Question about the new BSG

[crazedvole]

This is not a question about the game but about the t.v show. In the original BSG it was explained that the Cylons were built by a reptile race called Cylons who lived on a planet called Cylon (go figure) The reptile race built robots to function like humans but bigger and stronger. The reptiles died out but the robots continued on and eventually went to war with humans.

In the new BSG (2004) the robots were built by humans, rebelled and went to war. How did the Cylons build a fleet of ships to wage the first war and where did they go for 40 years? Maybe they explained it somewhere during the show and I missed it but the Cylons must have had some kind of base of operations and resources to build a fleet and evolve into their human form, right?

[Sabaithal]

Not quite what a 'religion' is. And I resent the implications.

[USS Midway veteran]

Originally posted by crazedvole:

Originally posted by Pugio:

But the OP (Spoilers Ahead):

The original cylons called a truce in the first war and under treaty left for a region of space where at the same time the "final five" from true Earth were arriving and encountered the latest cycle of human made cylons. They wanted peace between these cylons and humans and helped them create the flesh bodied clone race that, unintentionally, to their creators, ended up returning to destroy humanity. It was mentioned in the series that the centurion cylons had created the idea of a single loving god and the final five could nurture this to break the cycles of human-cylon violence.

In the series and movies it is explicitly stated that the cylons were allowed to hold a region of space and during the war they occupied several worlds (not the main colonies I don't think). So presumably in the 40 year break between conflicts that had resources to build their new fleet. Likewise in the first war they must have had occupied zones where they had the resources and infrastructure to build their ships.

In the prequel movies, it was suggested that the cylons were widespread throughout all facets of colonial life. So when they rebelled, it not to hard to imagine that they were able to take over the more distant human outposts completely. For the initial ships and weapons, the cylons probably captured and used what was in military service at the time--as the game itself mentions.

OK so it *was* stated in the new show that the cylons had a bit of territory "over there" somewhere. I missed that part. As far as the game goes, it makes me wonder why there was never a mission to hit the cylons' base of operations, even if that mission failed.

If you want to know where they went, actually see it, watch about the last five episodes where the Galactica jumps to the Cylon "hive" to rescue Helo and Boomer's baby, Hera. According to the new series, that was their base of operations.

[USS Midway veteran]

Originally posted by Sabaithal (uh...super saiyan???):

Not quite what a 'religion' is. And I resent the implications.

A "religion" is any belief about the nature of reality...regardless of the form it takes., and ranges from belief in a God or gods to religious evolutionism.

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by projournalist:

Originally posted by Sabaithal (uh...super saiyan???):

Not quite what a 'religion' is. And I resent the implications.

A "religion" is any belief about the nature of reality...regardless of the form it takes., and ranges from belief in a God or gods to religious evolutionism.

Technically, there isn't one agreed upon definition, apparently. Some people say it needs the belief in god specifically, others do not.

Regardless, putting something like an unfounded belief in some invisible sky being(s) on the same level as logical and analytical sciences is an insult to those who practice those professions, and those who follow that mindset. Please don't try and put the them on the same level, because they most certainly are not. I could go into a list of reasons why, but I'd rather not because that always downward spirals...

[Zig the Caver]

Originally posted by crazedvole:

Originally posted by Pugio:

But the OP (Spoilers Ahead):

The original cylons called a truce in the first war and under treaty left for a region of space where at the same time the "final five" from true Earth were arriving and encountered the latest cycle of human made cylons. They wanted peace between these cylons and humans and helped them create the flesh bodied clone race that, unintentionally, to their creators, ended up returning to destroy humanity. It was mentioned in the series that the centurion cylons had created the idea of a single loving god and the final five could nurture this to break the cycles of human-cylon violence.

In the series and movies it is explicitly stated that the cylons were allowed to hold a region of space and during the war they occupied several worlds (not the main colonies I don't think). So presumably in the 40 year break between conflicts that had resources to build their new fleet. Likewise in the first war they must have had occupied zones where they had the resources and infrastructure to build their ships.

In the prequel movies, it was suggested that the cylons were widespread throughout all facets of colonial life. So when they rebelled, it not to hard to imagine that they were able to take over the more distant human outposts completely. For the initial ships and weapons, the cylons probably captured and used what was in military service at the time--as the game itself mentions.

OK so it *was* stated in the new show that the cylons had a bit of territory "over there" somewhere. I missed that part. As far as the game goes, it makes me wonder why there was never a mission to hit the cylons' base of operations, even if that mission failed.

Its in the campaign actually--for the first war. The 40 year interval is explained in the series + movies.

[USS Midway veteran]

Originally posted by Sabaithal (uh...super saiyan???):

Originally posted by projournalist:

A "religion" is any belief about the nature of reality...regardless of the form it takes., and ranges from belief in a God or gods to religious evolutionism.

