atheist or theist?
atheist
69.5%
162
theist
30.5%
71
233 votes
| Existential nihilism. Life is a game, play till you drop, or do whatever the fuck you want to, it doesn't really matter. No religions I know of at the present makes any amount of sense whatsoever and are all based on stupid ancient texts full of superstitious bullshit written by uncivilized brutes or life denying ascetics. Well, Satanism isn't too bad, but I'd rather label that as a hedonistic life style and moral set than religion. I do kind of worship Dionysus now and then though, hohoho. |
| Somehow related to this topic |
 |
katsucats said: i would also like to state that an atheist can have a religion, i myself am a practicing Buddhist because its more about living as a good person and having good character, not blindly following some deity from what i understand Buddhism isn't a religion, but a lifestyle. am i wrong? |
| "Reality can really bum you out" - Ash Ketchum |
w7y7a7t7t said: That was TheGlack that said that, but Buddhism is a religion because there's a social structure (monasteries) and a hierarchy. Every monastery has a head priest, and some of these priests are treated like damn celebrities. To me, that's where the line is crossed between just a philosophy and a religion. A philosophy doesn't need its own establishments. There are no "moral subjectivism" temples or "existentialism churches", but there are Buddhist temples and Christian churches.katsucats said: i would also like to state that an atheist can have a religion, i myself am a practicing Buddhist because its more about living as a good person and having good character, not blindly following some deity from what i understand Buddhism isn't a religion, but a lifestyle. am i wrong? For what it's worth, there are a lot of Asian people who claim they are Buddhists, but they only adopt a cultural aspect. For them, Buddhism might as well be a philosophy, but then it's like following the 10 Commandments but not believing in Christ. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @w7y7a7t7t It depends on what your definition of "religion" is. I wouldn't consider Buddhism a Religion, in the sense that Religion must have one or more deities, while adhering to set rituals or beliefs given by the greater power. My problem with "religion" not needing those is that other definitions are so incredibly vague, that practically anything can be considered one at that point. |
TrapaliciousNov 20, 2012 6:02 AM
| Buddha pretty much functions as a god in some degree or other in most forms of Buddhism. Actually being a omniscient and omnipotent creator isn't really a prerequisite to be a god, after all. So it's safe to say it's a religion either way. |
Baman said: Buddha pretty much functions as a god in some degree or other in most forms of Buddhism. Actually being a omniscient and omnipotent creator isn't really a prerequisite to be a god, after all. So it's safe to say it's a religion either way. A god must have super natural powers to some degree, Buddha was simply a person. Saying "Oh well, he isn't a god, but he basically functions as one!" is exactly what I was talking about other definitions of Religion being immensely vague. |
TrapaliciousNov 20, 2012 10:22 AM
Slatrix said: I'm a theist, but what I don't like is how it is "cool" to be an atheist. I've been raised a Christian my whole life and I don't feel the need to explain myself on this topic again. But you felt the need to show off your ideals. Attention? Pride? Explanations are the proof of the opinion no matter the opinion itself. "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" if I'm not mistaken. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
| My problem with religious adherents is that if think a personified deity is required for them to be classified as a religion, then that gives them a cheap shot to attack other religions while magically excluding themselves. The Buddhism propaganda machine spins at a feverish pitch when they get atheists to believe that it's okay to be a Buddist because there is no "God". The Dalai Lama has even gone on record saying, "...the reality of the world today is that the grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way in thinking about spirituality and ethics altogether beyond religion." -- of course, conveniently excluding, and even giving a wink and a nod to Buddhism. But even after you take out the personified God, there is no doubt that supernatural elements remain within Buddhism. There is after all no proof that such things exist: Nirvana, Hell, Devas, the non-physical mind, and the 33 planes of existence. There's no argument that Buddhists have establishments of worship, a social hierarchy of respect (which ironically goes against their claimed doctrine), and even a moral consequence: if you do bad things, you will be tortured in Naraka; if you do good things and follow the doctrine, you will reach a higher plane, become more than just a mortal human, and eventually attain Nirvana, the ultimate goal. All these things are relayed by Guatama Buddha, and taken for granted by most of the disciples throughout history. We can draw a parallel between Guatama Buddha and Jesus: they are prophets, they seek to tell us the "truth" in which only they are privy to and no one else could challenge their authority. If we take a form of Christianity in which God is not a thing, but a process, and Heaven is the ultimate result, then aside from the obvious philosophical differences, it would have the same format as Buddhism. And it is... There are millionaire evangelical pastors here in America. It's a profitable business. There are millionaire Buddhist monks in Asia; they drive their Mercedes Benz around to make speeches and political endorsements for money while practitioners give them a foot massage. The Westerners are fooling themselves when they hear Buddhism and think of ascetics living in a wooden shack in a bamboo forest -- those are as common in Buddhism as Trappists in Christianity. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Agnostic. (Just would like to point out what the word agnostic by itself means, which is the belief that it is impossible to currently know whether or not deities or metaphysical phenomenon exist. It is not sitting on the fence, nor is it someone who believes there is deities and metaphysical phenomenon and that we just can't identify it, which is an agnostic theist.) With that said, I generally can not stand anyone who talks down to theists as if they are better than them, or ironically enough preach to them about how they're "stupid" for believing in what they believe. I would take an average theist anyday over a pretentious asshat of an outspoken atheist, who thinks "science" can explain everything and that anyone who doesn't follow their (now generally accepted) doctrines is a moron. |
| ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. The day they do I'll personally come and kiss your ass and tell you about how you were right. But I know it can't happen, especially the latter question because of a catch 22. |
| They will ,long after you and I are gone. And at that time they will have even harder questions before them, meaning that the questions you pose aren't the last ones, just the ones you and I imagine currently as the "end of knowledge". They certainly will. They have already proved unimaginable stuff through sheer maths alone. You say you are an agnostic, bu for a man who promotes humility you certainly are pretty judgemental for the future. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
Caze said: If conservation of mass and energy is correct, then there is no "origin". Matter and energy has always existed. On the other hand, your consciousness can be explained by electric signals generated by the central nervous system (brain). We can prove this by damaging the brain with a shovel to the back of the head and watching consciousness go out.Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Kanic said: They will ,long after you and I are gone. And at that time they will have even harder questions before them, meaning that the questions you pose aren't the last ones, just the ones you and I imagine currently as the "end of knowledge". They certainly will. They have already proved unimaginable stuff through sheer maths alone. You say you are an agnostic, bu for a man who promotes humility you certainly are pretty judgemental for the future. I am, because I KNOW it's impossible to prove the latter question no matter what happens, and even though I'm sure they will bring about many hypothesis's that attempt to explain the origin of matter/energy, which they already have, I'm positive that they will never prove it. The day they can reproduce something coming from literally nothing, which is inherently impossible to reproduce, I'll send you a ghostly postcard from the afterlife. |
Caze said: No. Scientists don't believe there was nothing. But you (theists) do. When God creates something, it is either be a natural process, or by a supernatural process, in which nothing in this realm becomes something in this realm. If it is truly "inherently impossible to reproduce something from literally nothing", then a supernatural God is impossible. Think about it.The day they can reproduce something coming from literally nothing, which is inherently impossible to reproduce, I'll send you a ghostly postcard from the afterlife. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @Caze The problem is that you percieve as granted absolute data that something was born from nothing. Why? Why is it so impossible that something as energy existed for eternity. Eternity here being relative. I respect your willingfullness to respect theists but I see a certain degree of ignorance towards the opposite side. If you are tilting towards one side or the other it's best that you are honest with yourself(so that we can understand the basis of this conversation better). The fact that science has progressed a great deal doesn't mean that it's over, so that you can make such groundless theories about the principles of consiousness , eternity and creation. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
katsucats said: Caze said: If conservation of mass and energy is correct, then there is no "origin". Matter and energy has always existed. On the other hand, your consciousness can be explained by electric signals generated by the central nervous system (brain). We can prove this by damaging the brain with a shovel to the back of the head and watching consciousness go out.Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. You don't understand what I mean by "the origin of perception of existence". You can say "look, I did X to this person's brain and it changed Y" all you want, you might have experienced brain altering things like drugs or a concussion, and say, "look it altered my perception of existence, this is proof that the perception of my existence is the brain". But the catch 22 comes into play when you take into account the undeniable possibility of solipsism, combined with never being able to reassure proof of literally anything and everything with anything other than your own perception of existence. What I'm trying to get across is extremely hard to put into words, but your own perception of existence can't explain the origin of itself. |
katsucats said: Caze said: No. Scientists don't believe there was nothing. But you (theists) do. When God creates something, it is either be a natural process, or by a supernatural process, in which nothing in this realm becomes something in this realm. If it is truly "inherently impossible to reproduce something from literally nothing", then a supernatural God is impossible. Think about it.The day they can reproduce something coming from literally nothing, which is inherently impossible to reproduce, I'll send you a ghostly postcard from the afterlife. Kanic said: @Caze The problem is that you percieve as granted absolute data that something was born from nothing. Why? Why is it so impossible that something as energy existed for eternity. Eternity here being relative. I respect your willingfullness to respect theists but I see a certain degree of ignorance towards the opposite side. If you are tilting towards one side or the other it's best that you are honest with yourself(so that we can understand the basis of this conversation better). The fact that science has progressed a great deal doesn't mean that it's over, so that you can make such groundless theories about the principles of consiousness , eternity and creation. I'm not a theist, or a creationist. However I do have a bit of a negative attitude towards anyone who puts their faith in science. Keyword being faith. I just generally don't like what the theories have done to the populace, because it's effected me more negatively than anything any religion has done in modern times. |
