open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Math: Gift from God or Work of Man?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:03:00 - [61]
 

Aye it was brilliant <3

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:32:00 - [62]
 

The only person I enjoy talking religion to is my step uncle. He's like a arch-diosies or whatever the hell they call em in the catholic religion and one of his duties is studying the time periods when different branches break off from the main religion. Sometimes this even takes him to catacombs and whatnot so he's got some pretty cool stories.

Now the reason why I like him so much is even though I get blessed 50 times in the first hour we talk, he has never once tried to force his opinions on my dad and I and he doesn't spout off that we're going to hell because we don't follow a religion. People like him I can stand.

It's the nut cases out there that roam from door to door asking you to convert. It's when you see all this religious junk taking over tv (Sunday is ok cause theres crap on anyways). Theres a reason why we've left it out of school all these years and the christians are stepping over a very sensitive line now. Just watch, pretty soon another religion will step in and say 'if they can do it, why can't we?' and a nice big fight will evolve with all sides again trying to say that their belief is the correct one as god decredes and any other belief is heresy.

It makes me wonder if missionaries of different religions ever cross each other on the streets and have a dance off to determine who's best?

Derovius Vaden
Posted - 2007.10.04 19:52:00 - [63]
 


Any symmetry or form there is in mathematics is derived by the system around which we define the discipline. Take for example the aptly named natural number, e. This number is irrational, as is pi, and is the true state of our reality in terms of mathematics. Everything is irrational, and from this irrationality, a logical person will see no form, but rather apply one to it.

Religion and mathematics (I only capitalize the former because its the beginning of the sentence) are both man-made constructs. The major difference is that while religion has stagnated around already disproven notions of its dogma, mathematics is an ever evolving beast (thats right, I said it. EVOLUTION!) that adjusts itself as its own dogma is disproven or added to. The best example of this is the value of pi; 3000 years ago, the Greeks knew it to be 3. Nowadays, we are up to several billion digits for pi.

Sheepactivator
Posted - 2007.10.04 20:39:00 - [64]
 

speaking of jessus and stuff.

check this out

The most hated family in america 2007




Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.10.04 20:56:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Sheepactivator
speaking of jessus and stuff.

check this out

The most hated family in america 2007

Oye.Neutral

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:02:00 - [66]
 

phi is god, all bow down.

Seriously though, this is a serious issue in the United States (and some other countries as well), conservative policy makers want all schools (public or otherwise) to present a counter-arguement to the tradtional (I can't believe I'm calling it tradition) evolutionary / scientific basis that has been the norm for some time now.

The most prominent form of this arguement is known as 'intelligent design', the basic premise is that the universe is too complicated and perfect to have not been "designed" by some sort of higher entity.

Thankkfully the initiative that was responsible for making this idea popular has more or less been shot down. I personally have no problem with religious schools (however I feel that if a government is going to support any religion's school, either fiscally or ideologically, than they should do so for all religions equally) however I believe that a completely secular education would hurt no one. Infact, I would like to see every world government go through their entire library of laws, constitution, and/or any other component of they're legal system and strike down any law that cannot be justified in a rational manner rather than a purely religious one (as many countries still have holdover laws such as "The Lord's Day Acts (no work on sunday, etc)").

ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:16:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Starfired
Who said math was perfect in the first place? Math is by nature imperfect. The nature of the number 9 is capable of returning your original number. 10-9 = 1 "your original number /10". 1-.9 = 1 "your original number /100". .1-.09 = .01 "your original number /1000", always returning 1/10th your original number only to be divided by 9 again to return your original number. 3^2 = 9 so it also suffers from the same inherrant flaw. Basically if math is so perfect why do we have a flaw that results in repeating numbers?

Not to mention Pi and e. They can't even be fully expressed by our own numeric system. Such a fail.


OK, I can't read the rest of the replies, because I have to flame you RIGHT NOW.