Technically, there isn't one agreed upon definition, apparently. Some people say it needs the belief in god specifically, others do not.

Regardless, putting something like an unfounded belief in some invisible sky being(s) on the same level as logical and analytical sciences is an insult to those who practice those professions, and those who follow that mindset. Please don't try and put the them on the same level, because they most certainly are not. I could go into a list of reasons why, but I'd rather not because that always downward spirals...

"Science" itself is primarily religious, Sabithal. It is primarily subjective, not objective. It is based on Philosophical materialism, which is the belief, the supposition, the hypothesis - the religion - that physical reality is the only reality. But we already know that is not true. Things like courage, intelligence, love, loyalty, determination all exist, but they won't boil over a bunsen burner or turn your litmus paper blue. If it isn't observable and measurable and have the capacity to be repeatedly observed and measured, it's religion not science. "Science" is very limited in what it can do. Evolutionism is the religion of modern "science" but it is primarily religious in nature with many of it's core beliefs already proven false - such as abiogenesis and the false claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics once worked in reverse. Origin and purpose cannot be observed or measured so it is primarily religious ie. atheism, deism - they are all religious.

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by projournalist:

Originally posted by Sabaithal (uh...super saiyan???):

Technically, there isn't one agreed upon definition, apparently. Some people say it needs the belief in god specifically, others do not.

Regardless, putting something like an unfounded belief in some invisible sky being(s) on the same level as logical and analytical sciences is an insult to those who practice those professions, and those who follow that mindset. Please don't try and put the them on the same level, because they most certainly are not. I could go into a list of reasons why, but I'd rather not because that always downward spirals...

"Science" itself is primarily religious, Sabithal. It is based on Philosophical materialism, which is the belief, the supposition - the religion - that physical reality is the only reality. But we already know that is not true. Things like courage, intelligence, love, loyalty, determination all exist, but they won't boil over a bunsen burner or turn your litmus paper blue. If it isn't observable and measurable and have the capacity to be repeatedly observed and measured, it's religion not science. "Science" is very limited in what it can do. Evolutionism is the religion of modern "science" but it is primarily religious in nature with many of it's core beliefs already proven false - such as abiogenesis and the false claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics once worked in reverse. Origin and purpose cannot be observed or measured so it is primarily religious ie. atheism, deism - they are all religious.

That's incorrect. Science, at its core, is simply observation, analysis, and drawing temporary conclusions based on the results. The 'scientific method' is a method of being able to observe and analyze any given aspect of the world from a purely materialistic standpoint. Its not 'religious' in any way, its the simplest practical method, and that is why it is used. If a method were found that worked a bit better, it would eventually be used instead. That's the same with any given field or variable in a scientific field. If something is shown to be true, even if it contradicts what we currently know to be true, you investigate it further, and possibly re-work the entire field if necessary. Religion is dogmatic in nature, sometimes fanatical, whereas science is purely materialistic and practical.

Also, we do have a field of science for analyzing human emotions. Its called psychology, and its very much still finding it's grounds, as humans are not simple creatures.

In addition, there is nothing in the scientific community called 'evolutionism'. There is something called 'evolution' which you might want to actually look up. Again, nothing religious about it in the slightest. It is a THEORY (might want to actually look up the definition for what that is too while you are at it) about how organisms have changed over the course of a very long length of time. How did we get there? Observation, analysis, testing, drawing potential conclusions, then more of that. Over, and over, and over. Again, practical.

As for abiogenesis, it's ONE proposed theory as to how the first primitive single-celled life forms actually came to be that way. It is not accepted as fact, simply a common theory that so far we have little evidence to support, and little alternative explanation. Who knows how that could change as our understanding of the subject deepens, which is is why anyone with this mindset is open minded about it.

TL:DR Science is about material testing and logical analysis. And people involved are open to all possibilities. That is not religion. Also there is no 'evolutionism', you are thinking of evolution. Abiogenesis is one proposed theory, not accepted as fact quite yet. Also psychology is currently a thing.

TL:DR2 Science draws from the empirical, Religion draws from the supernatural.

[Sabaithal]

Also if you feel like looking at the words of actual scientists and scholars on the subject (as opposed to me, some random internet guy), here are a few links on the subject:

https://www.the-scientist.com/letter/understand-the-difference-between-science-religion-63952
https://revisesociology.com/2018/08/14/differences-between-science-religion/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ - This one is really long btw

[AeQuArTz]

As a Catholic, I agree with @Sabaithal. Science concerns itself with understanding the material world with purely logical and analytical methods. Religion concerns itself with deeper metaphysical questions that go beyond the material realm.

I do not think the two are opposed (I think those who say science and religion are incompatible are fools), for there have been and still are many devoutly religious scientists, and the Catholic Church was a huge sponsor of scientific discovery.

The premise is that the natural world was designed by a divine being, and that by better understanding this world we can come to a better understanding of the divine being that created it.

