You could say the same about any physical invention; after all, an internal combustion engine is just a series of interactions between fundamental physical forces, just as an algorithm is just a series of logical operations. A physical device involves transforming and moving energy between its components, an algorithm applied to a computer involves shunting electricity around various gates.
Copyright and patents don't offer the same type of protection, so saying algorithms are adequately protected by copyright isn't really accurate. For example, if someone copyrighted their MP3-encoding code, and I got my hands on it, I could implement the same algorithm in a totally different language, and it wouldn't be violating their copyright. Copyright protects a particular instance of a program, a patent protects the general principle. At the moment, there are implementational problems with both systems (insufficient obvious-testing for patents, infinite extensions for copyrights), but I don't see any fundamental reason why an algorithm should be treated differently from a physical invention, as long as it is sufficiently innovative, sufficiently non-obvious, and a working example is provided.
The thing is, ideas aren't patentable. Methods are. The test for obviousness should be, given the specs, can another programmer come up with the same implementation. For example, if someone said "invent a system that allows one-click purchasing", and the programmer can come up with the method described in the patent, the patent should be invalid as obvious. On the otherhand, if you say "an algorithm for compressing audio data", and the programmer can't derive MP3 compression, then that should be a valid patent. Note that patents don't cover the idea, just the method. A patent on "a method for compressing audio data" doesn't stop any other compression scheme - just the particular one outlined in the patent. Of course, bundled with this needs to be a way of preventing submarine patens a la UNISYS' LZW/GIF.
You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....
You don't think gamers will listen to what the traditional media thinks do you? That's probably why GTA was such a flop.
And you're changing the subject of the argument. The original poster claimed that technological progress without patents was impossible. I pointed to a period of human history that developed technologically without patents. You claim that with modern technology, its easier to copy innovations, thus removing the incentive for creators. How does that relate at all to the historical fact that civilizations have developed technologically without patents? Patents may make an environment more conducive to innovation, leading to a higher rate of invention, but to claim that innovation without patent protection is impossible is patently (sorry) false.
So unless something is mass production, assembly lines, media duplicators, and automation, it's not an example of technological development? I think you have a rather narrow concept of technology.
No, they didn't. Did civilization progress from < 2000 BC to 1400AD? Yes? Then patents are not necessary for innovation. All your argument proves is that innovation may take place with patent law. It doesn't even demonstrate that patents increase the rate of innovation, as there could be other explanations for innovation (such as the development of enabling technologies, which, frankly, are far more likely to be the cause for the 20th centuries explosive advancement than the patent system).
No, they didn't. Did civilization progress from may take place with patent law. It doesn't even demonstrate that patents increase the rate of innovation, as there could be other explanations for innovation (such as the development of enabling technologies, which, frankly, are far more likely to be the cause for the 20th centuries explosive advancement than the patent system).
Patents were first used used in the 1400s in Italy. They came to England in the 1600s. Prior to that, all technological development was made without the protection of patents. Unless you care to claim that the human race never developed technologically from its conception until the 1400s, your claim is false.
I think, as you said, our disagreement centers around the definition of rational. I consider belief in the Bible rational because:
its premise is possible (if not proven)
its claims follow logically from its premise
That's enough for me to consider it rational. It's not enough for me to believe it, but its enough for me to consider it rational. I believe it due to other factors, such as personal spiritual experience, which aren't scientific or empirical, and don't have any place in an arguement about rationality. Those factors are why I believe in Jesus and not, say Zeus. I didn't come to faith by logically looking at the facts, considering the evidence, and deciding that the Bible was likely true, I came to faith because of my experiences. Then when I looked at the Bible, I found its arguments logical because I had already accepted its premise, and its descriptions and theology meshed with my experiences (whereas the legends of Zeus didn't).
As I said, I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is true, or even likely. I'm not trying to demonstrate that my belief is correct, or that there is sufficient evidence to justify my belief. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Firstly, I wasn't attempting to prove the truth of the Bible with my argument. I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational. And yes, assuming the existance of an omnipotent God opens up a whole ton of possibilities, some of which (like smurfs) are fairly ridiculous. Which is why you go and look at the evidence for those things. On the side of the smurfs we have a television show created to entertain children. On the side of Jesus, we have written records from people who claim to be eye-witnesses of what is claimed to be actual historical events. On the balance of evidence, I'd say that while the existence of Jesus and smurfs are both possible, there is more reliable evidence for Jesus than there are for smurfs. That doesn't prove that Jesus existed, it justs demonstrates that it was possible Jesus existed (and did what he claimed to do) and that there is some evidence that he did. Not proved, but still rational. Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God.
