Are you religious? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: What religion do you follow?
Christianity 38 20.32%
Buddhism 3 1.60%
Hinduism 1 0.53%
Islam 2 1.07%
Judaism 4 2.14%
Wiccanism 1 0.53%
Other established religion (feel free to post about it) 6 3.21%
Self-defined 25 13.37%
Don't follow any religion & don't believe in deities (atheist) 68 36.36%
Not Sure, undecided, don't know or don't care 39 20.86%
Sikhism 0 0%
Voters: 187. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2015, 05:44 PM   #501 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I thought you were going to "stay quiet as kept and politely excuse" yourself. Guess not.

Anyway, yes, when the word is used in that metaphorical way, it can be used to apply to anything, which means that usage is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I just assumed you were smart enough to know that and weren't a troll. Guess I was wrong on one of those fronts.
yeah, read the new disclaimer, bud!

So how does metaphorically describing a set of people with a shared standard of beliefs/ethics in the context of food, or the like, equate to true but not describing atheists who are also a set of people with shared standards of beliefs and ethics not equate to true? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding...mainly because the two separate sets of standards being mixed to apply as tests for validity.

I don't get how a shared set of beliefs and ethics is only true in a metaphorical sense but not a literal sense when it comes to describing the atheist demographic? Explain your rationale there.

And nothing about the CIA World Factbook??

cool!

*struts*
Hip-Hop Homework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 05:47 PM   #502 (permalink)
Toasted Poster
 
Chula Vista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework View Post
Everybody wants to arrogantly assume humanity has it all figured out.
Who the **** is saying that? I said hard science, not stuff like string theory (which by the way is noted as theory).

A ton of stuff about our bodies, the air, water, animals, the planet, the sun and moon, the solar system, and the universe in general are cold hard scientific facts. Don't cloud that fact by bringing up quantum theory.

Again, the only people I know who refer to science as a belief system are in denial about evolution.
__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 05:51 PM   #503 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 115
Default

You can find a lot of scientists who view the information containing properties of DNA, RNA as evidence for intelligent design.
prisoner437x3y0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 05:55 PM   #504 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework View Post
yeah, read the new disclaimer, bud!

So how does metaphorically describing a set of people with a shared standard of beliefs/ethics in the context of food, or the like, equate to true but not describing atheists who are also a set of people with shared standards of beliefs and ethics not equate to true? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding...mainly because the two separate sets of standards being mixed to apply as tests for validity.

I don't get how a shared set of beliefs and ethics is only true in a metaphorical sense but not a literal sense when it comes to describing the atheist demographic? Explain your rationale there.
You're right, food is a religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework View Post
And nothing about the CIA World Factbook??

cool!

*struts*
Guess that's what happens when you edit your post after someone has already hit reply.
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 05:56 PM   #505 (permalink)
.
 
grindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: .
Posts: 7,201
Default

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.
grindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 06:11 PM   #506 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
Who the **** is saying that? I said hard science, not stuff like string theory (which by the way is noted as theory).

A ton of stuff about our bodies, the air, water, animals, the planet, the sun and moon, the solar system, and the universe in general are cold hard scientific facts. Don't cloud that fact by bringing up quantum theory.

Again, the only people I know who refer to science as a belief system are in denial about evolution.
I fail to see how referring to science as a belief system necessitates denying evolution.

I understand what you're saying but how is that germane?

There is an array of unexplained scientific mysteries, e.g. spontaneous human combustion, the origin of our own universe is still a subject of great debate. So science isn't always cold hard fact, even outside the fields of theoretical sciences. Even in medical fields just for another example.

And proponents on both sides of science and religion seem to think that creationism and evolution must necessarily refute each other. But I don't.

So if you're addressing that because I'm Christian, I can't resolve that curiosity for you.

I recognize science deals with cold hard facts but it also deals with a lot of theory, and that does necessarily require the practice of faith...regardless of how much circumstantial evidence supports the theory, it's still a theory and an expression of faith until it's proven true with no possibility to be falsified. Let's not portray all the fields of study and branches as science as being so firmly rooted in fact. If everything was simply established in fact, there would be no further need for research or experimentation.

The point is while there is certainty in matters that are relatively-trivial (this is subjective) there is little to no certainty whatsoever on other matters in science. So it's not this big infallible force that is irrefutable as science has proved many times throughout the course of history that it needed to redefine the paradigms upon which science's understanding is predicated in many fields.

That's why I say many arrogantly assume we all have it figured out because somebody inna lab coat at the Acme Science corporation says "we have data." I'm not saying you necessarily possess that belief but others do and they seldom question their sources or the methods used to determine a particular conclusion from research. That was my opinion that the presuppositions were borne from arrogance but maybe some assume out of ignorance too. I don't know...that is a subjective statement from me.
Hip-Hop Homework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 06:13 PM   #507 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
You're right, food is a religion.


Guess that's what happens when you edit your post after someone has already hit reply.
never too late to share you feelings with me...

I'm here for you!
Hip-Hop Homework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 06:16 PM   #508 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 99
Default

look, I'm not tryin'a continue down this mutually-condescending path. I ain't built like that and honestly. If nobody here wants to be open minded about their belief, it's completely pointless to continue.

Have fun...I was genuinely trying to have discourse and explore alternative possibilities.

I can't continue if there's no constructive end to this.

Cheers and enjoy your thread.

P3@cE! (fo'real this time)
Hip-Hop Homework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 06:25 PM   #509 (permalink)
Mord
 
Zhanteimi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 4,874
Default

In Douglas Coupland's Generation X, the author describes many hallmarks of Generation X, one of which is something he calls "metaphasia": an inability to perceive metaphor.

Quote:
Where I live, high school football is religion.
This is clearly a metaphor and not to be taken literally. As a matter of fact, it is the comparison of two unlike things that strengthens the sentence. Hence, "atheism is a religion" has punch precisely because it's a metaphor, and thus the metaphor draws attention to the often fanatical devotion atheists have to their belief system.
Zhanteimi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 11:26 PM   #510 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
Who the **** is saying that? I said hard science, not stuff like string theory (which by the way is noted as theory).

A ton of stuff about our bodies, the air, water, animals, the planet, the sun and moon, the solar system, and the universe in general are cold hard scientific facts. Don't cloud that fact by bringing up quantum theory.

Again, the only people I know who refer to science as a belief system are in denial about evolution.
Everything is a theory in science.

Quote:
Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I'd vote for Trump
DwnWthVwls is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.