Mathematics is pretty much the ONLY perfect thing in the universe. First of all, I don't see how 3^2 = 9 is flawed. What's wrong with it, for crying out loud? 4^2 is 16, or is that not allowed to happen either? And subtracting a number by 9/10 of itself gives you 1/10 of the number you started with? Well DUH. 10/10 - 9/10 = 1/10, you eejit!

As for e and pi being irrational numbers, I find them to be two of the most PERFECT numbers we have. Mathematics as we know it today would not exist without them. For example, there's the famous equation: e^(i*pi)+1=0. It's just so elegant, the way that the five most important numbers in mathematics: 1, 0, e, i, and pi fit together so immaculately. As you say, e and pi are irrational, and i isn't even a real number. Yet they fit together in a most beautiful equation. Tell me that isn't perfect. Why would you ever want to write out the full decimal expansion of e or pi anyway?

Derovius Vaden
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:23:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Starfired
Who said math was perfect in the first place? Math is by nature imperfect. The nature of the number 9 is capable of returning your original number. 10-9 = 1 "your original number /10". 1-.9 = 1 "your original number /100". .1-.09 = .01 "your original number /1000", always returning 1/10th your original number only to be divided by 9 again to return your original number. 3^2 = 9 so it also suffers from the same inherrant flaw. Basically if math is so perfect why do we have a flaw that results in repeating numbers?

Not to mention Pi and e. They can't even be fully expressed by our own numeric system. Such a fail.


OK, I can't read the rest of the replies, because I have to flame you RIGHT NOW.

Mathematics is pretty much the ONLY perfect thing in the universe. First of all, I don't see how 3^2 = 9 is flawed. What's wrong with it, for crying out loud? 4^2 is 16, or is that not allowed to happen either? And subtracting a number by 9/10 of itself gives you 1/10 of the number you started with? Well DUH. 10/10 - 9/10 = 1/10, you eejit!

As for e and pi being irrational numbers, I find them to be two of the most PERFECT numbers we have. Mathematics as we know it today would not exist without them. For example, there's the famous equation: e^(i*pi)+1=0. It's just so elegant, the way that the five most important numbers in mathematics: 1, 0, e, i, and pi fit together so immaculately. As you say, e and pi are irrational, and i isn't even a real number. Yet they fit together in a most beautiful equation. Tell me that isn't perfect. Why would you ever want to write out the full decimal expansion of e or pi anyway?


Our understanding of mathematics is based on the notion there there are only 10 distinct digits (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), and based on this assumption, we construct a model of our universe. If there is ANY beauty in an equation or mathematical statement, it is due to the way the system is based. If I say that there is now 13 digits, your equations are no longer valid in their original (10 digit) form. Thus, they are system-dependent, and artifical.

A truly beautiful mathematical system would not have logical failures like the value of i; that is, there would be no exceptions to the rules, everything would work out perfectly to some definable value (sqrt of a negative number, anything over 0 would converge to a real value, etc.).

Starfired
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:32:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Starfired on 04/10/2007 21:39:28
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Originally by: ReaperOfSly


OK, I can't read the rest of the replies, because I have to flame you RIGHT NOW.

Mathematics is pretty much the ONLY perfect thing in the universe. First of all, I don't see how 3^2 = 9 is flawed. What's wrong with it, for crying out loud? 4^2 is 16, or is that not allowed to happen either? And subtracting a number by 9/10 of itself gives you 1/10 of the number you started with? Well DUH. 10/10 - 9/10 = 1/10, you eejit!

As for e and pi being irrational numbers, I find them to be two of the most PERFECT numbers we have. Mathematics as we know it today would not exist without them. For example, there's the famous equation: e^(i*pi)+1=0. It's just so elegant, the way that the five most important numbers in mathematics: 1, 0, e, i, and pi fit together so immaculately. As you say, e and pi are irrational, and i isn't even a real number. Yet they fit together in a most beautiful equation. Tell me that isn't perfect. Why would you ever want to write out the full decimal expansion of e or pi anyway?


Our understanding of mathematics is based on the notion there there are only 10 distinct digits (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), and based on this assumption, we construct a model of our universe. If there is ANY beauty in an equation or mathematical statement, it is due to the way the system is based. If I say that there is now 13 digits, your equations are no longer valid in their original (10 digit) form. Thus, they are system-dependent, and artifical.

A truly beautiful mathematical system would not have logical failures like the value of i; that is, there would be no exceptions to the rules, everything would work out perfectly to some definable value (sqrt of a negative number, anything over 0 would converge to a real value, etc.).


Exactly. Also I would like to state that I was using subtraction to show a flaw in division. a number divided by 9. Because all division is is seeing how many times you can subtract a number before you can no longer subtract that number. Then moving on to the next digit down. 10-9 = 1 or 1/10th the original number. Which is then moved down to the next digit and results in 1/100th the next number, 1/1000th, ect ect. This abillity to return to the same number over and over again without end is a flaw itself. Hence why you have repeating numbers when dividing say 2 by 3. Also the 3^2 isn't a flaw lol. Because 9 is dividable by 3 it suffers from the same flaw & can result in repeating numbers too.

Also e, Pi, & i are completely unable to be described with a standard number system. They have definate values, but the reason they're described as e, Pi, & i instead of a perfect 3.14 is becaues Pi cannot be described by our numbers. I have a rather deep understanding of number that even I don't fully understand how/why. Nothing personal but you're shallow with numbers Reaper, my concepts of why things work are probebly lost to you.

P.S. WTF is up with the reference to "house of the scorpion"?

Locus Bey
Gallente
OCA2
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:22:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Death Kill
Originally by: Locus Bey



People don't really put faith in science itself


science isnt about faith. Religious people have faith, science is about facts.


Quote:

What I'm getting at is we in this age put our faith in science, in much the same way we put our faith in God.


Thats the worst thing I have ever heard.





Atheism can be a dogma. How many people posting in this thread believe in atheism? How many people in this thread consider religion to be nothing more than an opiate for the masses? Having read on more than one occassion your vehement attacks on different religions you DK can easily be considered dogmatic Smile

About facts? At what point in our scientific investigation of quantum physics have we been dealing with fact? How many times has 'current' scientific theorum been overturned in favour of a new discovery? Looking at quantum physics the parallels with more esoteric explanations of life are considerable, and the deeper into the rabbit hole the more so.

Locus Bey
Gallente
OCA2
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:51:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Locus Bey

Faith in science, proven technique, believe...horses for courses. What I'm getting at is we in this age put our faith in science, in much the same way we put our faith in God. We believe it will solve many ills and has the answers. We believe it is a superior way of looking at things. We believe in the most part that science has our best interests at heart, and is pursued morally.

If you're referring to science in general, than I agree. Without science we wouldn't have the vast majority of technology or medicine developed in the past 500 years.

Quote:
GM for example is hell bent on gaining a monopoly on patenting everything from pigs to plants, so that everyone pays and uses only GM products. If you look at the effect this will have on producers both small and large it is not good. The ramifications for poorer nations, eg those in Africa, is just another twist in indebtedness to the Western world. Look up what happens with trials of GM crops in the US and Australia when the GM crops contaminate neighbouring farms, and tell me that is not an indication of things to come and their ruthlessness. What's more the effect on biodiversity is not going to be a good one. While the argument put forward that GM is able to engineer sturdier, area specific crops, and how this will benefit us, the other side of its impact on diversity and the land long term is not a promising one. Here is science at play, like it does in the pharmaceutical industry, concerned with profit over benefit.

But GM does not reflect upon science as a whole. GM is a company seeking to increase it's profits by whatever means it deems prudent. They are not Science's Only Begotten Son, and it's faulty logic to imply anything about science as a whole from GM's actions.


We have no proof Jesus or any other prophet was not divine. Would you consider the actions of Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assissi, the Dalai Lama or institutions like the Salvation Army to be bad? Wouldn't they exemplify the canons of their faith? It is to easy to point to the failings of religion as justification for why spiritual belief is illogical. The same can be said for science. Should we take science on the measuring of heads? The building of weapons? Thalidomyde? GM crops? Who is to say in 100, 200 years we won't consider the theory of Evolution illogical? As it stands it is best 'known' theorum.

Back to GM crops. It is in many ways indicative of science. We are beginning to allow and invest in methods of crop production across the globe based upon unproved science. What's more we ignore the negative ramifications, in favour of an 'easy' solution. This happens time and time again in science, just look at the pharmaceutical industry, aluminium in the water, antibiotics, uranium. It is not just GM's fault for being immoral bastards, it is governments and institutions using said science, to potentially devastating effects.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:01:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey

We have no proof Jesus or any other prophet was not divine. Would you consider the actions of Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assissi, the Dalai Lama or institutions like the Salvation Army to be bad? Wouldn't they exemplify the canons of their faith? It is to easy to point to the failings of religion as justification for why spiritual belief is illogical. The same can be said for science. Should we take science on the measuring of heads? The building of weapons? Thalidomyde?
NO, it can't! Science as a whole is a valid set of techniques, the reason the measuring of heads was disproven was through science - they had a hypothesis, a bunch of people believed it, but once they measured it properly it was disproven. Christ, get your facts straight before you make your claims.
And what does the development of weapons have anything to do with science in itself? The fact that the weapons did what they were supposed to do is just another validation that science, as a technique, worked.

Science is not inherantly good or evil, it's just a technique, it's Amoral
Quote:
GM crops? Who is to say in 100, 200 years we won't consider the theory of Evolution illogical? As it stands it is best 'known' theorum.

Science formulates the best possible theory based on available evidence. If ten thousand years from now we develop better instruments that reaveal additional evidence regarding evolution, than the theory will change accordingly based on that additional evidence.

Quote:
Back to GM crops. It is in many ways indicative of science. We are beginning to allow and invest in methods of crop production across the globe based upon unproved science. What's more we ignore the negative ramifications, in favour of an 'easy' solution.

Science is designed to detect and predict those negative consequences - whether the people doing the research use that information properly or not is not the fault of science, the onus is on the individuals using the information presented to them.
Quote:
This happens time and time again in science, just look at the pharmaceutical industry, aluminium in the water, antibiotics, uranium. It is not just GM's fault for being immoral bastards, it is governments and institutions using said science, to potentially devastating effects.

So I'm doing a research study, and me and my team of scientists prove a hypothesis by which injecting a certain horomone into a cell doubles it's rate of mitosis. We publish this report and some company decides to use this information to cause cancer by injecting large doses of this horomone into innocent people. How is that the fault of the scientists?

Your fear of science is illogical and founded by your inability to separate knowledge from the misuse of knowledge.Rolling Eyes

Locus Bey
Gallente
OCA2
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:36:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Locus Bey

We have no proof Jesus or any other prophet was not divine. Would you consider the actions of Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assissi, the Dalai Lama or institutions like the Salvation Army to be bad? Wouldn't they exemplify the canons of their faith? It is to easy to point to the failings of religion as justification for why spiritual belief is illogical. The same can be said for science. Should we take science on the measuring of heads? The building of weapons? Thalidomyde?
NO, it can't! Science as a whole is a valid set of techniques, the reason the measuring of heads was disproven was through science - they had a hypothesis, a bunch of people believed it, but once they measured it properly it was disproven. Christ, get your facts straight before you make your claims.
And what does the development of weapons have anything to do with science in itself? The fact that the weapons did what they were supposed to do is just another validation that science, as a technique, worked.

Science is not inherantly good or evil, it's just a technique, it's Amoral
Quote:
GM crops? Who is to say in 100, 200 years we won't consider the theory of Evolution illogical? As it stands it is best 'known' theorum.

Science formulates the best possible theory based on available evidence. If ten thousand years from now we develop better instruments that reaveal additional evidence regarding evolution, than the theory will change accordingly based on that additional evidence.

Quote:
Back to GM crops. It is in many ways indicative of science. We are beginning to allow and invest in methods of crop production across the globe based upon unproved science. What's more we ignore the negative ramifications, in favour of an 'easy' solution.

Science is designed to detect and predict those negative consequences - whether the people doing the research use that information properly or not is not the fault of science, the onus is on the individuals using the information presented to them.
Quote:
This happens time and time again in science, just look at the pharmaceutical industry, aluminium in the water, antibiotics, uranium. It is not just GM's fault for being immoral bastards, it is governments and institutions using said science, to potentially devastating effects.

So I'm doing a research study, and me and my team of scientists prove a hypothesis by which injecting a certain horomone into a cell doubles it's rate of mitosis. We publish this report and some company decides to use this information to cause cancer by injecting large doses of this horomone into innocent people. How is that the fault of the scientists?

Your fear of science is illogical and founded by your inability to separate knowledge from the misuse of knowledge.Rolling Eyes


I don't have a fear of science. I was merely pointing out that science is no more logical/illogical a faith/system/mechanism for understanding the universe and influencing mans actions than religious or political means. It has the same falabilities as the others when man chooses to abuse it.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:41:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey

I don't have a fear of science. I was merely pointing out that science is no more logical/illogical a faith/system/mechanism for understanding the universe and influencing mans actions than religious or political means. It has the same falabilities as the others when man chooses to abuse it.

Ok, I'll accept that. Just don't assume that because corporations do stupid things with scientific knowledge, that does not mean the science itself has any morality.

It's like money - not inherantly immoral or moral, completely dependant on how it's used.

Aybabtu
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:37:00 - [75]
 

what do you expect with the usa school system ? the president of america claims to talk to god. Or rather that god talks to him.

Atama Cardel
Perkone
Posted - 2007.10.05 03:14:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Sheepactivator
speaking of jessus and stuff.

check this out

The most hated family in america 2007






That family is pretty insane, oh and please don't paint all Christians, or any religion for that matter, with that brush.

Krulla
Minmatar
Miner Protection Guild
Posted - 2007.10.05 03:25:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Krulla on 05/10/2007 03:26:02
Originally by: Locus Bey
Religious belief is no more dangerous than political ideology, nationalistic fervour or immoral science. Ignorance exists in all areas, as does enlightened thought. Science don't forget has developed the bomb, chemical weapons and GM crops, to name a few Rolling Eyes


Excuse me?

Science is the pursuit of truth through systematic means. It is about gaining knowledge, about facts.

Science didn't create any of those things, people did through the knowledge they gained through science. Our entire society and way of life is built up on science - The very computer you're using to type this through is based on such extremely complicated engineering you most likely can't even comprehend it.

This is like saying that forks have a capacity for evil because you can stab someone's eye out with a fork.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 03:36:00 - [78]
 

On the whole "science = faith" argument:

Most people take "proven, scientific fact" as being uncorruptable and inherently true. The number of people who can actually run the experiments, operate the instruments, interpret the data, and know the differences between theory and fact is very, very small. The rest of the sheeple assume that since it comes from Scientists (priests), it's gotta be true. How much bunk science has been passed off as truth to the right receptive audience? Most of the "science > all" crowd don't know, they believe.

As to the discussion on religion, take a long, hard look at the deep complexity and order that permeates even the most basic things that surround us. Then take a look at how entropy works. If you don't see at least strong circumstancial evidence that someone created our universe, and/or is behind the curtain pulling the strings, then you're not looking hard enough.

Derovius Vaden
Posted - 2007.10.05 03:40:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Krulla
Excuse me?

Science is the pursuit of truth through systematic means. It is about gaining knowledge, about facts.



If done properly. Take for example the medical experiments done by Dr. Mengel during World War II. Yes, this results were "seized" by the US Army, but does the results of his experimentation justify the torture involved for the subjects? This of course is morally debatable, and while most people see it as a crime against humanity, if not all, I don't think the doctor thought so.

Quote:

Science didn't create any of those things, people did through the knowledge they gained through science. Our entire society and way of life is built up on science - The very computer you're using to type this through is based on such extremely complicated engineering you most likely can't even comprehend it.



Science doesn't create anything, Engineering does. Scientists observe, model, than move onto the next topic. It is up to the Engineer to take what the scientist has found, cut away all the useless complexity and make something useful out of it. The scientist who invented the laser thought it was a wonderful toy, and of no practical use to the world beyond experimentation. As it stand, the most accurate manufacturing processes use pulsed lasers to etch materials. No useful practical use my ass, hmmm?

Quote:

This is like saying that forks have a capacity for evil because you can stab someone's eye out with a fork.


As a Mechanical Engineer student, you learn quickly that all these romanticized ideas about what science is or is not held by the masses is no different than a faith ultimately. As my Fluid Mechanics professor once said in reference to thrust inverters on aircraft, "You're telling me that you happily climb aboard an aircraft thats going to be travelling at a few hundred miles per hour without having any idea how its going to stop? And they tell me religion is dying out."

Dogmatically, the only true difference between a main stream religion and science is that mankinds "saviour" is flesh and blood, and unlike some of the gods of the former organization, the scientist can't hide when **** hits the fan.

Krulla
Minmatar
Miner Protection Guild
Posted - 2007.10.05 03:54:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Krulla on 05/10/2007 03:55:56
Edited by: Krulla on 05/10/2007 03:54:38
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
If done properly. Take for example the medical experiments done by Dr. Mengel during World War II. Yes, this results were "seized" by the US Army, but does the results of his experimentation justify the torture involved for the subjects? This of course is morally debatable, and while most people see it as a crime against humanity, if not all, I don't think the doctor thought so.


What ******* was doing was science - His methods were abhorrent, evil, and downright vicious, but he was still conducting experiments, to gain knowledge.

EDIT: lol, ******* is filtered.

I'm not excusing him in any way, he was a downright evil ****er.

Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Science doesn't create anything, Engineering does. Scientists observe, model, than move onto the next topic. It is up to the Engineer to take what the scientist has found, cut away all the useless complexity and make something useful out of it. The scientist who invented the laser thought it was a wonderful toy, and of no practical use to the world beyond experimentation. As it stand, the most accurate manufacturing processes use pulsed lasers to etch materials. No useful practical use my ass, hmmm?


Yes - But engineering couldn't create all this awesome **** without science behind it.

Originally by: Derovius Vaden
As a Mechanical Engineer student, you learn quickly that all these romanticized ideas about what science is or is not held by the masses is no different than a faith ultimately. As my Fluid Mechanics professor once said in reference to thrust inverters on aircraft, "You're telling me that you happily climb aboard an aircraft thats going to be travelling at a few hundred miles per hour without having any idea how its going to stop? And they tell me religion is dying out."


Well, when I step into a airplane, I know that I'm inside a few tons or so of metal going at speeds, and at altitute that no earthbound mammal was designed to go at. I know that if any number of things in the plane go wrong, I may crash and die. However, I have trust in the engineers that designed it, the pilots who control it, and the mechanics that maintain it.

Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Dogmatically, the only true difference between a main stream religion and science is that mankinds "saviour" is flesh and blood, and unlike some of the gods of the former organization, the scientist can't hide when **** hits the fan.


Except science improves our lives. It gives us cool stuff that makes our lives easier. Religion just gives us somewhere to hang out on sundays.


Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:04:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Krulla
Except science improves our lives. It gives us cool stuff that makes our lives easier. Religion just gives us somewhere to hang out on sundays.




Except that science doesn't only improve our lives; it also is the source of interesting new ways to poison, debilitate, and kill us. And religion is responsible for quite a bit of the aggregated knowledge throughout history. It's been a patron of art, music, literature, philosophy... but in today's "rational" society, religion must automatically be wrong and it's science uber alles.

See? Science has dogmatic believers just the same as religion.

Krulla
Minmatar
Miner Protection Guild
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:15:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Krulla
Except science improves our lives. It gives us cool stuff that makes our lives easier. Religion just gives us somewhere to hang out on sundays.