God's existance is untestable, which makes it a useless scientific claim. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, it just means that science can't be used to determine whether the claim is true or false. The same could be true of many other pieces of knowledge - say, the existance of Julius Caesar. The claim "Julius Caesar existed" cannot be tested - science cannot state one way or the other whether Julius Caesar existed. What science can do is verify the historical evidence - we dated this letter, and demonstrated that it was written at the time Julius Caesar is claimed to have lived, we've found coins bearing his face in archealogical strata that date to the time he is claimed to have lived, etc. But just because a claim is untestable, and therefore, unscientific, doesn't mean it's irrational.
The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
Yes, but just because something is not proven does not make belief in it irrational. If something is disproven, then belief in it is irrational.
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened.
No, it describes things that are scientifically unlikely. Science cannot disprove an omnipotent God. If an omnipotent God exists, nothing described in the Bible is impossible. Therefore belief in the Bible is not irrational.
Religion isn't about rationality.
That I'd agree with; religion is about faith. But just because it's primarily concerned with faith doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational.
All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely". There's evidence there, not proof, but evidence, but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely. You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence. At least on the Christian's side is that the Bible itself claims to be factual. And can you provide a link to your claims about the dates of authorship? The latest of the gospels was Luke, and its authorship is generally placed around 60 AD, around 30-40 years after the events it describes. The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you.
You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous.
And you are confusing process with thesis. In Christian circles, the Bible is not up for debate any more than the scientific method is in scientific circles. The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine. Science relies on the assumption that empirical observation is an reliable tool for discovering the truth; Christianity relies on the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If you remove the fundamental assumption of either Christianity or science the whole thing falls apart; neither challenges or changes their fundamental assumptions, yet both scientific theories and Christian doctrine change as the Bible and the scientific method are applied to new circumstances or in new ways.
It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real.
Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity, albeit maybe not evidence you believe. The various books of the Bible (especially the New Testament, which we're really talking about here) are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history. If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational. It might not be proven, it might not even be true, but it may well still be a rational belief.
Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about the origin of life, two completely different things. Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time", not by any definition of the term. Science has no real explanation of how life can originate from non-life - they have a couple of guesses, and a few unproved theories, a stab or two at some of the processes (like the Urey-Miller experiments) - yet most scientific people believe it all the same. I'd say that would be a nice example of "faith-based" belief; some circumstantial evidence that it might be possible, no definite proof, and yet it's believed anyway.
Fascinating, yet your objection is one more of indigence than logic. About the only thing that can be considered a universal characteristic of Christians is that they believe that Christ was the Messiah. Your desire to have "Christian" mean something specific--as dictated by you alone, apparently--is understandable but falls into the "if wishes were fishes" category rather than factual argument.
As I pointed out, even that is not universal among those who call themselves Christian. I don't necessarily want a definition of Christian defined by me - I just want a definition. If I don't agree with that definition, then I'll call myself a protestant, or an evangelical, or whatever definition best suits me. But having Christian not being defined to mean anything just makes the whole term useless. A word which has different meanings to all parties is counter to the whole purpose of language.
Once again, you are using the argument that only some of your beliefs are irrational. The fact that many Christians believe in some blatantly proven scientific facts is not proof of their rationality. Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven. And that anyone who doesn't believe this entirely reasonable true story deserves eternal punishment. Yup, I can see that logic and rationality rule here. But, back to your point about stagnation. Christianity starts with the premise that you must believe certain tenants of Christianity against all proof to the contrary. That is stagnation. Religion prides its self in blind faith. Once you take pride in being illogical an irrational, you loose the ability to objectively evaluate the world because you give your religious beliefs a free pass.
Using that definition, science is also stagnant. Science relies on the idea that empirical observation and reproducible experimentation are the ways to determine if something is true. It starts with the basic premise that you must believe these things, or you are not a scientist. The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that.
Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven.
Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either. Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational.
Your definition was: "to believe something is to think it's true without having the requisite proof."
