Believing in Aliens is ok

bobman1235

Early B. wrote: »

No, not all religions are based on faith.

Religion and science are both a search for answers to the same questions. Religion includes God in its answers (which is often perceived as unscientific) whereas science mainly excludes God (which is often perceived as aetheistic). Whether God is part of the answer or not isn't the issue I'm addressing. I'm simply saying that the process to arrive at these answers must be scientific (i.e., a logical one). It's obvious that there is intelligent design in the universe, so to understand it requires an intelligent (read: scientific) approach. In other words, the world is not designed by faith, so we need a scientific appraoch to make sense of it all.

I really have no idea what you're talking about - you either don't understand what belief in God means or you don't understand what the scientific process is - but since this whole topic is forbidden anyway I'll just say "OK, fine."

MGPK

Einstein was quoted "science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame", or was it the other way around.

Early B.

MGPK wrote: »

Einstein was quoted "science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame", or was it the other way around.

You were very close. Here's the exact quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

bobman1235 wrote: »

I really have no idea what you're talking about - you either don't understand what belief in God means or you don't understand what the scientific process is - but since this whole topic is forbidden anyway I'll just say "OK, fine."

Hey bobman, maybe you should read some Einstein so you can understand what I'm talking about. Here's a good link: http://einsteinandreligion.com/

bobman1235

From the little I have time to read, Einstein seems more to be talking about the function of religion from a societal standpoint; how it shapes the collective psyche and the betterment of a group of people. He speaks of "religion" as simply spirituality; an accepting that the world is more than just that which you can see and that within yourself.

It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.

Maybe that's what you're talking about, Brad, and if so then I can't disagree with you - there is no conflict between being SPIRITUAL and being scientific. They're not even really related.

But the actual mythology of religion and God ARE at odds with science. I guess the difference is like this : believing in the important lessons of most religions - be kind to your neighbor; do unto others as you would have done unto you; most of the ten commandments - is not at odds with science as it just tells you how to live and exist with other people.

Believing in an actual higher power that will come out of the sky and punish you, on the other hand, is a much different animal. It's blind faith in a thing - not an idea or lifestyle, but something supposedly tangible - that I just cannot see being associated with logic and reason.

(EDIT : not to say it's WRONG to believe it, just that it's incompatible with science)

Great website though, some interesting stuff in there, I hope I have some more time to go over it later.

WilliamM2

It's obvious that there is intelligent design in the universe, so to understand it requires an intelligent (read: scientific) approach.

What evidence is there that the universe has intelligent design?

Early B.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

What evidence is there that the universe has intelligent design?

Watch a few Discovery Channel shows tonight and you'll answer your own question.:rolleyes:

WilliamM2

Early B. wrote: »

Watch a few Discovery Channel shows tonight and you'll answer your own question.:rolleyes:

If you don't know the answer, you could have just said so.

PhantomOG

5... 4... 3...

amulford

bobman1235 wrote: »

Considering the state of our educational system, I have a feeling kids aren't getting that deeply into physics and astrology.

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I am sure you meant astronomy.

That's gonna leave a mark...

obieone

Riddle me this atheists, WHAT caused the big bang? BTW, I'm agnostic.

NotaSuv

obieone wrote: »

Riddle me this atheists, WHAT caused the big bang? BTW, I'm agnostic.

What causes a theory????? Where does it say the the Big Bang even happened? I was under the impression this was just a theory........

i am not a atheist or agnostic just a visitor from another world.........

NotaSuv

obieone wrote: »

Riddle me this atheists, WHAT caused the big bang? BTW, I'm agnostic.

Heres a quickie from Wink not too to use search on the net ya know......



The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe that has become well supported by several independent observations. After Edwin Hubble discovered that galactic distances were generally proportional to their redshifts in 1929, this observation was taken to indicate that the universe is expanding.[1] If the universe is seen to be expanding today, then it must have been smaller, denser, and hotter in the past. This idea has been considered in detail all the way back to extreme densities and temperatures, and the resulting conclusions have been found to conform very closely to what is observed.

Ironically, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true.[2] However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang.

Analysis of the spectrum of light from distant galaxies reveals a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law, which is taken to indicate that the universe is undergoing a continuous expansion. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered in 1964 provides strong evidence that due to the expansion, the universe has naturally cooled from an extremely hot, dense initial state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background led to almost universal acceptance among physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the Big Bang describes the evolution of the universe quite well, at least in its broad outline.

Further evidence supporting the Big Bang model comes from the relative proportion of light elements in the universe. The observed abundances of hydrogen and helium throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

However, there are mysteries of the universe that are not explained by the Big Bang model alone. For example, a region of the universe 12 billion lightyears distant in one direction appears little different than a region 12 billion lightyears distant in the opposite direction. But since the universe is 'only' around 13.7 billion years old, it would appear these regions could never have been causally connected. How, then, can they be so similar? Alan Guth's 1981 theory of cosmic inflation, a short, sudden burst of extreme exponential expansion in the very early universe, provided an explanation for this horizon problem and several of the features unaccounted for by the original Big Bang model. The successor to Guth's original theory has found some circumstantial support, but it is not yet nearly as well supported as the Big Bang model.

fossy

after reading this thread -- thank GOD for rock & roll -- amen

Airplay355

Cool

mrbigbluelight

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

That shouldn't oughta be.


.....and I get extra credit for excellent grammar use.