I think the term @projournalist is looking for is "scientism" which is a quasi-religious belief that all that can be known can be reduced to the purely scientific form of knowledge, and that normative and epistemological values should be determined by objective science.

Funny how this turned into a debate on science and religion...

[Zig the Caver]

Originally posted by projournalist:

Originally posted by Sabaithal (uh...super saiyan???):

Technically, there isn't one agreed upon definition, apparently. Some people say it needs the belief in god specifically, others do not.

Regardless, putting something like an unfounded belief in some invisible sky being(s) on the same level as logical and analytical sciences is an insult to those who practice those professions, and those who follow that mindset. Please don't try and put the them on the same level, because they most certainly are not. I could go into a list of reasons why, but I'd rather not because that always downward spirals...

"Science" itself is primarily religious, Sabithal. It is primarily subjective, not objective. It is based on Philosophical materialism, which is the belief, the supposition, the hypothesis - the religion - that physical reality is the only reality. But we already know that is not true. Things like courage, intelligence, love, loyalty, determination all exist, but they won't boil over a bunsen burner or turn your litmus paper blue. If it isn't observable and measurable and have the capacity to be repeatedly observed and measured, it's religion not science. "Science" is very limited in what it can do. Evolutionism is the religion of modern "science" but it is primarily religious in nature with many of it's core beliefs already proven false - such as abiogenesis and the false claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics once worked in reverse. Origin and purpose cannot be observed or measured so it is primarily religious ie. atheism, deism - they are all religious.

I hear what you are saying, but, theories can be proposed, accepted and rejected over time as new data and revisions are made. It is how all science progresses. This should be done in as objective a manner as possible based on observable data and how it fits into current models or development of new models. Of course there is subjectivity to it. The human mind is not capable of purely objective thought, and some ideas need so-called leaps of faith. But, because tenets of a theory are revised does not discredit any entire principle.

The theory of evolution is not a religious belief. Even if it were it still wouldn't necessarily be held by all of "science", at worst, it was be largely limited to biology. Religion and belief are two separate concepts. A person can believe in a wide variety of ideas but that doesn't make those beliefs religions. Regardless, it has four core arguments:

>More offspring are born than survive
>There are variations between offspring
>The offspring with the most advantageous variations are best equipped to survive in the current environment.
>Traits are passed between generations.

None of this has been disproven and is readily observable and testable. Its also all that the theory of evolution, at its core, states. "Evolutionism" is a fringe-term that seems more in use with those trying to discredit the theory.

Abiogenesis is a only a theory that has nothing to do with proving or disproving the current mechanisms of evolution. Evolution concerns itself with explaining the current observable diversity of life--it wasn't formulated to explain life origins. Again, adding or revising does not discredit entire principles.

[gareth_walsh]

Originally posted by crazedvole:

This is not a question about the game but about the t.v show. In the original BSG it was explained that the Cylons were built by a reptile race called Cylons who lived on a planet called Cylon (go figure) The reptile race built robots to function like humans but bigger and stronger. The reptiles died out but the robots continued on and eventually went to war with humans.

In the new BSG (2004) the robots were built by humans, rebelled and went to war. How did the Cylons build a fleet of ships to wage the first war and where did they go for 40 years? Maybe they explained it somewhere during the show and I missed it but the Cylons must have had some kind of base of operations and resources to build a fleet and evolve into their human form, right?

I preferred the original story line (though the huge plot holes, kind of wreck it) over the whole "we created our own destruction, but we have to do what we must to survive".

If they had combined the "Human form Cylons" as infiltration units with the original story line I think it would have been better - though I don't mind if they stuck with "energy weapons" or the Kinetic ones from the new series (both have pro and cons).

[Menace]

Originally posted by gareth_walsh:

Originally posted by crazedvole:

This is not a question about the game but about the t.v show. In the original BSG it was explained that the Cylons were built by a reptile race called Cylons who lived on a planet called Cylon (go figure) The reptile race built robots to function like humans but bigger and stronger. The reptiles died out but the robots continued on and eventually went to war with humans.

In the new BSG (2004) the robots were built by humans, rebelled and went to war. How did the Cylons build a fleet of ships to wage the first war and where did they go for 40 years? Maybe they explained it somewhere during the show and I missed it but the Cylons must have had some kind of base of operations and resources to build a fleet and evolve into their human form, right?

I preferred the original story line (though the huge plot holes, kind of wreck it) over the whole "we created our own destruction, but we have to do what we must to survive".

If they had combined the "Human form Cylons" as infiltration units with the original story line I think it would have been better - though I don't mind if they stuck with "energy weapons" or the Kinetic ones from the new series (both have pro and cons).

I might be kind of biased since I'm a fan of (most) of the Terminator movies. Mankind marvels at their own technological ingenuity, only to be destroyed by it. I like the original BSG story, but I like the new BSG story much more.