Thus, according to your definition, to believe something, you must:
1) Think it's true
2) Not be able to prove that it's true
That's not the definition your dictionary gives. If you think something is true AND have the requisite proof, then according to the dictionary, you believe that thing - as long as you accept that is true, you believe it, whether you also have proof or not. According to your definition you don't, because your definition requires the absence of proof. Know and believe are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The best reply so far. However, to believe something is to think it's true without having the requisite proof. And science demands that proof. It isn't a belief system.
No, to believe something is to think it's true. The definition of "believe" says nothing about whether it's proven or not. What you're talking about sounds more like "faith". Science isn't a faith system, but it is a belief system. Most scientists would believe that when you pass an electrical current through water, hydrogen and oxygen are produced. They believe that because they can do it themselves and test that it's true.
A belief system defines your benchmark for truth. For a scientist, his benchmark for truth is whether the concept can be verified empirically through repeatable, controlled experimentation. For the philosopher, it's whether it can be derived logically from known facts and assumptions. For the Christian (at least, for the Evangelical Christian), it's whether it's compatible with the Bible. Some belief systems are mutually exclusive, and others aren't.
Aren't these the people that killed thousands during the Crusades?
No, they're not. They're not even the descendants of those who killed thousands during the crusades. In general, they don't even believe most of the same things as those who killed thousnads during the Crusades (medieval Catholocism and modern protestantism are very different).
I just don't understand why people can't accept that others can believe different things than they do. If the whole world was just more accepting of others and respected others' beliefs even if they disagreed, the world would be a much, much better place.
True, but that's hardly limited to religion. Religious or not, people always try and convince other people that their position is the right one, and it often results in violence. War and politics are pretty much nothing but people with different beliefs and positions trying to discredit/disembowel the opposition. I'm sure the only reason there hasn't been a casualty in the vi vs emacs war is because it'd mean actually going outside to bash their opponent's head in.
You seem to be under the impression that the nature of the universe is contingent on your belief.
If Christians are right, you're going to go to Hell whether you believe in science, nothing, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If Christians are wrong, then they're not going to Heaven even if they believe they are.
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
That idea is a bunch of hogwash. Unforuntately, it seems to be publically-accepted hogwash, which is why you have religious groups claiming that Christ never lived, the Bible is inaccurate, and God is just a symbol, yet still claiming the moniker of "Christian" while they deny the very person whose name they claim. By making a name mean "whatever someone says it is to them" removes any meaning at all from the word. It becomes totally useless, because when I say "Christian" you have absolutely no idea what it means, because its meaning is undefined.
Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith...Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason.
You're mis-representing religion here by over-simplifying the comparison. Religion doesn't "praise blind faith over reason" in all situations. Religion provides some key tenents which are assumed on faith. Everthing else is derived, logically, from those tenets and other knowledge (including scientific knowledge). Christians don't go out randomly believing anything ("I believe the sky is pink") and avoiding reason ("The sky looks blue to me, therefore I won't believe it's blue"). When something questions the basic assumptions of their faith, they stick to those assumptions, but in all other cases, they're not "anti-reason".
It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn.
Which is why mainstream Christians still believe that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and that maggots generate spontaneously in rotten meat. Oh wait, they don't. The fundamental tenets of faith are rarely questioned (although they are questioned - see the reformation), but then, neither are those of science. How many times have you seen scientists question the validity of empirical observation or repeatable experimentation? But just because their fundamental beliefs don't shift doesn't necessarily imply that their other beliefs don't shift, anymore than it implies that modern scientists believe the same thing as nineteenth century scientists did, just because the scientific method has remained unchanged.
Of course science is a belief system. It gives you a way to distinguish between what you should believe, and what you shouldn't. It's a belief system that is based on experimentation and empirically verifiable facts. Religion is a belief system, one that's based (generally) on faith, personal experience and even logic (once you assume some of its basic tents on faith).
You won't lose your patent, but if it can be demonstrated that you didn't act to limit the damage of the violation quickly after discovering it, you're not going to get much from the judge. If you've sat on your hands for 10 years while violations of your patent escalated, then you obviously weren't interested in protecting your patent; you were interested in increasing the amount of people you could sue.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and they didn't enforce it until it became a de facto standard. That's the sort of behaviour that needs to be controlled.