| I know I'm here and I know you're there. The fact that we are communicating right now is distinct proof for me. The fact that you didn't come up with the term solipsism on your own is also proof that someone else exists. But then again there is no proof that dictates how all these are not part of your imagination, right? Solipsism is an idea I'm not willing to adhere to and I believe that the origins of it stem from a different topic. Also, in response to your 1st paragraph: what you are describing is the experiment not the theory that occurs from it. I expect that at some point scientists will come up with a mechanism that explain what you are describing and even more, the all-time question of "who/what we are , free will, peronsality, influences, interaction" etc. There are a lot of branches in the science world that actually dwelve in said areas. I guess I just place too much faith in science. Edit: In response to your second post. That's called fear for the unknown from your part and the sense that "I know everything" that is cultivated in the general populance that displeases you. Still, I prefer people taking pride over an area that is everchanging and welcomes change, since those ideals can pass onto the populance that looks it up. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
Slatrix said: I'm a theist, but what I don't like is how it is "cool" to be an atheist. I've been raised a Christian my whole life and I don't feel the need to explain myself on this topic again. I can assure you that there's nothing "cool" about being an atheist. In the U.S, atheists are the LEAST trusted "minority" group: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib%20Atheist%20Faith%20and%20Values.html http://digitaljournal.com/article/315425 Personally, I can't speak for every atheist, I can only speak for myself. I was a Christian since I was very little, I truly believed the bible and everything I was told in church, I rarely questioned anything. When I finally did start to question certain aspects of the bible, I went out and did research and this is when I found out that I was completely IGNORANT of many scientific principles such as the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Big Bang Theory. This wasn't an easy process for myself, it took YEARS to finally accept that Christianity and all religion was only a "comfort mechanism" that humans use to make themselves feel better. I'm an atheist becaue I have not been shown sufficient proof that god exists, furthermore, I believe religion is very harmful to society and even though some of them do good, the constraints they have on the masses is far too dangerous. Meanwhile as an atheist, I have to be careful to who I tell that I'm an atheist. At work, I can't tell anyone because I fear I'll lose my job..... At home, I can't tell my christian parents because I fear they'll treat me differently... At social events, I can't tell acquaintances because I fear they'll distance themselves from me.... There are only a few people that know I'm an atheist, those I consider true friends. |
| Atheist. Just don't have any real need for spirituality. |
Caze said: We can't prove consciousness under solipsism (or anything else for that matter), but we can prove consciousness under naturalism. The problem with solipsism is that, although it is valid under least assumptions, no one over the age of 5 could truly believe it without suffering from a bout of existential Nihilism, for what exactly is it that compels you to eat, sleep, breathe, interact with perceived objects, or act in accordance to empirical knowledge if you truly believe that none of it reflects reality? How can you jump, having understood that gravity is not real; or eat healthy, having understood that calories have no effect on the mind? Solipsism might be possible, but anyone that's still alive that believes in it is a hypocrite.But the catch 22 comes into play when you take into account the undeniable possibility of solipsism, combined with never being able to reassure proof of literally anything and everything with anything other than your own perception of existence. Caze said: The scientific method is not faith-based. It is not prescriptive. It tells how things are observed to be true so far.I'm not a theist, or a creationist. However I do have a bit of a negative attitude towards anyone who puts their faith in science. Keyword being faith. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
JustALEX said: Meanwhile as an atheist, I have to be careful to who I tell that I'm an atheist. At work, I can't tell anyone because I fear I'll lose my job..... At home, I can't tell my christian parents because I fear they'll treat me differently... At social events, I can't tell acquaintances because I fear they'll distance themselves from me.... There are only a few people that know I'm an atheist, those I consider true friends. You're definitely not alone in that. A lot of people were raised by religious families and get more and more skeptical as they grow up. The thing is, they don't know who to tell either. Friends? Risky. Family? VERY risky. Ever noticed that there seem to be more atheists online than the people around you in real life? Noone really knows us on the Internet, so we're more lax about our opinions here. But yeah, you gotta be careful about who you tell. If it turns out to be someone that ends up treat you differently, then uh-oh. |
