One cannot fully understand science without accepting God...
Ok, that's just nonsense. Generally, god(s) are defined as being omnipotent. Is there any experiment one could possibly devise to determine if a god or gods exist?
If you say 'yes', then why couldn't this omnipotent god simply change the outcome of the experiment on a whim? Since you must admit that an omnipotent god would be capable of doing this, we can conclude that such an experiment is not at all scientific -- the result could change in a seemingly random fashion.
If you say 'no', then you're admitting that the existence of a god could never be demonstrated. "A god exists" is a very extraordinary claim, and yet the claim itself has been carefully designed to be self-supporting so that it may resist be disproven. That's about as unscientific as unscientific gets.
Religious belief and science are mutually exclusive, period. I've had this same argument a thousand times, and I've never lost. What makes you think you're right, Mr. AC?
[Scientists] get some evidence, and then go on to make alot of wild hypothesis and then see which ones are most verifiable, and assume these true. This lasts until someone else comes up with something a little better, but not necessarily even more correct and then that is the current fad. The truth is we will probably never know for sure exactly how we were created.
That's right, real scientists get evidence. That's the key difference. Religion has zero evidence to support it, and science has tons. Furthermore, science doesn't "assume" that anything is true, or make "wild" hypotheses. Hypotheses must be supported by evidence and it must be falsifiable before they are even considered as fact.
Stop bashing those that have a different believe than you.
Would you make fun of someone who would let go of an object in midair and expect it to stay there because he didn't "believe" in gravity? Of course. Things that have been discovered scientifically will continue to be true, whether or not people believe in them.
If you wanna believe that mankind was created by millions of highly improbably chances, thats fine. I choose to believe that we were created by a higher being that we cannot see, or even verify exists. Neither one really has much scientific merit, but nonetheless we believe one or the other. Bashing religion doesn't make you cool so move on.
I'll ignore the fact that you aren't too clear on how biological evolution happens, but why would you believe in a "higher being" that we cannot verify exists? What possible reason could you have to believe that? I already know the answer to that question: it makes you feel good. People cannot completely separate their intellectual thought from their emotions, so you are compelled to believe a completely fabricated fairy tale because it makes you happy.
As for being 'cool', I don't care. Science is substantiated; religion isn't. I'm not going to stay off the winning team for reasons like that.
America is the MOST IGNORANT COUNTRY in the world. With that I mean that the average american is ignorant about Science, politics, the outer world AND DOESN'T CARE. As long as he can watch the superbowl or the latest Britney's concert, he's fine and doesn't worry about anything else.
Such is the luxury of living in a non-crap country. Things have to be in pretty good shape otherwise for people to concern themselves with such trivial stuff. Did you consider that Americans don't care because they don't have to care?
Well, this is just wrong.
They think democracy is intrinsically linked to capitalism.
This is wrong too.
Half the population thinks Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
0-for-3 so far. Where are you from, anyway?
I wouldn't waste my time worrying about what they think.
Then I guess you should have got off at the last stop, 'cause America is driving this bus. I bet you're still pretty happy to take advantage of American research, technology, and engineering when it's convenient for you.
Newsflash: everywhere you go, you will find stupid people. They're not just in the US. In fact, many countries are so underdeveloped that they don't even have the facility to display the intelligence of their citizens to the rest of the world in a high-profile way. The United States is endlessly scrutinized because it's leading the pack.
So how does this explain why cigarettes and alcohol are legal?
Um... it doesn't, and I'm not claiming that it should. What I'm saying is that things we need for our society to work must be legal. I'm not saying the converse, which would be: all things that are legal, our society must need.
Well gee, I guess the fact they got A's must mean they're retarded. You fucking asshat.
Did you consider that the fact they got A's means nothing at all? Because that's actually the case. I got A's in school, and it was because I cynically manipulated the system, not because I tried hard or knew anything. Grades in school do not, by any stretch of the imagination, correspond to intelligence.
