{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/10/2015 6:38:52 AM
3
A few power points it feel on the subject...
It theoretically takes many lifetimes to be observed. We have only begun recording information for the last few thousand years... And that's being generous. It isn't as though there was a focus on the intricate details of random species until a few hundred years ago.
My conclusion to that is this... Why have humans come to conclusions on the subject, with such a small amount of time passing? Would it not make more sense to observe over a longer period of time, instead of treating the occurrence as fact or fiction?
On a social level, I've always seen the scientific and religious community as a " Mexican Standoff ", personally.
A scientist and priest both require blind faith to be followed. Don't be confused by the wording. A priests beliefs requires faith within the majority of his system, whereas the scientists version is more " figurative ". The reason being that, there is a lot of theoretical ideas that a common human being cannot comprehend. You can scream it to the masses, wether it is accurate or not, but there will be many empty heads bobbing up and down, or left to right.
I like these kind of discussions. More so from a Historians point of view ( why not add another imperfect area of belief to it? ). I find that both are guilty of indoctrinating masses of people into blind faith.
From the religious corner, I'll simply quote " IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ", and leave it at that.
As for the scientific community, the repression of highly intelligent individuals is astounding. More than a few who wouldn't be a talking head, or partake in their centuries version of " Manhattan project ", are pushed into obscurity. If I went to one of the most extreme individuals, I'd believe we descended from Aliens.
If there was a modern day Constantine, perhaps he would have an Isotope in his insignia, along with the crown and cross.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/10/2015 6:57:40 AMGood read. However, there's a lot that I disagree, and there's a lot that I agree about your statement. My brief note to say in regards to your reply is that (1) Catholics are not Christians, (2) was not the Manhattan Project code for nuke project, (3) creationists are under the ideal that since finite things exist, something infinite should have existed before to act as the cause, (4) I love history...
-
To clear up a few things, you are correct. There's a lot of differences between Catholicism and Christianity. I probably shouldn't have made them akin to one another. It would be unfair for me to call one " more " of a weapon, than the other... It's how I personally feel about both. I doubt we have enough time to talk of either in depth, or to even be open ended, at all. We can leave the origins of most religions, as a belief system that " butts heads " with the Scientific community. I think that's not so much a stayed fact but... More of a known occurrence by the majority of people. About the nuke project. That was a hit and miss comment. Sometimes, my analogies seem great at first... Well, then fail. I was attempting to refer to a... Catalyst event within the scientific community, towards a new age or era of importance to them. It was in line with how many great scientific thinkers of that passage of time, are simply dismissed. As an example, Albert Einstein. Well known for that time frame, but Men like Van Allen? Surely well known BY the scientific community... But outside of them? Not so much. Even then, his earlier work was questioned heavily. Fortunately, his theories were correct ( for the most part ). Yeah, my real concerns are the more " Social " impacts of Science ( religion as well, although I only touched on them because they are a counter force to the subject matter ). Science and Religion both have fairly strong impacts on society, at times similar... And evolution seems to almost be the number one contention of the two. The setback to being a Historian, is being ready to ask questions. At first, it seems like a black and white subject... Learn something, Regurgitate information. The problem is along the way, you learn from the History. It's fairly difficult to not require faith at some point... You learn of book burnings, are told that history is written by the victor ( to be clear, it might not be the whole, let alone factual, information ). Lenin had a tendency to be opaque... And go as far as to explain how he led his communist country. He stated " A lie told often enough, becomes the truth ". One of many ways he subverted his people to believe what he said... While telling them they were being subverted. So It is pot, kettle, black, to some degree... When I state Science and Religion require Faith. And, you need to keep in mind that I'm by no means a Master of either... I learnt a lot, but there was no indoctrination. ... I will say, it is good. If I had been indoctrinated on The King James Bible, The Koran, Buddhism and Scientology... I can't imagine ever trying to be part of a philosophical discussion. Probably be more like Lenin, trying to Subvert everyone, feeling like it was righteous, while remaining at peace within myself. Ahhh.... And being an Alien.
-
Well said, and I well understand your positioning. Glad that we both could be informative.