Caze said: Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. That's a pretty bold claim coming from someone who is not on the research frontier. |
| I used to believe in god. I also used to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. |
 |
Caze said: They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. You shouldn't use the word "Never" in such cases. Ever heard of the Higgs Boson and what it means to science and to existence? Google it. You may be quite surprised I must say. Red_Keys said: I used to believe in god. I also used to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I really expected a "To the knee" joke there. You sir, have disappointed me. |
 |
Leonne said: I was going to write some sort of apology for not entertaining you, but then IRed_Keys said: I used to believe in god. I also used to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I really expected a "To the knee" joke there. You sir, have disappointed me. |
|
Red_Keys said: Leonne said: I was going to write some sort of apology for not entertaining you, but then IRed_Keys said: I used to believe in god. I also used to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I really expected a "To the knee" joke there. You sir, have disappointed me. How rude! Unbelievable! GUARDS, take these red keys out and show him the road to my wife! |
|
Leonne said: He's making the case for solipsism (Google it.). None of that matters to a solipsist. In fact, nothing should matter at all.Caze said: They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. You shouldn't use the word "Never" in such cases. Ever heard of the Higgs Boson and what it means to science and to existence? Google it. You may be quite surprised I must say. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Leonne said: He's making the case for solipsism (Google it.). None of that matters to a solipsist. In fact, nothing should matter at all.Caze said: They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. You shouldn't use the word "Never" in such cases. Ever heard of the Higgs Boson and what it means to science and to existence? Google it. You may be quite surprised I must say. Surprisingly, I know what solipsism is. Looks like those philosophy classes back in high school are finally paying off. |
|
Hitchens said: Caze said: Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. That's a pretty bold claim coming from someone who is not on the research frontier. Is it not just as bold to claim the opposite, that science will explain literally everything? Although being an Agnostic Atheist, I believe (Keyword: Believe - not 'know') it's pretty unreasonable to assume science will explain everything. It seems pretty unlikely we'll ever get to the point that we can say with confidence "this is how it all began". |
TrapaliciousNov 21, 2012 1:29 PM
Trapalicious said: Hitchens said: Caze said: Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. That's a pretty bold claim coming from someone who is not on the research frontier. Is it not just as bold to claim the opposite, that science will explain literally everything? Although being an Agnostic Atheist, I believe (Keyword: Believe - not know) it's pretty unreasonable to assume science will explain everything. I find it pretty unlikely we'll ever get to the point that we can say with confidence "this is how it all began". It may take years, decades, whole millenia, but at some point, humans will have an explanation for everything. Science progresses every day. There's small discoveries that don't matter in the short run but they will matter in the long one. The discovery of the Higs Boson has been a great leap forward towards the explanation of our existence. We can just hope the guys who operate the LHC will theorize more and test more. But even if they don't, future generations will have other ways to test. Unless we get another Dark Ages, the progress of science and technology cannot be stopped. |
|
| Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. |
TrapaliciousNov 21, 2012 2:38 PM
Trapalicious said: Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. The difference is that scientists will continue their research until we can explain everything, while religion tells you all the answers from the very beginning. It's not far-fetched to assume that if there's something we can't explain, science will find an answer, but obviously nobody can predict that with complete certainty. Just look back at all the progress we've already made in areas that nobody could explain. Atomic theory, DNA, gravity, astronomy, evolution, and so on. |
 |
Trapalicious said: Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. not to be a dick, the whole "goal" of physics is to provide a unifying theory to explain how everything in the universe works ...there's a field right there that aims to explain everything. |
| "Reality can really bum you out" - Ash Ketchum |
w7y7a7t7t said: Trapalicious said: Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. not to be a dick, the whole "goal" of physics is to provide a unifying theory to explain how everything in the universe works ...there's a field right there that aims to explain everything. Didn't Hawking give up on unifying quantum physics and general relativity not too long ago? (AKA the theory of everything) Or is my information wrong? |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Trapalicious said: Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. But everything CAN be explained, it's just a matter of finding enough evidence too explain it. It's out there to find, but who knows if we will stumble across it. |
JigeroNov 21, 2012 9:53 PM
