Respecting religion???
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure you can classify these as scientists. They were philosophers if anything, coming to conclusions without testing them.
They were natural philosophers. That's the precursor to what we call scientists today. They couldn't be scientists because that term wasn't used until the 19th century. It's unclear what methodology they used.plasticpig said:
Actually I find it quite depressing. All these atheists who insist that science is the be all and end all and who don't actually have a f
king clue as to how modern science developed. The Oxford Calculators are one very good example of physics being researched 300 years before the age of enlightenment.
Very interesting guys!king clue as to how modern science developed. The Oxford Calculators are one very good example of physics being researched 300 years before the age of enlightenment.///ajd said:
Are you saying 'Jesus' could not happen today? Why is that?
Why has there been only one visit by the son of God 2000 years ago when man has been kicking about for 2.4 million years?
If he had turned up before Homo sapiens had evolved nobody would have realised he'd been here and he would have stood out a bit too. Why has there been only one visit by the son of God 2000 years ago when man has been kicking about for 2.4 million years?
Plenty of people claim to be the son of god even nowadays, but the mental health services generally deal with them.
As somebody mentioned, many people associate themselves with a religion, but few actually adhere to all of the pillars.
"Moderates" of any religion are actually just people who don't really go along with the whole thing.
I wonder how many people actually believe in the immaculate conception, the resurrection, miracles etc?
-Happenings that were written down long after the 'event', as were Mohammed's ideas, I believe.
Edited by MC Bodge on Thursday 22 January 21:57
plasticpig said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure you can classify these as scientists. They were philosophers if anything, coming to conclusions without testing them.
They were natural philosophers. That's the precursor to what we call scientists today. They couldn't be scientists because that term wasn't used until the 19th century. It's unclear what methodology they used.Going about the other way would have been a bit silly.
plasticpig said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure you can classify these as scientists. They were philosophers if anything, coming to conclusions without testing them.
They were natural philosophers. That's the precursor to what we call scientists today. They couldn't be scientists because that term wasn't used until the 19th century. It's unclear what methodology they used.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 22 January 22:15
MC Bodge said:
I wonder how many people actually believe in the immaculate conception,
I think you will find that the immaculate conception was not 'of faith', i.e. some ceo of the western catholic church said it was true, until roundabout the 18thC. So Mary became a virgin after being - well, the opposite. A bit like the present day Madonna.Before then, one suggestion was that Jesus 'healed' her.
Other catholic sects taught different stuff.
///ajd said:
You don't wonder about it at all?
Do you believe in all religions?
I do wonder about our origins and the possibilities quite a lot.Do you believe in all religions?
Other people can believe what they like IMO. I don't know enough about all other religions to know whether I believe in them or not because I don't know what they expect me to take literally, what they would ask of me, what they stand for...........
Do you believe a man called Jesus existed? And when you say believe/don't believe is that with certainty or your 'feeling'?
Derek Smith said:
I think you will find that the immaculate conception was not 'of faith', i.e. some ceo of the western catholic church said it was true, until roundabout the 18thC. So Mary became a virgin after being - well, the opposite. A bit like the present day Madonna.
Before then, one suggestion was that Jesus 'healed' her.
Other catholic sects taught different stuff.
Yes, that was my understanding, but it is one of the seemingly "important" things in the Roman catholic (and other) Christian cults. Before then, one suggestion was that Jesus 'healed' her.
Other catholic sects taught different stuff.
("Hail Mary" -what is that all about?)
...a bit like priests not always having been required to be celibate/unmarried.
Ps. Wasn't it Doris Day that Groucho Marx said the he'd known a long time, since before she was a virigin?
Martin4x4 said:
plasticpig said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure you can classify these as scientists. They were philosophers if anything, coming to conclusions without testing them.
They were natural philosophers. That's the precursor to what we call scientists today. They couldn't be scientists because that term wasn't used until the 19th century. It's unclear what methodology they used.There was one natural philosopher, who was married, who reckoned that as women's mouths were smaller than men's, they must have fewer teeth. OK, his missus might have refused her permission, saying that she will never take part in another experiment with him, not after last time when he had to invent credit cards to pay the laundry bills, but you'd think he'd have asked her to count.
Newton wasn't the first scientist. He wasn't the first anything: he was a one off.
The irony is that Newton's genius is almost enough to make one believe in a god.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Do you ever wonder why you believe in one religion but have no apparent interest in any others?I think it likely that someone existed around 2000 years ago about whom stories were told that developed into the scriptures many years later. I think it unlikely any of the miracles actually occurred - these were probably developed as the stories were passed on that developed into popular and appealing myths, and cast into a religious context.
My certainty in feeling this is based on my experiences, and my perception of the probability that if the miracles had really happened they would have reoccurred at various points since and would happen today. That such things don't occur in this day and age tends to suggest they are just stories. The Loch Ness monster is probably a poor comparison, but the principle is similar; I suspect few now really think such a creature is in any way likely to be real.
Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 22 January 22:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff