[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by karajorma


Scientists would get laid more than rock stars Not to mention that they'd live in giant ivory towers heated by the dead bodies of grant approval committe members

Or heated by the dead bodies of debunked creationists.

"Throw another log on the fire!"

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


Or heated by the dead bodies of debunked creationists.

"Throw another log on the fire!"

Where do you think they'd get the ivory from?

[Su-tehp]

LOL! That's exactly what the world needs! It's poachers and creationists who need to be endangered species!

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Kazan
youi can actually prove love - that arguments been dumb and dead for years

REally? How?

You gonna prove to me that you love your Mother by jumping infont of a bullet ment for her?
What does that prove? Maby you're just a suicidal fruitcake!?

You will mesure brain acitivity? What does a higher electrical activity in a brain section mean? Love? Can you prove that?
No....

I LOVE science...I enjoy watching science shows.

Originaly posted by Kazan"proof around me that God exists" justify that statement (the universe is NOT complex, what is it with you people - youi ascribe invalid attributes to the universe just so you can run to your litttle deity for answer)

The universe is incredibly complex adn simple at the same time...
Or do you care to explain and prove wormholes, balck holes and N phenomena in space that humanity knows nothing about and that are described with forumulas so complex that you would be dead before you even began to understood them....

And I don't run to God for answers...he is everywhere....
*I bet this pisses you off*

[Kazan]

TrashMan: brain scans, behavior observation, etc


wormholes aren't accepted as a fact - it's just a theory

black holes are simple - it's a huge gravity well

the formulae to describe the behavior being complex doesn't mean the force is complex - the equasion describing gravity is com0plex by your definition im sure (rational polynomial function)  but gravity is a simple force

[Stunaep]

Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.

So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. , 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view

The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.

Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.

[01010]

Originally posted by Stunaep
Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.

So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. , 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view

The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.

Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.

That was the most long winded "shut up everyone" that I've ever heard. Well done.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stunaep
So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. , 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view

Actually, that argument is predicated on a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science is not predicated on belief. It is predicated on observation of the real world. When you drop a ball, science says the ball falls to the floor. Why? Because observation shows that in all cases where this theory has been tested, the ball falls to the floor. The moment the ball fails to fall to the floor, all those centuries of experimentation go out the window, and we start trying to explain how there can be an exception.

If you really want to characterise the difference between science and faith, Stu, think you can see science as external (it comes from outside ourselves) and faith as internal (its something we feel, or intuit from inside ourselves).

At least that's my fruity opinion.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.

So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. , 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view

The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.

Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.

That's a rather poor arguement and I'm sure even you know it. Let me put it this way. Suppose I put you in a room with a psychopath who believes that cutting your head off will turn you into an angel. You on the other hand don't believe this.

Should we say that that due to the fact neither of you can prove you're right that there is nothing more wrong in the psycho trying to cut your head off than in you trying to keep it?

Of course not.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael


If you really want to characterise the difference between science and faith, Stu, think you can see science as external (it comes from outside ourselves) and faith as internal (its something we feel, or intuit from inside ourselves).

At least that's my fruity opinion.

My point in here is, that there is no way you can judge religion to be any more reprehensible, or that you should automatically consider teaching religion to your children "ruining them". They have as much to believe in God than you have to believe in science. Neither of you can prove that the other is wrong.

As for ball example, yes you can say that the ball falls to the floor. But the question is why does the ball fall to the floor. Science sais it's because the effects of gravity make it fall. How was gravity made? Science provides some interesting, unproven hypothethis. Religion said it was God's making. Neither are proven, or any more correct than the other.

Should we say that that due to the fact neither of you can prove you're right that there is nothing more wrong in the psycho trying to cut your head off than in you trying to keep it?

Now we're venturing into a whole different area. This is already more of a moral issue, which if anything has got to more with religion than science. But most likely neither. If we took moral reasoning into account, we'd go into moral variables, religious variables, and the entire argument would go out of hand. I did assume that the religious person and scientific person have the same moral codes.

Leaving morals out, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It makes perfect sense by the logic of the psycho. But in our culture, killing people without their consent (or with their consent in most countries even) is wrong. So that would suck.

[edit] Mik: For science to be completely externally proven, you would have to have some prime theory, that would explain everything. The things the superstring theory, or the chaos theory try to explain. But those theories are for the time being incomplete, and unproven. You choose to believe in them just as you choose to believe in God.

