Trying to Find Non-Satanic Rock (techno, metal, Religious, title)

Trauma · 04-17-2007, 02:20 PM

True for the most part, but how about for the couple thousand years when the atomic model proposed by ancient Greeks was thrown out and the fire, wind, earth, and water alchemist theory was taught.

cardboard adolescent · 04-17-2007, 02:27 PM

If you hadn't noticed, the Greeks didn't really have much support for anything they thought up. They just kind of sat around and thought about stuff, and if they came up with something they liked, they paraded it around as some great truth. Nowadays, we use the scientific method, and theories are expected to be rigorously tested and supported by experimental data.

I think it wasn't actually until Galileo that science shifted from the Aristotlean abstract theoretical view to being experimentally supported.

But yeah, as smart as they may have sometimes been, the Greeks also came up with a lot of dumb ****.

Trauma · 04-17-2007, 02:31 PM

Well it was just amazing how many other brilliant scientific theories were conceived before someone decided to research the theory of atoms and elements again, since the BC's, something now extremely fundamental to all scientific thought.

tdoc210 · 04-17-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Okay, the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was never a scientific fact, that was an Aristotlean idea which became intertwined with the Catholic church and was therefore never challenged, until Galileo and Copernicus. I can't say what Aristotle based his idea on, certainly not any sort of scientific method, but it's pretty obvious why the church embraced it. Nowadays, scientific facts are based on experiment and observation, in all the sciences, from physics to geology. In my opinion, there's no difference between observing particles in a cloud chamber and looking at something under a microscope. Our understanding of the universe is no means absolute, but what we do know we know with a great deal of certainty, and isn't likely to be disproven. Most of the theories we hold true will probably be expanded upon, and shown to have a great deal more depth than we previously imagined, but they're unlikely to ever be thrown out the window.

Earth = center --> sun = center : result of aristotle and church, neither of whom used anything resembling scientific method
Newtonian mechanics ---> general relativity ---> quantum mechanics : expansion of knowledge. newtonian mechanics still apply and are true, there's just more depth.

im quite sure it does

cardboard adolescent · 04-17-2007, 02:50 PM

below me

Voodoo Chile · 04-17-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beat yr own KID

They're not the same. At all. There is a big difference between someone trying to figure out fact and someone beliving a being in the sky did it. Unlike in religion, science does have some facts. Are you going to deny gravity? Science has pretty much proven that as fact. Or that everything is comprised of atoms? So yeah, I do put more "faith" in a guy in a lab coat. Unlike a god, he's shown some actual results.

What is a "fact"? Like I said, it's just a theory that's bound to be disproven down the road. I don't know if gravity exists. Obviously something is keeping our feet on the ground, but what's keeping them there could be anything. For a religious person, it could be God. For an atheist, it'd be gravity. I don't think either is more credible than the other, because nothing can really be 'proven'.

cardboard adolescent · 04-17-2007, 04:21 PM

what if I said that i believed there were invisible monkeys flying around dragging us down, would you consider that to be less credible than the other two options?

Trauma · 04-17-2007, 04:27 PM

You think so too???

Voodoo Chile · 04-17-2007, 04:27 PM

No. How am I supposed to know if there are invisible monkeys dragging us down or not? To me, that's no more far-fetched than the theory of gravity.

cardboard adolescent · 04-17-2007, 04:34 PM

well, absolute skepticism is all nice and dandy, and i agree with you that absolute truth is unattainable, but eventually you have to accept that scientific concepts are, if not "true," at least applicable, to make any sort of technological advancement

whereas religion has no application to everyday life unless you really think god is listening to your prayers and only happens to grant your wishes every once in a while, or if you happen to be extraordinarily lucky, is just listening to you and none of the other millions of people who pray every day.

04-17-2007, 02:20 PM	#141 (permalink)
Trauma snickers Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: detroit Posts: 2,194	True for the most part, but how about for the couple thousand years when the atomic model proposed by ancient Greeks was thrown out and the fire, wind, earth, and water alchemist theory was taught. __________________ A mi no me importa nada Para mi la vida es un sueño

04-17-2007, 02:31 PM	#143 (permalink)
Trauma snickers Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: detroit Posts: 2,194	Well it was just amazing how many other brilliant scientific theories were conceived before someone decided to research the theory of atoms and elements again, since the BC's, something now extremely fundamental to all scientific thought. __________________ A mi no me importa nada Para mi la vida es un sueño

04-17-2007, 04:27 PM	#148 (permalink)
Trauma snickers Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: detroit Posts: 2,194	You think so too??? __________________ A mi no me importa nada Para mi la vida es un sueño

04-17-2007, 04:27 PM	#149 (permalink)
Voodoo Chile Groupie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 45	No. How am I supposed to know if there are invisible monkeys dragging us down or not? To me, that's no more far-fetched than the theory of gravity. __________________ Free your mind and your ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within.

04-17-2007, 02:27 PM	#142 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	If you hadn't noticed, the Greeks didn't really have much support for anything they thought up. They just kind of sat around and thought about stuff, and if they came up with something they liked, they paraded it around as some great truth. Nowadays, we use the scientific method, and theories are expected to be rigorously tested and supported by experimental data. I think it wasn't actually until Galileo that science shifted from the Aristotlean abstract theoretical view to being experimentally supported. But yeah, as smart as they may have sometimes been, the Greeks also came up with a lot of dumb ****.

04-17-2007, 02:50 PM	#145 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	below me

04-17-2007, 04:21 PM	#147 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	what if I said that i believed there were invisible monkeys flying around dragging us down, would you consider that to be less credible than the other two options?

04-17-2007, 04:34 PM	#150 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	well, absolute skepticism is all nice and dandy, and i agree with you that absolute truth is unattainable, but eventually you have to accept that scientific concepts are, if not "true," at least applicable, to make any sort of technological advancement whereas religion has no application to everyday life unless you really think god is listening to your prayers and only happens to grant your wishes every once in a while, or if you happen to be extraordinarily lucky, is just listening to you and none of the other millions of people who pray every day.