Lets face the facts here. People who buy mod chips do so to pirate games and to play pirated games. It's a reality that no slashbot could deny. How many people do you know mod a system to play "homebrew" games or do something that doesn't involve piracy? You can argue mod chips are in of itself legitimate, but almost nobody uses them for legitimate purposes.
Wrong. One of the worst things about modern consoles is the fact that the medium used for distributing the games is DVDs. DVDs are slow compared to hard drives, so one solution popular among PS2 people is to copy images of their games to a large-capacity hard drive and boot a game loader directly off their memory card that will then load the games from the HD instead of from an optical disc. This is as fair as fair-use gets, and it requires a modchip.
(e) has a *much* shallower gravity well for lifting raw materials or manufactured subcomponents for in space assembly of interplantery craft
(f) has lower escape velocity than LEO
As I just pointed out, there's nothing on the moon. What good is the low gravity of the Moon if everything that you're lifting off of the Moon had to be lifted off Earth to be brought there in the first place?
All this "Let's go back to the Moon" stuff is just political nonsense to get support from the science-and-technology-oriented citizens.
The first series of Moon landings were mainly done to show the Soviets that the US kicks ass and you don't. Mission accomplished. But now, we know that the moon is:
(a) very expensive to travel to and land on,
(b) completely unprotected from meteors,
(c) totally not hospitable to Earth life, and
(d) devoid of any particularly special minerals, ores, or anything else useful.
What combination of those attributes indicates that we should go back?
Whether or not it's part of the reason for terrorist attacks on the US, it's pretty absurd to mock the idea that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are jealous of western prosperity. How would you feel if you "knew" that you were chosen by god, and yet you were forced to hide in mountain caves while your enemies had everything they wanted? They're definitely angrily jealous.
Gotta love this world we live in. Can't have people without money cured too, because if we do cure them, why would people with money pay for treatment ?
Did it not occur to you that maybe all this fancy medical treatment costs a lot of money? There's no shadowy Dr. Claw behind the scenes, wringing his hands while he thinks up plots to keep poor people away from medical treatment.
Medical treatment is expensive. Poor people don't have much money. That's it.
There's a popular myth that speed cameras won't get you if you're going fast enough, because the electronics won't react in time to measure the speed and snap the picture. This is, in fact, true.
But you need a car with some cojones. A driver for BBC's Top Gear got by a camera undetected with a TVR Tuscan S doing 171 mph. Any slower than that and you probably won't make it.
...and (b) if there were only two candidates. 32% of Americans was enough to win the election in this case. The fact that 32% is less than 50% is completely irrelevant because of the number of candidates and percentage of Americans that voted.
Say, hypothetically, there were 50 candidates and the winner won with 10% of the total population voting for him. Do supporters of the other candidates have a right to complain because the winner "only" got votes from 10% of the population? Of course not. 10% is five times as much as the 'expected' 2%.
In my 7th grade biology class, I'll never forget a kid raising his hand during the section on evolution and asking, "What about the Bible?" After a pause, the teacher replied, quite simply, "Well, some might say the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it." Whether or not you agree fundamentally with religion in any form, it was a concise, non-confrontational answer to an honest question.
Not quite. Saying "some might say the Bible tells what a god did" would be better. Otherwise, using the proper noun form 'God' presumes the existence of that which is in debate.
It's not a lost cause; it just has a few design elements that need improvement. Most things do. Engineering isn't perfect from the beginning.
But that perfectly reasonable explanation sure didn't stop you from making a condescending, self-righteous, political statement about this, did it? I can't believe you were modded Insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
One cannot fully understand science without accepting God ...
Ok, that's just nonsense. Generally, god(s) are defined as being omnipotent. Is there any experiment one could possibly devise to determine if a god or gods exist?
If you say 'yes', then why couldn't this omnipotent god simply change the outcome of the experiment on a whim? Since you must admit that an omnipotent god would be capable of doing this, we can conclude that such an experiment is not at all scientific -- the result could change in a seemingly random fashion.
If you say 'no', then you're admitting that the existence of a god could never be demonstrated. "A god exists" is a very extraordinary claim, and yet the claim itself has been carefully designed to be self-supporting so that it may resist be disproven. That's about as unscientific as unscientific gets.