Except that science doesn't only improve our lives; it also is the source of interesting new ways to poison, debilitate, and kill us. And religion is responsible for quite a bit of the aggregated knowledge throughout history. It's been a patron of art, music, literature, philosophy... but in today's "rational" society, religion must automatically be wrong and it's science uber alles.

See? Science has dogmatic believers just the same as religion.


Is this statement true;

Today, where science is dominant over religion, the average standard of life is better than in the dark ages, when religion was dominant?

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:18:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Krulla


Is this statement true;

Today, where science is dominant over religion, the average standard of life is better than in the dark ages, when religion was dominant?


Is this statement true:

The aggregate of human knowledge is greater today than it was in the dark ages.

Krulla
Minmatar
Miner Protection Guild
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:20:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Krulla


Is this statement true;

Today, where science is dominant over religion, the average standard of life is better than in the dark ages, when religion was dominant?


Is this statement true:

The aggregate of human knowledge is greater today than it was in the dark ages.


And why is that, you think?

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:28:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey



Atheism can be a dogma.


How many people posting in this thread believe in atheism?


No no no no noooooooooooooooooo!ugh

Atheism is a conclusion based on reason and logic, and if reason or logic or even evidence pointed in the direction of theism we would no longer be atheists.
You are using pure semantics. Faith..when it comes to religions, means irrational beliefs.So if I have 'faith in the fellow man' or your mom's cooking, it has nothing to do with believing in unprovable, highly improbable and with no evidence.



Quote:

About facts? At what point in our scientific investigation of quantum physics have we been dealing with fact? How many times has 'current' scientific theorum been overturned in favour of a new discovery? Looking at quantum physics the parallels with more esoteric explanations of life are considerable, and the deeper into the rabbit hole the more so.


Creationists belive humans walked the earth with the dinosaurs, and that the planet is 6000 years old. Sceince know for a fact through carbon dating that its much much older.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:35:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Death Kill on 05/10/2007 04:38:12
Originally by: Locus Bey
We have no proof Jesus or any other prophet was not divine. Would you consider the actions of Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assissi, the Dalai Lama or institutions like the Salvation Army to be bad?


You have no evidence it was divine either. To say that 'you have no evidense for the oposite so that must mean it is plausible' is stoneage thinking....and its frightening anyone in 2007 is willingly being that stupid.

You cant prove that Tor or Odin is divine, nor can you prove that Budha is divine, you cant prove that the pink unicorn isnt divine either....but since you happen to be born where you are born by (presumably) Christian parents you chose one out of many irrational things.

Regarding Mother Teresa read THIS


Quote:

Wouldn't they exemplify the canons of their faith? It is to easy to point to the failings of religion as justification for why spiritual belief is illogical. The same can be said for science. Should we take science on the measuring of heads? The building of weapons? Thalidomyde? GM crops? Who is to say in 100, 200 years we won't consider the theory of Evolution illogical? As it stands it is best 'known' theorum.



Sceince has nothing to do with morality. Science is a tool. When scientist buildt the atom bomb they did so because they were solving difficult tasks. When the inquisition tortured and killed people they did so BECAUSE they were hristian, BECAUSE their faith dictated them to do so.

Quote:

Back to GM crops. It is in many ways indicative of science. We are beginning to allow and invest in methods of crop production across the globe based upon unproved science. What's more we ignore the negative ramifications, in favour of an 'easy' solution. This happens time and time again in science, just look at the pharmaceutical industry, aluminium in the water, antibiotics, uranium. It is not just GM's fault for being immoral bastards, it is governments and institutions using said science, to potentially devastating effects.


Its scientist who do the science, and politicians who uses it. Its like blaming the car makers for someone doing a hit and run. This argument of yours is a feeble atempt, strawman at best.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 04:40:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Krulla
Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Krulla


Is this statement true;

Today, where science is dominant over religion, the average standard of life is better than in the dark ages, when religion was dominant?


Is this statement true:

The aggregate of human knowledge is greater today than it was in the dark ages.


And why is that, you think?