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| The concept of God that I believe in is that which described by Sanatana Dharma (the pure and original form of what is today known as Hinduism). "Hinduism" as practiced and defined today is a corruption of Sanatana Dharma and is not the same thing. Sanatana Dharma rrecognizes only one Supreme/"God" (a better term would be Truth) . It is thoroughly scientific religion and science meets hand in hand. Here theology is based on upon science and philosophy. "The Vedic revelationis of all revelations the only one whose Ideas are in perfect harmony with Modern Science, as it proclaims the slow and gradual formation of the world." All that matters is Truth, and that Truth (what can also be translated as God - Sanskrit is very hard to translate into English) pervades everything. "Truth behind all ephemeral truths. The Vedic concept of God/Truth is an architect whose structures all exist within him. Nothing can exist outside the Supreme Reality". It is also important to note that the Vedic concept of God is not like God as generally known to people. God in Sanatana Dharma is not the personal God like that of the Abrahamic religions. I don't even know how to describe it - its nondualism is really beyond monotheism, in which there is a fundamental duality of God and man. Evil is not envisaged as a quality opposed to good. It is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light, not its opposite quality. This is just as Truth has no opposite quality, just the absence of truth. In fact, Sanatana Dharma is not actually a religion as other formal creeds with lists of laws such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other "typical" religions are. Sanatana Dharma gives reverence to individual spiritual experience over any formal religious doctrine. Wherever the Universal Truth is manifest, there is Sanatana Dharma — whether it is in a field of religion, art or science, or in the life of a person or community. Wherever the Universal Truth is not recognized, or is scaled down and limited to a particular group, book or person, even if done so in the name of God, there Sanatana Dharma ceases to function, whatever the activity is called. It doesn't even matter what you call yourself. A self-proclaimed Muslim, Christian, even atheist can all follow the path of Sanatana Dharma (he/she will probably be doing it unknowingly, though). |
RandomChampionNov 21, 2012 10:20 PM
| Theist, I guess, but not institutionally theist in any way. |
| I can't answer this without knowing what "God" really is. It'll just be a concept until god is revealed in some way, assuming god does exist. So for now agnostic, but I believe something greater probably created the universe. |
 |
| Really, instead of asking whether or not science can explain everything, we should be asking whether or not mankind will survive long enough for it to do so. The very nature of science ensures that anything that is physically observable in this universe will fall under it's scrutiny in the end, and even if there is an existence other than the physical, assuming it is able to interact with our world in some way, then I'm sure that too will be brought to heel. Science as a tool is infallible, it is only the limitations of our knowledge and mortality that binds it. |
LoliconJuice said: Then you're not agnostic.I can't answer this without knowing what "God" really is. It'll just be a concept until god is revealed in some way, assuming god does exist. So for now agnostic, but I believe something greater probably created the universe. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
Trapalicious said: Hitchens said: Caze said: Kanic said: ^Science can explain everything. Just not yet. They will never be able to prove what the origin of matter and energy is, and will never prove an even harder question, which would be the origin of your perception of existence. That's a pretty bold claim coming from someone who is not on the research frontier. Is it not just as bold to claim the opposite, that science will explain literally everything? No one is claiming that science can/will explain everything. Bold certainty like that is the antithesis of what science stands for. If someone says either that science knows everything, or that science won't ever solve X, then you can be damn sure that they don't know jack about science, or how science is done. Trapalicious said: Of course science is making progression all the time, but to flat out state that we will have a theory of everything is one hell of a claim. Lets be a little realistic, and not act like many Theists do with God. It's a little tiresome having enormous claims being thrown from both sides as facts. Rarely do I see even those working in scientific fields themselves, stating that we will explain everything. You seem to have confused what the term 'theory of everything' means in physics. It doesn't means that the physicists are desperately searching for a theory that will answer every question about the nature of reality, or even the origin of the universe. But rather it is a question about forces. One of the biggest challenges physics faces is to unite the four know fundamental forces. They refer to the theory that they will hopefully find in this regard to be the theory of everything. Again, 'everything' doesn't mean everything, but rather the four fundamental forces. |
I agree with you, but that's why I brought it up. It seemed like you agreed with Kanic by only pointing out that Caze's statement seemed bold. It just came off as if the default was that science will explain everything, and anything subsiding from that is somehow ridiculous or unreasonable. If I misused the term, then my bad. |
TrapaliciousNov 22, 2012 9:07 AM
More topics from this board
Poll: » Let's appreciate MALShizuna - 43 minutes ago |
7 |
by tsukareru
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» What are you insecure about the most? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 30 |
53 |
by Zarutaku
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Is y2k vintage now?coolyfruity - 55 minutes ago |
1 |
by Zarutaku
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» If you could time travel and teleport where and when would you go? ( 1 2 )Paladin23 - Jan 25 |
59 |
by Paladin23
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» What are your thoughts about the forums?LenRea - Yesterday |
6 |
by LenRea
»»
31 minutes ago |