Religious belief and science are mutually exclusive, period. I've had this same argument a thousand times, and I've never lost. What makes you think you're right, Mr. AC?
[Scientists] get some evidence, and then go on to make alot of wild hypothesis and then see which ones are most verifiable, and assume these true. This lasts until someone else comes up with something a little better, but not necessarily even more correct and then that is the current fad. The truth is we will probably never know for sure exactly how we were created.
That's right, real scientists get evidence. That's the key difference. Religion has zero evidence to support it, and science has tons. Furthermore, science doesn't "assume" that anything is true, or make "wild" hypotheses. Hypotheses must be supported by evidence and it must be falsifiable before they are even considered as fact.
Stop bashing those that have a different believe than you.
Would you make fun of someone who would let go of an object in midair and expect it to stay there because he didn't "believe" in gravity? Of course. Things that have been discovered scientifically will continue to be true, whether or not people believe in them.
If you wanna believe that mankind was created by millions of highly improbably chances, thats fine. I choose to believe that we were created by a higher being that we cannot see, or even verify exists. Neither one really has much scientific merit, but nonetheless we believe one or the other. Bashing religion doesn't make you cool so move on.
I'll ignore the fact that you aren't too clear on how biological evolution happens, but why would you believe in a "higher being" that we cannot verify exists? What possible reason could you have to believe that? I already know the answer to that question: it makes you feel good. People cannot completely separate their intellectual thought from their emotions, so you are compelled to believe a completely fabricated fairy tale because it makes you happy.
As for being 'cool', I don't care. Science is substantiated; religion isn't. I'm not going to stay off the winning team for reasons like that.
America is the MOST IGNORANT COUNTRY in the world. With that I mean that the average american is ignorant about Science, politics, the outer world AND DOESN'T CARE. As long as he can watch the superbowl or the latest Britney's concert, he's fine and doesn't worry about anything else.
Such is the luxury of living in a non-crap country. Things have to be in pretty good shape otherwise for people to concern themselves with such trivial stuff. Did you consider that Americans don't care because they don't have to care?
One cannot believe in a god without rejecting science.
This is the country that gave us creationists.
Well, this is just wrong. They think democracy is intrinsically linked to capitalism.
This is wrong too. Half the population thinks Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
0-for-3 so far. Where are you from, anyway? I wouldn't waste my time worrying about what they think.
Then I guess you should have got off at the last stop, 'cause America is driving this bus. I bet you're still pretty happy to take advantage of American research, technology, and engineering when it's convenient for you.
Newsflash: everywhere you go, you will find stupid people. They're not just in the US. In fact, many countries are so underdeveloped that they don't even have the facility to display the intelligence of their citizens to the rest of the world in a high-profile way. The United States is endlessly scrutinized because it's leading the pack.
haha. Grandparent poster is 0wned.
So how does this explain why cigarettes and alcohol are legal?
Um... it doesn't, and I'm not claiming that it should. What I'm saying is that things we need for our society to work must be legal. I'm not saying the converse, which would be: all things that are legal, our society must need.
Well gee, I guess the fact they got A's must mean they're retarded. You fucking asshat.
Did you consider that the fact they got A's means nothing at all? Because that's actually the case. I got A's in school, and it was because I cynically manipulated the system, not because I tried hard or knew anything. Grades in school do not, by any stretch of the imagination, correspond to intelligence.
Lets face the facts here. People who buy mod chips do so to pirate games and to play pirated games. It's a reality that no slashbot could deny. How many people do you know mod a system to play "homebrew" games or do something that doesn't involve piracy? You can argue mod chips are in of itself legitimate, but almost nobody uses them for legitimate purposes.
Wrong. One of the worst things about modern consoles is the fact that the medium used for distributing the games is DVDs. DVDs are slow compared to hard drives, so one solution popular among PS2 people is to copy images of their games to a large-capacity hard drive and boot a game loader directly off their memory card that will then load the games from the HD instead of from an optical disc. This is as fair as fair-use gets, and it requires a modchip.