You could say the same about any physical invention; after all, an internal combustion engine is just a series of interactions between fundamental physical forces, just as an algorithm is just a series of logical operations. A physical device involves transforming and moving energy between its components, an algorithm applied to a computer involves shunting electricity around various gates.
Copyright and patents don't offer the same type of protection, so saying algorithms are adequately protected by copyright isn't really accurate. For example, if someone copyrighted their MP3-encoding code, and I got my hands on it, I could implement the same algorithm in a totally different language, and it wouldn't be violating their copyright. Copyright protects a particular instance of a program, a patent protects the general principle. At the moment, there are implementational problems with both systems (insufficient obvious-testing for patents, infinite extensions for copyrights), but I don't see any fundamental reason why an algorithm should be treated differently from a physical invention, as long as it is sufficiently innovative, sufficiently non-obvious, and a working example is provided.
The thing is, ideas aren't patentable. Methods are. The test for obviousness should be, given the specs, can another programmer come up with the same implementation. For example, if someone said "invent a system that allows one-click purchasing", and the programmer can come up with the method described in the patent, the patent should be invalid as obvious. On the otherhand, if you say "an algorithm for compressing audio data", and the programmer can't derive MP3 compression, then that should be a valid patent. Note that patents don't cover the idea, just the method. A patent on "a method for compressing audio data" doesn't stop any other compression scheme - just the particular one outlined in the patent. Of course, bundled with this needs to be a way of preventing submarine patens a la UNISYS' LZW/GIF.
You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....
You don't think gamers will listen to what the traditional media thinks do you? That's probably why GTA was such a flop.
If the survey was invalid in some way - poorly selected sample, biased questions, etc - then the statement wouldn't be contradictory.
And you're changing the subject of the argument. The original poster claimed that technological progress without patents was impossible. I pointed to a period of human history that developed technologically without patents. You claim that with modern technology, its easier to copy innovations, thus removing the incentive for creators. How does that relate at all to the historical fact that civilizations have developed technologically without patents? Patents may make an environment more conducive to innovation, leading to a higher rate of invention, but to claim that innovation without patent protection is impossible is patently (sorry) false.
So unless something is mass production, assembly lines, media duplicators, and automation, it's not an example of technological development? I think you have a rather narrow concept of technology.
No, they didn't. Did civilization progress from < 2000 BC to 1400AD? Yes? Then patents are not necessary for innovation. All your argument proves is that innovation may take place with patent law. It doesn't even demonstrate that patents increase the rate of innovation, as there could be other explanations for innovation (such as the development of enabling technologies, which, frankly, are far more likely to be the cause for the 20th centuries explosive advancement than the patent system).
No, they didn't. Did civilization progress from may take place with patent law. It doesn't even demonstrate that patents increase the rate of innovation, as there could be other explanations for innovation (such as the development of enabling technologies, which, frankly, are far more likely to be the cause for the 20th centuries explosive advancement than the patent system).
Patents were first used used in the 1400s in Italy. They came to England in the 1600s. Prior to that, all technological development was made without the protection of patents. Unless you care to claim that the human race never developed technologically from its conception until the 1400s, your claim is false.
- its premise is possible (if not proven)
- its claims follow logically from its premise
That's enough for me to consider it rational. It's not enough for me to believe it, but its enough for me to consider it rational. I believe it due to other factors, such as personal spiritual experience, which aren't scientific or empirical, and don't have any place in an arguement about rationality. Those factors are why I believe in Jesus and not, say Zeus. I didn't come to faith by logically looking at the facts, considering the evidence, and deciding that the Bible was likely true, I came to faith because of my experiences. Then when I looked at the Bible, I found its arguments logical because I had already accepted its premise, and its descriptions and theology meshed with my experiences (whereas the legends of Zeus didn't).As I said, I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is true, or even likely. I'm not trying to demonstrate that my belief is correct, or that there is sufficient evidence to justify my belief. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Firstly, I wasn't attempting to prove the truth of the Bible with my argument. I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational. And yes, assuming the existance of an omnipotent God opens up a whole ton of possibilities, some of which (like smurfs) are fairly ridiculous. Which is why you go and look at the evidence for those things. On the side of the smurfs we have a television show created to entertain children. On the side of Jesus, we have written records from people who claim to be eye-witnesses of what is claimed to be actual historical events. On the balance of evidence, I'd say that while the existence of Jesus and smurfs are both possible, there is more reliable evidence for Jesus than there are for smurfs. That doesn't prove that Jesus existed, it justs demonstrates that it was possible Jesus existed (and did what he claimed to do) and that there is some evidence that he did. Not proved, but still rational. Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God.
