Examples of "supernatural" (a.k.a. bullshit) claims that science can help answer: * Does prayer work to cure the sick? Sciences indicates no. * Was the world formed in six days? Science indicates no. * Did Noah get every species onto a boat? Science indicates no. * Are we reincarnated? Sciences indicates no.
These can all be proved negative to my satisfaction.
I didn't say science has anything to say about religion. Science is merely the act of trying to find answers with reason, and proving it with evidence. It's not a religion - it doesn't say a thing.
I said "Anyone who truly understands science is..." not "Science is...".
People who understand science see people being swindled by religion all the time - people are hurt by religion. Think about the babies raped in Africa to "cure HIV" - this is an extreme example of a false belief that is widely shared - basically a disorganised religion. If these people thought scientifically, they wouldn't do that. Same with faith healers, fortune telling, cold reading, greedy evangelists, stoned women etc.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion. Sciences looks for answers for things that religion would rather you just shut-up and believe (and give money and power).
They DON'T control us. They might influence weak minds like yours. But they don't control people!
Obviously advertising works, but it doesn't control what I do. I still have that free will. I don't need the government to think for me, thank you very much. Perhaps you could volunteer to go to jail, and have the government administer your food and drink, and enforce compulsory exercise and health checks. Then you'd escape this evil trillion dollars of advertising!
Advertising has existed as long as communication. We advertise ourselves. It's not evil. McDonald's isn't evil. Money isn't evil.
Evil is the people who want complete control of what others do.
Just like when Copernicus said the earth was not the centre of the universe, and all those scientists attacked him?? No, that was Christians.
Well how about evolution? It explains all we see in the natural world elegantly using a simple principle which is supported mathematically. Nope, Christians want to stop people discussing that. The big bang? The existence of other planets? The size of the universe? Fossils? Radio-isotopic dating? No, no, no - Christians HATE these things.
Christianity, and its brother Islam, are jokes. The teach ridiculous things, and demand acceptance without allowing questioning. I'm happy for you to believe that crap if you like, but know that it's bullshit and that you are wasting your time.
Also, and most importantly, stop trying to discourage science. Stop trying to stop people learning things. Christians and Muslims might be happy living in smelly caves, or you may accept the benefits of science at the same time as attacking it, but science is important for all humanity. More important that some bundle of lies, the false idol, cobbled together and continually altered declaring itself as god's word.
The point is that you require more and more energy to accelerate, to the point you need infinite energy to go any faster. You're not going to get infinite energy.
The problem with atheists in general and new atheists in particular is that they don't study war doctrine
I'm not at war with anyone. I just think belief in a god/gods is a bit stupid. And evolution seems to be the logical conclusion if you have anything that can reproduce and change. Plus we have all this telescope, geological, nuclear information that indicates the world is not 6000 years old.
I used to be a Christian. I stopped at thought about it when I met other Christians who believed that crap - and came to the only rational conclusion when thinking about gods - there aren't any.
Those examples you gave are all self-inflicted or misfortunes.
Deliberately shining a laser into a plane needs to be punished. Just like you should be punished if you deliberately drown your wife, through your kid into a shark pit, or strangled Michael Hutchence to death.
Nothing needs to be regulated, except for stopping the deliberate, or neglectful, harming of others.
Surely this means a woman without ovaries (e.g. removed because of cancer) could have her stem-cells harvested from blood (if this is possible), and use these stem cells to create ova. The ova can then be fertilised and inserted in a surrogate uterus.
In fairness, they were probably playing around with video cards, setting up a LAN or something and overclocking them, and discovered identical brand cards had different errors. They thought "this seems cool" and investigated and experimented a bit more and found out you can identify cards with it.
They then thought "I can get funding for this if I make it topical... Mmm, stops terrorism? No. Reverses global warming? No. Predicts economy? No." Then the epiphany "It can stop haxoring! That's how we'll get funding for a shitload of new graphics cards."
I'm going to complain here, because no-one else cares...
One of my pet hates is that when the media publishes a measurement, they will give both metric and imperial, and will calculate it to ridiculous significant figures.
For instance, this imaginary robot might weigh, you know, round about 100 kilo - which is 220.5 lbs! Yep, they know know the measurements to the nearest 10th of a pound, but coincidentally it happens to be a really round figure in metric terms.
He could have avoided the chase and subsequent suicide/prison by not carjacking an innocent person.
And we can show sex and nudity, here: http://www.redtube.com/ Knock your socks off, show your kids. Is that the type of thing you want shown on TV?
I get your point regarding nudity. Those episodes of Survivor or WipeOut (not that I watch those shows) that censor bum cracks and cleavage are ridiculous. But it's only a small minority who complain about those. Sort of like the small minority who act indignant when a suicide is shown.
Companies are run by people, they're led by people, and people decide what happens. If an arrogant sociopath runs a company stacked with members of his cult, a company may behave in a terrible manner.
But Google doesn't have any laws stopping it from operating in China - it forgoes all that money out of principle of refusing censorship. Then there's the drug companies refusing to sell propofol to people for the death penalty.
My boss takes a chance and hires some people who need a break. He acts ethically, and would not make money out of loopholes in funding systems.
