The Next Pope

[mondatoo]

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

[redarmi]

They all have the same one God. Just different people spreading his word.
maybe, just maybe; all are welcome, after all we are all his children.

Is this actually true?  ie that you all worship the same god?  So Jehovah, Allah, Hari and , erm, God are all the same person??  Not levelling but just genuinely never knew this...

[redarmi]

Thinking more about this and it can't be true because there are more than one Budda and Hindu's have many Gods but the question remains for those religions with a single God I suppose.

[doubleup]

They all have the same one God. Just different people spreading his word.
maybe, just maybe; all are welcome, after all we are all his children.

Is this actually true?  ie that you all worship the same god?  So Jehovah, Allah, Hari and , erm, God are all the same person??  Not levelling but just genuinely never knew this...

Yes God laughed so much when the Crusaders and Muslims slaughtered each other over their version of him.

[ManuelsMum]

They all have the same one God. Just different people spreading his word.
maybe, just maybe; all are welcome, after all we are all his children.

Is this actually true?  ie that you all worship the same god?  So Jehovah, Allah, Hari and , erm, God are all the same person??  Not levelling but just genuinely never knew this...

Muslims and Christians, for example, cannot both be right. Most Christians believe in the Triune God, 3 Persons, One god. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different Persons, are distinct, and each one is God. But there is only one God. Does this appear to be nonsense? Yes. However, it is true. And we call this a mystery. Pull out a 3 leaf clover to help explain it.
For Muslims (and Jews too actually), it's a really big deal that there is only one God. Triune God people can really piss some muslims off for this reason.
If you are talking to an educated/semithinking christian, and you want to debate, point out this fact to them.

I have been told by someone close to me that they are Christian because they know it is true, they know they are right. Well, most muslims would probably feel exactly the same way. And yet you can't both be right. So 'feeling that you know' is no guarantee of veracity. So you need something else which shows why you are right and the person from the other religion is wrong. One thing is for certain, no matter what you believe: there are a huge number of people and a massive proportion of the world who believe wholeheartedly in something that is definitely bollocks.

What, oh believer, is the % probability that your religion is the true one? And what were the % odds of you being born into your specific religion? Why should these two %s be different?

[ManuelsMum]

.

""My wager: You should spend your life training for marathons because when you die, cerberus will chase you. If i am wrong, then you suffered a small loss. If i am right, you saved your eternal soul. So stop worshipping God and put those running shoes on Mr. Pascal."" lol

[kinboshi]

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

No, that's not what you read. It was to do with the neutrino experiment that gave results that if correct would question Einstein's famous equation and the idea that the constant 'c' (the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is not the universal speed limit.

The findings were published to be analysed and questioned, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, many scientists have questioned the accuracy of the experiment and the findings and it's very likely that there were fundamental flaws in their methodology.

As for this notion that "science claims to have all the answers" - bollocks does it. Science is a methodology where a hypothesis is put forwarded, tested and then tested by peers. It's this repeated searching for the right answers that separates science from faith. Science isn't wrong, people's conclusions can be misinformed based on limited evidence or understanding of what is observed. Science is about constantly questioning and challenging perceived truths. It's about putting together a model that explains our universe based on the evidence we have and our limited understanding of it. It doesn't deal with fundamental truths, and it's not scared of being challenged. It doesn't rely on blind faith or wishful thinking, or on medieval teachings based on a far lesser understanding and knowledge of how things work.

Science works. We have planes, computers, the Internet, medicine, etc., whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

[mondatoo]

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

No, that's not what you read. It was to do with the neutrino experiment that gave results that if correct would question Einstein's famous equation and the idea that the constant 'c' (the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is not the universal speed limit.

The findings were published to be analysed and questioned, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, many scientists have questioned the accuracy of the experiment and the findings and it's very likely that there were fundamental flaws in their methodology.

As for this notion that "science claims to have all the answers" - bollocks does it. Science is a methodology where a hypothesis is put forwarded, tested and then tested by peers. It's this repeated searching for the right answers that separates science from faith. Science isn't wrong, people's conclusions can be misinformed based on limited evidence or understanding of what is observed. Science is about constantly questioning and challenging perceived truths. It's about putting together a model that explains our universe based on the evidence we have and our limited understanding of it. It doesn't deal with fundamental truths, and it's not scared of being challenged. It doesn't rely on blind faith or wishful thinking, or on medieval teachings based on a far lesser understanding and knowledge of how things work.

Science works. We have planes, computers, the Internet, medicine, etc., whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

That is exactly what I read(apart from the horlicks bit), it was the headline, I didn't read anymore of it.

[nirvana]

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

No, that's not what you read. It was to do with the neutrino experiment that gave results that if correct would question Einstein's famous equation and the idea that the constant 'c' (the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is not the universal speed limit.

The findings were published to be analysed and questioned, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, many scientists have questioned the accuracy of the experiment and the findings and it's very likely that there were fundamental flaws in their methodology.

As for this notion that "science claims to have all the answers" - bollocks does it. Science is a methodology where a hypothesis is put forwarded, tested and then tested by peers. It's this repeated searching for the right answers that separates science from faith. Science isn't wrong, people's conclusions can be misinformed based on limited evidence or understanding of what is observed. Science is about constantly questioning and challenging perceived truths. It's about putting together a model that explains our universe based on the evidence we have and our limited understanding of it. It doesn't deal with fundamental truths, and it's not scared of being challenged. It doesn't rely on blind faith or wishful thinking, or on medieval teachings based on a far lesser understanding and knowledge of how things work.

Science works. We have planes, computers, the Internet, medicine, etc., whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

Does science really constantly challenge perceived truths ?

Are many scientists working on challenging Darwinian theory ? Genuine question, perhaps there are ?

Is there a large tranche of men in white coats challenging the big bang theory. Again, perhaps there are but I never read about them.

A number of scientists are people of faith - are they bad scientists, idiots ?

It's unbelievably dense to take sides in a science versus faith debate in any sense that mandates someone must decide what side of the fence they're on.

Frankly, as well, the level of debate that wants to trivialise and distill the impact of faiths on this world to wars and architecture is pathetic (in the true sense of the word).

[ManuelsMum]

Good quetions Nirvana. I volunteer as "stupid believer guy" if it would heat up the debate lol

[ManuelsMum]

Darwinism unchallengable, so much of biology now assumes it, and tons of psychology too. There's basically no other model that even remotely comes close to explaining the observed DNA/fossil/speciation data. It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought.

[Delboy]

Darwinism unchallengable, so much of biology now assumes it, and tons of psychology too. There's basically no other model that even remotely comes close to explaining the observed DNA/fossil/speciation data. It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought.

Once upon a time the earth was flat.....






I'm not saying Darwinism is incorrect just not unchallengeable.

[nirvana]

Darwinism unchallengable, so much of biology now assumes it, and tons of psychology too. There's basically no other model that even remotely comes close to explaining the observed DNA/fossil/speciation data. It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought.

Actually, the creationist model would be pretty close hence the continued flaming between the sides of the debate.

As for this

"It would be like challenging the idea of the brain as the seat of thought"

I think I could make a plausible case for this not being true for many people :-)

[redarmi]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

[mondatoo]

Science played a decent part in a few wars also.