[Kazan]

i completely missed stunaep's argument


stu - that argument is BEYOND week - science is simply a logical process - when ever someone makes a logical argument they technically are making a scientific argument

the "supposition god exists" is simply a supposition - it is illogical and unsupportable - all that follows off that supposition is therefore the same

[Stunaep]

yes, only thing is, it ain't illlogical. You have no evidence to either back it up, or deny it. It ain't logical, but it ain't illogical either. For all we know, there may actually be a giant man with a white beard running the show, you can't prove it anymore than the superstring theory.

[edit] For more information on my train of thought, I suggest you read Stanislaw Lem's "The Travels of Ijon Tichy"

[Rictor]

Err, anyone ever consider that thought science is a light to shine on the universe and our existence, perhaps we are not yet ready so see the truth. I mean, even the most...unfeeling (logical etc) of us, and yes that includes Kaz and CP and everyone else, could not live in a world totally devoid of faith. Given enough time, you would do one of several things:

1) Blow your brains out
2) Go mad
3) Realize that, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Faith, science, not of it actually matters, becuase its beyond the scope of human reason to accept either in their total, pure states.

To me, faith is not a prop, something you need in your life in order to comprehend the vastness of reailty. Faith is part of us, part of humanity. Perhaps we will one day evolve to the point where we no longer want (notice I didn't say need) faith, but I for one hope that never happens.

Its sort of a catch 22 that having faith is not a process of reason, but also that the reason for having faith is not a processs of reason.

or, thats what I reckon, for the time being anyway.

[aldo_14]

I don't think science is incompatible with religion, although I think already made that argument earlier.

It's where the phrase 'God is in the details' comes from..... the basic purpose of science is understanding our existence and the world / universe we live.  

Someone who believes in God may simply extend that to understanding how God works as well as how the world works, or whanot.  It's just a matter of perspective.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stunaep
As for ball example, yes you can say that the ball falls to the floor. But the question is why does the ball fall to the floor. Science sais it's because the effects of gravity make it fall. How was gravity made? Science provides some interesting, unproven hypothethis. Religion said it was God's making. Neither are proven, or any more correct than the other.

Actually, no. Science does not look at a falling ball and say 'gravity makes this happen'. Science looks at a falling ball and says 'this ball always falls'. The concept of gravity is not as a thing or something made. 'Gravity' is merely the rigourous explanation that 'balls fall and the observed rate is...' Scientific theory is codification of observation.

[edit] Mik: For science to be completely externally proven, you would have to have some prime theory, that would explain everything. The things the superstring theory, or the chaos theory try to explain. But those theories are for the time being incomplete, and unproven. You choose to believe in them just as you choose to believe in God.

Science can never be completely proven to be true. You can only prove it not wrong in known circumstances. There's a very important semantic difference there.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
Now we're venturing into a whole different area. This is already more of a moral issue, which if anything has got to more with religion than science. But most likely neither. If we took moral reasoning into account, we'd go into moral variables, religious variables, and the entire argument would go out of hand. I did assume that the religious person and scientific person have the same moral codes.

Leaving morals out, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It makes perfect sense by the logic of the psycho. But in our culture, killing people without their consent (or with their consent in most countries even) is wrong. So that would suck.

I deliberately left morals out of the question. The psycho believes he is doing you a favour. He's helping you assend to a higher plane. He thinks he's doing something nice for you. The question is mearly one of belief. Your scientific belief that killing you makes you dead vs his belief that that he's doing something good.

By your own arguement neither view is more correct so I guess you'd have to flip a coin over who does what, right?

Somehow I doubt you'd do that. You'd simply choose the path of logic and say "cutting off my head is sceintifically proven to kill me. There is less proof you're correct so let's go with keeping me alive huh?"

Originally posted by Rictor
Err, anyone ever consider that thought science is a light to shine on the universe and our existence, perhaps we are not yet ready so see the truth. I mean, even the most...unfeeling (logical etc) of us, and yes that includes Kaz and CP and everyone else, could not live in a world totally devoid of faith. Given enough time, you would do one of several things:

1) Blow your brains out
2) Go mad
3) Realize that, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Faith, science, not of it actually matters, becuase its beyond the scope of human reason to accept either in their total, pure states.

