Science tripe; you're both exactly the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17621 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers I'm staggered you actually believe that. Is putting faith in a medicine your doctor gives you the same as putting faith in life after death on the say so of a priest? It isn't for me, if I really wanted to I could look up the evidence from clinical trials and the like that the drug works. The only element of faith I require is that the papers weren't written fraudulently - very unlikely with modern medicine with constant audits and peer reviewed papers. It's not the same thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now