God's existance is untestable, which makes it a useless scientific claim. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, it just means that science can't be used to determine whether the claim is true or false. The same could be true of many other pieces of knowledge - say, the existance of Julius Caesar. The claim "Julius Caesar existed" cannot be tested - science cannot state one way or the other whether Julius Caesar existed. What science can do is verify the historical evidence - we dated this letter, and demonstrated that it was written at the time Julius Caesar is claimed to have lived, we've found coins bearing his face in archealogical strata that date to the time he is claimed to have lived, etc. But just because a claim is untestable, and therefore, unscientific, doesn't mean it's irrational.
The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
Yes, but just because something is not proven does not make belief in it irrational. If something is disproven, then belief in it is irrational.
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened.
No, it describes things that are scientifically unlikely. Science cannot disprove an omnipotent God. If an omnipotent God exists, nothing described in the Bible is impossible. Therefore belief in the Bible is not irrational.
Religion isn't about rationality.
That I'd agree with; religion is about faith. But just because it's primarily concerned with faith doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational.
All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely". There's evidence there, not proof, but evidence, but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely. You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence. At least on the Christian's side is that the Bible itself claims to be factual. And can you provide a link to your claims about the dates of authorship? The latest of the gospels was Luke, and its authorship is generally placed around 60 AD, around 30-40 years after the events it describes. The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you.
You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous.
And you are confusing process with thesis. In Christian circles, the Bible is not up for debate any more than the scientific method is in scientific circles. The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine. Science relies on the assumption that empirical observation is an reliable tool for discovering the truth; Christianity relies on the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If you remove the fundamental assumption of either Christianity or science the whole thing falls apart; neither challenges or changes their fundamental assumptions, yet both scientific theories and Christian doctrine change as the Bible and the scientific method are applied to new circumstances or in new ways.
It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real.
Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity, albeit maybe not evidence you believe. The various books of the Bible (especially the New Testament, which we're really talking about here) are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history. If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational. It might not be proven, it might not even be true, but it may well still be a rational belief.
Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about the origin of life, two completely different things. Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time", not by any definition of the term. Science has no real explanation of how life can originate from non-life - they have a couple of guesses, and a few unproved theories, a stab or two at some of the processes (like the Urey-Miller experiments) - yet most scientific people believe it all the same. I'd say that would be a nice example of "faith-based" belief; some circumstantial evidence that it might be possible, no definite proof, and yet it's believed anyway.
Fascinating, yet your objection is one more of indigence than logic. About the only thing that can be considered a universal characteristic of Christians is that they believe that Christ was the Messiah. Your desire to have "Christian" mean something specific--as dictated by you alone, apparently--is understandable but falls into the "if wishes were fishes" category rather than factual argument.
As I pointed out, even that is not universal among those who call themselves Christian. I don't necessarily want a definition of Christian defined by me - I just want a definition. If I don't agree with that definition, then I'll call myself a protestant, or an evangelical, or whatever definition best suits me. But having Christian not being defined to mean anything just makes the whole term useless. A word which has different meanings to all parties is counter to the whole purpose of language.
Once again, you are using the argument that only some of your beliefs are irrational. The fact that many Christians believe in some blatantly proven scientific facts is not proof of their rationality. Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven. And that anyone who doesn't believe this entirely reasonable true story deserves eternal punishment. Yup, I can see that logic and rationality rule here. But, back to your point about stagnation. Christianity starts with the premise that you must believe certain tenants of Christianity against all proof to the contrary. That is stagnation. Religion prides its self in blind faith. Once you take pride in being illogical an irrational, you loose the ability to objectively evaluate the world because you give your religious beliefs a free pass.
Using that definition, science is also stagnant. Science relies on the idea that empirical observation and reproducible experimentation are the ways to determine if something is true. It starts with the basic premise that you must believe these things, or you are not a scientist. The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that.
Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven.
Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either. Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational.
When did Jefferson go around lighting tapirs?