I've smoked it for plenty of years now, I'm smarter than the majority of people in my class. A's in maths, science, IT and english.
Wow, the fact that you got A's in school is definitely proof that you're smart.
Um, no. Those things that we must have to have a productive and smoothly functioning civilization must be legal. That's why cars are legal.
In Finland, it is illegal to sell a locked phone. Once again -- manufacturers in Finland cannot legally sell a phone that is locked to one carrier.
Hmm.
(e) has a *much* shallower gravity well for lifting raw materials or manufactured subcomponents for in space assembly of interplantery craft
(f) has lower escape velocity than LEO
As I just pointed out, there's nothing on the moon. What good is the low gravity of the Moon if everything that you're lifting off of the Moon had to be lifted off Earth to be brought there in the first place?
All this "Let's go back to the Moon" stuff is just political nonsense to get support from the science-and-technology-oriented citizens.
The first series of Moon landings were mainly done to show the Soviets that the US kicks ass and you don't. Mission accomplished. But now, we know that the moon is:
(a) very expensive to travel to and land on,
(b) completely unprotected from meteors,
(c) totally not hospitable to Earth life, and
(d) devoid of any particularly special minerals, ores, or anything else useful.
What combination of those attributes indicates that we should go back?
Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.
Whether or not it's part of the reason for terrorist attacks on the US, it's pretty absurd to mock the idea that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are jealous of western prosperity. How would you feel if you "knew" that you were chosen by god, and yet you were forced to hide in mountain caves while your enemies had everything they wanted? They're definitely angrily jealous.
Gotta love this world we live in. Can't have people without money cured too, because if we do cure them, why would people with money pay for treatment ?
Did it not occur to you that maybe all this fancy medical treatment costs a lot of money? There's no shadowy Dr. Claw behind the scenes, wringing his hands while he thinks up plots to keep poor people away from medical treatment.
Medical treatment is expensive. Poor people don't have much money. That's it.
Yes, but what exactly constitutes "fittest" is hard to define.
Wow, then I guess it's a good thing that this concept is self-defining.
There's a popular myth that speed cameras won't get you if you're going fast enough, because the electronics won't react in time to measure the speed and snap the picture. This is, in fact, true.
But you need a car with some cojones. A driver for BBC's Top Gear got by a camera undetected with a TVR Tuscan S doing 171 mph. Any slower than that and you probably won't make it.
...is 32% a majority?
...and (b) if there were only two candidates. 32% of Americans was enough to win the election in this case. The fact that 32% is less than 50% is completely irrelevant because of the number of candidates and percentage of Americans that voted.
That would only be an important question (a) if all of the following sets are exactly equal:
- Registered voters
- Elligible voters
- Americans
Say, hypothetically, there were 50 candidates and the winner won with 10% of the total population voting for him. Do supporters of the other candidates have a right to complain because the winner "only" got votes from 10% of the population? Of course not. 10% is five times as much as the 'expected' 2%.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that "a majority of Americans" voted for Bush when he won with, what, 51% of the vote? Maybe 52%?
Um... no. That's not a stretch at all. 51-52% is a majority. Am I missing something?
Many of those who actually carried out the attacks on 9/11 were very well-educated and recruited from universities in Europe.
Well, that's a good example of how expensive education doesn't make you any smarter.
Well, this is a pointless thread.
All religion is bad.
Where are all the "lol only in america! lol" comments, huh?
In my 7th grade biology class, I'll never forget a kid raising his hand during the section on evolution and asking, "What about the Bible?" After a pause, the teacher replied, quite simply, "Well, some might say the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it." Whether or not you agree fundamentally with religion in any form, it was a concise, non-confrontational answer to an honest question.
Not quite. Saying "some might say the Bible tells what a god did" would be better. Otherwise, using the proper noun form 'God' presumes the existence of that which is in debate.
It's not a lost cause; it just has a few design elements that need improvement. Most things do. Engineering isn't perfect from the beginning.
But that perfectly reasonable explanation sure didn't stop you from making a condescending, self-righteous, political statement about this, did it? I can't believe you were modded Insightful.