A Religious Question.

Post Reply New Topic

two people both entirely misinterpreting history. how....historically repetitious.


people look do look at many scientists from the past with contempt. if you disagree with me, just look at the "scientists" who pushed biometrics. those who perverted binet's IQ test into a measure of general intellegence despite it not being created for that purpose. binet actually wrote out against such uses.


the point being....he is right to some extent with regard to scientific studies today that will be regarded in the future with contempt (can't especially say what because we don't have the information yet, obviously!). however, he is wrong that ALL science will be viewed with conempt. this is his own prayer for the future...not based on history...not based on fact....just what he hopes will happen. science is the enemy. logic is the enemy to the illogical.

Well, I said great scientists. We do, just as we revere many of the great philosophers of antiquity and many composers and artists. There is nothing in history that says that our acheivements of this age will necessarily be viewed with contempt.

I was born a Christian, but I have never really believed in it.

of course there isn't such evidence....we won't know until after we're past this point.

but that's why timmy's wrong. because generally speaking, science is normally just rewritten and redefined as more information is presented. which is why science is science and not religion....the christian religion hasn't updated since the second vatican counsel.....if even that considering it's only one aspect of the religion. and again, it wasn't an update on the practical laws of religion (things like dietary laws which were changed by paul and a few others) but rather more an update of procedure and methods to push the same message. but i think i kinda started rambling there...the point is science mostly is mutable....it changes and moves with new information and new research and it questions that research and tests it against similar research....


really, the next "science" i see falling is the IQ and standardized measuring of intelligence. for the most part, it's not scientific and generally tends to favor those who are better off and rates those who are poorer (and normally also a minority) with lower scores. someday we'll realize that intellegence isn't simply a matter of regurgitating what you've been told but, rather, is an ability to critically analyze and absorb what you come across....which is right now, immeasurable and probably won't be able to be measured for a while, if ever. it's pseudoscience right now continuing the perversion of a once well intentioned test that wasn't supposed to be applied to general intelligence. especially with the recent moves forward in spectrum disorder research...particularly with aspergers, i'm sure that will entirely redefine how we view intelligence.

Well, science has to be mutable. An eagerness for change and "newness" is what drove the great composers of the Classical period. In spite of its name, the atmosphere of the Classical period was one of excitement and change. People didn't go to operas and concerts to seem cultured and sophisticated. They wanted to be "hip and trendy," in their own way, and the great composers responded to this quite positively. The people of the time wanted to move away from the past and bring the arts closer to the people. You'd really see something more akin to the atmosphere of a rock concert at those old opera houses. In spite of the fact that doing so goes somewhat against the attitude that allowed them to flourish, however, we still revere and cherish the works of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc. In the same way, we still revere Newton and Einstein, and we would only be wrong to do so if we mistook this reverence for science. The story of Nikola Tesla fascinates us for the same reason that the story of Mozart is still told: great genius, tragically underappreciated in its time.

i hated the classical era.


it's all about romantic era and 20th century (except french impressionism). beethoven would be the one exception...but he was really more of a tie-in to romantic era music than purely classical.


/you're talking to someone who went to school for classical trombone.


edit: and mozart is a boring hack that all theory majors go to because they couldn't hack it with creativity so they try to look at complexity of mozart and determine that there's a right and a wrong way to write music.

I believed in a God of some sort, but I didn't follow the rules of any religion, it was just a belief thing. Heretic christian I suppose XD. I'm an Atheist now. I realised the truth, and freed myself of the burden of a belief which had no end, and only gave false hope.

Stravinsky!
<---fanboy

See, I can't, or won't shut the door completely. I'd be defined as a hopeful agnostic. If I ever met God I'd ask him a bunch of questions about His decision making that would likely get me into trouble. Like at work, I'd just ask for "permission to speak freely" first, though.

but I just had a look at some money. It says "In God We Trust". If you can't believe your money, who can you believe in?


.... my 2 cents worth

Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 09 Apr 2007, 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In being an Athiest, doesn't that mean that you believe that there are no Gods whatsoever? How can you know for sure?

To me, Athiests have as much proof that a God doesn't exist as a religion does that a God exists. Both feed off eachothers weaknesses and holes to strengthen themselves and their views. I prefer to wait and see what eventuates without dismissing either in their entirety. But, in being an Aspie and all logical (faith being it's opposite), I naturally lean more towards Athiesm.

Just throwing in my two cents.

I was born into an Anglican family. For a large part of my life was unsure what I believed. When I was about 12 my life got very stressful and like so many people I turned to religion. But over the last 2 or so years my belief has changed. It went from being a Christian to believing that IF there is a God, it's the Christian one. Then I turned agnostic, believing that it was possible but that I shouldn’t live my life based on the chance that a God actually does exist. Then I went from that belief to atheism, which I currently believe. I believe there is no God, or at least that no existing religion has it right I’ve heard of has it right (especially Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology etc.). For the record, I would love to believe in Christianity, but I just can’t. If I were to believe it would simply be an act which I would, deep down, know to be wrong.

I don't know much about them (and am not one) but you may be interested to look at the Ba'Hai (sp?).

As I understand, they think that Christianity, Buddism, etc are different manifestations of the same God.

I could be wrong.

I think any thoughts regarding common sense should relegate religion to the fantasy world. Religion would have more chance of success I think if people accepted that is really is just some ancient stories from long ago similar to other fairy tales and it would get much more respect.

I'm apathiest, yeah apathiesm!

I was raised Catholic, although this only really consisted of going to church and attending a Catholic school (which had a religion class, and sometimes church but wasn't really that indoctrinating or anything), and literally nothing in terms of like praying at meals (although my grandparents to that a bit) or talking about religion. I never really thought that much about my beliefs that much. When I reached my teenage years I stopped attending weekly services, and I haven't been to mass in years.

I think about religion sometimes. I flirted with atheism briefly, and for a while thought about whether the logic of religion/God, but not so much anymore. I have a friend who invites me to go to her church, and I sort of have considered it but probably not that seriously at this point.