Because human knowledge tends to increase over time, unless countered by directed action. (See also: the burning of the Library of Alexandria.)

Originally by: Death Kill
Some creationists belive humans walked the earth with the dinosaurs, and that the planet is 6000 years old. Sceince know for a fact through carbon dating that its much much older.


FTFY. Some of us creationists believe that the planet is billions of years old. And again, taking something as fact because someone else told you so is faith.

Locus Bey
Gallente
OCA2
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:03:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Death Kill
Originally by: Locus Bey



Atheism can be a dogma.


How many people posting in this thread believe in atheism?


No no no no noooooooooooooooooo!ugh

Atheism is a conclusion based on reason and logic, and if reason or logic or even evidence pointed in the direction of theism we would no longer be atheists.
You are using pure semantics. Faith..when it comes to religions, means irrational beliefs.So if I have 'faith in the fellow man' or your mom's cooking, it has nothing to do with believing in unprovable, highly improbable and with no evidence.



Quote:

About facts? At what point in our scientific investigation of quantum physics have we been dealing with fact? How many times has 'current' scientific theorum been overturned in favour of a new discovery? Looking at quantum physics the parallels with more esoteric explanations of life are considerable, and the deeper into the rabbit hole the more so.


Creationists belive humans walked the earth with the dinosaurs, and that the planet is 6000 years old. Sceince know for a fact through carbon dating that its much much older.


Your really beginning to **** me. Atheism is no more a conclusion of logic and reason than spiritual belief is. Your experience of the world, science and 'spirituality' is your experience, not mine. Your arse is so backed up with the belief that modern philosophical logic immediately discounts religious logic and belief that you are just as extreme as the religious zealot. Your **** poor example of creationism and dinosaurs goes in no way to explain current quantum physics exploration, nor its parallels with the more esoteric sciences. Have you read Rumi or Ibn Arabi who talk of evolution 400 years before Darwin? How many years have you explored Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Not every spiritual logic is predicated on some simple creation myth.

Krulla
Minmatar
Miner Protection Guild
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:20:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Krulla on 05/10/2007 05:21:07
Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Krulla
Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Krulla


Is this statement true;

Today, where science is dominant over religion, the average standard of life is better than in the dark ages, when religion was dominant?


Is this statement true:

The aggregate of human knowledge is greater today than it was in the dark ages.


And why is that, you think?


Because human knowledge tends to increase over time, unless countered by directed action. (See also: the burning of the Library of Alexandria.)


True, to a point.

During the dark ages, technology in europe hardly advanced for hundreds of years, when the church dominated Europe. When the Rennaisance came around, technology, and science, started to improve. This is still going on today.

During the dark ages, technology and knowledge didn't improve noticably in a person's lifetime. Today, it improves drastically year by year.

Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Death Kill
Some creationists belive humans walked the earth with the dinosaurs, and that the planet is 6000 years old. Sceince know for a fact through carbon dating that its much much older.


FTFY. Some of us creationists believe that the planet is billions of years old. And again, taking something as fact because someone else told you so is faith.


That's good. I never understood why the Genesis part of the bible cannot be intrepeted to include evolution and such - I mean, they say God created everything in 7 days, but noone said that he didn't tinker around with it after that.

Also, I believe in what scientists tell me not because of faith, but because I've seen what it does for myself. The computer I'm using right now is evidence enough. I have no reason to doubt in established science, as I've seen no evidence to suggest it's not right, and everything I have seen suggests that it is right.

I'm not bashing religion, I have nothing against religious people - I do however despise the Church that subdued mankind's progress for hundreds of years, and still tries to do so. Religion itself is fine, the church is not.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:32:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black

FTFY. Some of us creationists believe that the planet is billions of years old. And again, taking something as fact because someone else told you so is faith.


so you are a creationist? Funny how the rest of your 'kind' thinks the oposite. Your argument is that something as complex cant have been created by natural selection and evolution, that is have to have some type of creator......but with that argument you shot yourself in the foot as 'god' is even more complex and who created him?Neutral


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only