I disagree with you completely their Rictor. I would love to live in a world devoid of faith where all the people were atheists.  I would do none of those things. I would continue to live my life without having to worry about people using religion to shove their point of view on me.

Sounds pretty good to me

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma

I disagree with you completely their Rictor. I would love to live in a world devoid of faith where all the people were atheists.  I would do none of those things. I would continue to live my life without having to worry about people using religion to shove their point of view on me.

Sounds pretty good to me

no fundamentalism, no terrorism or wars over ideological beliefs, no hatred towards anyone not subscribing to a belief structure, no homophobia, no racism (well,not religious related, at least), no sectarianism or bigotry....... i wouldn;t argue.

Would make Old Firms games less intense, though...........

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by karajorma


I deliberately left morals out of the question. The psycho believes he is doing you a favour. He's helping you assend to a higher plane. He thinks he's doing something nice for you. The question is mearly one of belief. Your scientific belief that killing you makes you dead vs his belief that that he's doing something good.

By your own arguement neither view is more correct so I guess you'd have to flip a coin over who does what, right?

Somehow I doubt you'd do that. You'd simply choose the path of logic and say "cutting off my head is sceintifically proven to kill me. There is less proof you're correct so let's go with keeping me alive huh?"

I probably would. But that doesn't make the possibility of becoming an angel after death any less smaller. I reserve the right to make my own decisions based on my beliefs. But I'm not going to consider anyone else to be reprehensible because of that.

Sure, I'll consider the psycho to be insane, but that's because he's trying to impose his beliefs on me, by killing me, both which are morally...well, not supported. But if someone believed that dying would make one an angel, sure, I've got no problem with that.

Mik: So, ultimately there is a fair chance of god existing. So, find any reason why someone should be considered reprehensible for believing in god?

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by aldo_14


no fundamentalism, no terrorism or wars over ideological beliefs, no hatred towards anyone not subscribing to a belief structure, no homophobia, no racism (well,not religious related, at least), no sectarianism or bigotry....... i wouldn;t argue.

Would make Old Firms games less intense, though...........

let's take this by the world now. A world devoid of faith, as in faith, not only in God, but in any abstract non-scientifical thought would mean as well as god also, would mean a world devoid of music, devoid of art, no Nietsche, No Rabelais, no Dostoyevski, no Mozart, no Jerusalem, no Constantinople, no Moscow, no Kiev, no Paris, no Colosseum, no Pantheon, no Notre-Dame.

I'm not sure I'd like it.

[Rictor]

I just remembered a line from the movie Red Planet. Ok fine, not the greatest of films, but it had some interesting characters. One of them was an old(er) scientist who (I presume) lived his life in the pursuit of science. Then one day, he turned to religion. When Val Kilmer asks him why, he says "Because science couldn't answer any of the really important questions."

You say you would like to live in a world without faith, but have you considered what that entails? Faith includes all that which cannot scientifically be proven. Science deals of in facts, not opinions of morals.

In this world, there would be nothing wrong with killing a person. For no reason at all, just like that. There is no scientific reason why you shouldn't. Same goes for inflicting pain and misery. Same goes for cruelty, for exploitation. Its a matter of morality, since morality is subjective, who is to say yours is better than mine?

Science can never answer any of the existential questions. Not because we don't have the refinement or the technology, but because it is by definition beyond the scope of science. In a world without faith, you would have no purpose at all for being. You just are. There's no reason to do or not do anything, because you ave no meaning. Your're not even a machine. A machine has a purpose. But science can never tell us what your purpose is, it can never tell us if we have one at all.

Think about this. You have no purpose, you just are. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no reaosn, no meaning. Not even survival of the species, not anything. You just are. I doubt any human will ever be able to live in such a world, to face such a reality. You may think you can, but you're wrong. Its like saying that you could survive being hit by freight train. You've never tried, nor has anyone else (and lived to tell about it). You may think you know the consequences, but the consequence is a total loss of...everything.

Its pretty short sighted to say that faith is responsible only for murder, intolerance and so forth. These can and are being worked out of the human system of faith. Faith is being refined to get rid of all the bad. Give it some time, and faith will no longer be associated with any of those things.


Science is the house which you build. The tools are logic, reason, observation, experimentation. With science you can build yourself a pretty nice house. Faith is the Universe in which that house resides. No Universe, no house.