Fine by me; call me a protestant Christian or an Evangelical.
Your definition was: "to believe something is to think it's true without having the requisite proof."
Thus, according to your definition, to believe something, you must:
1) Think it's true
2) Not be able to prove that it's true
That's not the definition your dictionary gives. If you think something is true AND have the requisite proof, then according to the dictionary, you believe that thing - as long as you accept that is true, you believe it, whether you also have proof or not. According to your definition you don't, because your definition requires the absence of proof. Know and believe are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The best reply so far. However, to believe something is to think it's true without having the requisite proof. And science demands that proof. It isn't a belief system.
No, to believe something is to think it's true. The definition of "believe" says nothing about whether it's proven or not. What you're talking about sounds more like "faith". Science isn't a faith system, but it is a belief system. Most scientists would believe that when you pass an electrical current through water, hydrogen and oxygen are produced. They believe that because they can do it themselves and test that it's true.
A belief system defines your benchmark for truth. For a scientist, his benchmark for truth is whether the concept can be verified empirically through repeatable, controlled experimentation. For the philosopher, it's whether it can be derived logically from known facts and assumptions. For the Christian (at least, for the Evangelical Christian), it's whether it's compatible with the Bible. Some belief systems are mutually exclusive, and others aren't.
Aren't these the people that killed thousands during the Crusades?
No, they're not. They're not even the descendants of those who killed thousands during the crusades. In general, they don't even believe most of the same things as those who killed thousnads during the Crusades (medieval Catholocism and modern protestantism are very different).
I just don't understand why people can't accept that others can believe different things than they do. If the whole world was just more accepting of others and respected others' beliefs even if they disagreed, the world would be a much, much better place.
True, but that's hardly limited to religion. Religious or not, people always try and convince other people that their position is the right one, and it often results in violence. War and politics are pretty much nothing but people with different beliefs and positions trying to discredit/disembowel the opposition. I'm sure the only reason there hasn't been a casualty in the vi vs emacs war is because it'd mean actually going outside to bash their opponent's head in.
You seem to be under the impression that the nature of the universe is contingent on your belief.
If Christians are right, you're going to go to Hell whether you believe in science, nothing, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If Christians are wrong, then they're not going to Heaven even if they believe they are.
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
That idea is a bunch of hogwash. Unforuntately, it seems to be publically-accepted hogwash, which is why you have religious groups claiming that Christ never lived, the Bible is inaccurate, and God is just a symbol, yet still claiming the moniker of "Christian" while they deny the very person whose name they claim. By making a name mean "whatever someone says it is to them" removes any meaning at all from the word. It becomes totally useless, because when I say "Christian" you have absolutely no idea what it means, because its meaning is undefined.
Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith...Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason.
You're mis-representing religion here by over-simplifying the comparison. Religion doesn't "praise blind faith over reason" in all situations. Religion provides some key tenents which are assumed on faith. Everthing else is derived, logically, from those tenets and other knowledge (including scientific knowledge). Christians don't go out randomly believing anything ("I believe the sky is pink") and avoiding reason ("The sky looks blue to me, therefore I won't believe it's blue"). When something questions the basic assumptions of their faith, they stick to those assumptions, but in all other cases, they're not "anti-reason".
It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn.
Which is why mainstream Christians still believe that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and that maggots generate spontaneously in rotten meat. Oh wait, they don't. The fundamental tenets of faith are rarely questioned (although they are questioned - see the reformation), but then, neither are those of science. How many times have you seen scientists question the validity of empirical observation or repeatable experimentation? But just because their fundamental beliefs don't shift doesn't necessarily imply that their other beliefs don't shift, anymore than it implies that modern scientists believe the same thing as nineteenth century scientists did, just because the scientific method has remained unchanged.
Of course science is a belief system. It gives you a way to distinguish between what you should believe, and what you shouldn't. It's a belief system that is based on experimentation and empirically verifiable facts. Religion is a belief system, one that's based (generally) on faith, personal experience and even logic (once you assume some of its basic tents on faith).
You won't lose your patent, but if it can be demonstrated that you didn't act to limit the damage of the violation quickly after discovering it, you're not going to get much from the judge. If you've sat on your hands for 10 years while violations of your patent escalated, then you obviously weren't interested in protecting your patent; you were interested in increasing the amount of people you could sue.