If a company acts in a sociopathic way, then we need to blame the people running them - they need to be held to account legally and ethically instead of excusing them by saying "corporations are functionally sociopathic" - only if we let them.
If I yell "Fire", a rational person will try to leave a theater quickly, possibly causing injuries to others.
If you yell "Fire" in a Muslim theatre (okay, well mosque), you won't get the same response. You'll have a whole lot of selfish men trampling over women and children to escape.
Compassion for others and selflessness are not inherent behaviours in humans. We are taught them as children because it makes our society a better place. Some groups do not share these values.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but that's not science.
A theory becoming a religion isn't science becoming a religion. Science is a process, not a belief.
Ideological belief in a doctrine while ignoring evidence to the contrary is religion, not science.
Examples of "supernatural" (a.k.a. bullshit) claims that science can help answer:
* Does prayer work to cure the sick? Sciences indicates no.
* Was the world formed in six days? Science indicates no.
* Did Noah get every species onto a boat? Science indicates no.
* Are we reincarnated? Sciences indicates no.
These can all be proved negative to my satisfaction.
I didn't say science has anything to say about religion. Science is merely the act of trying to find answers with reason, and proving it with evidence. It's not a religion - it doesn't say a thing.
I said "Anyone who truly understands science is..." not "Science is...".
People who understand science see people being swindled by religion all the time - people are hurt by religion. Think about the babies raped in Africa to "cure HIV" - this is an extreme example of a false belief that is widely shared - basically a disorganised religion. If these people thought scientifically, they wouldn't do that. Same with faith healers, fortune telling, cold reading, greedy evangelists, stoned women etc.
Yes we do. I trust the USA, much more than the unelected corrupt EU politicians.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion. Sciences looks for answers for things that religion would rather you just shut-up and believe (and give money and power).
They DON'T control us. They might influence weak minds like yours. But they don't control people!
Obviously advertising works, but it doesn't control what I do. I still have that free will. I don't need the government to think for me, thank you very much. Perhaps you could volunteer to go to jail, and have the government administer your food and drink, and enforce compulsory exercise and health checks. Then you'd escape this evil trillion dollars of advertising!
Advertising has existed as long as communication. We advertise ourselves. It's not evil. McDonald's isn't evil. Money isn't evil.
Evil is the people who want complete control of what others do.
Just like when Copernicus said the earth was not the centre of the universe, and all those scientists attacked him?? No, that was Christians.
Well how about evolution? It explains all we see in the natural world elegantly using a simple principle which is supported mathematically. Nope, Christians want to stop people discussing that. The big bang? The existence of other planets? The size of the universe? Fossils? Radio-isotopic dating? No, no, no - Christians HATE these things.
Christianity, and its brother Islam, are jokes. The teach ridiculous things, and demand acceptance without allowing questioning. I'm happy for you to believe that crap if you like, but know that it's bullshit and that you are wasting your time.
Also, and most importantly, stop trying to discourage science. Stop trying to stop people learning things. Christians and Muslims might be happy living in smelly caves, or you may accept the benefits of science at the same time as attacking it, but science is important for all humanity. More important that some bundle of lies, the false idol, cobbled together and continually altered declaring itself as god's word.
Speed limits on public roads are going to set a precedent when we develop teleportation, and may set this technology back decades.
And don't forget about the import tariffs when I start making gold using nucleosynthesis from hydrogen in air that make have drifted over from China!
The point is that you require more and more energy to accelerate, to the point you need infinite energy to go any faster. You're not going to get infinite energy.
I took Christian Science courses, you insensitive clod.
Why is this not modded higher?
Because it's already at 5.
DVDs?
Here's a secret:
http://thepiratebay.se/
You seem like.. I'm guessing... a fucking dickhead...
The problem with atheists in general and new atheists in particular is that they don't study war doctrine
I'm not at war with anyone. I just think belief in a god/gods is a bit stupid. And evolution seems to be the logical conclusion if you have anything that can reproduce and change. Plus we have all this telescope, geological, nuclear information that indicates the world is not 6000 years old.
I used to be a Christian. I stopped at thought about it when I met other Christians who believed that crap - and came to the only rational conclusion when thinking about gods - there aren't any.
Those examples you gave are all self-inflicted or misfortunes.
Deliberately shining a laser into a plane needs to be punished. Just like you should be punished if you deliberately drown your wife, through your kid into a shark pit, or strangled Michael Hutchence to death.
Nothing needs to be regulated, except for stopping the deliberate, or neglectful, harming of others.
Surely this means a woman without ovaries (e.g. removed because of cancer) could have her stem-cells harvested from blood (if this is possible), and use these stem cells to create ova. The ova can then be fertilised and inserted in a surrogate uterus.
How does science explain psychics? Auras, the afterlife, the power of prayer?
Or even more easily.
In fairness, they were probably playing around with video cards, setting up a LAN or something and overclocking them, and discovered identical brand cards had different errors. They thought "this seems cool" and investigated and experimented a bit more and found out you can identify cards with it.
They then thought "I can get funding for this if I make it topical... Mmm, stops terrorism? No. Reverses global warming? No. Predicts economy? No."
Then the epiphany "It can stop haxoring! That's how we'll get funding for a shitload of new graphics cards."
Who cares. Prison isn't there to make people better or to rehabilitate them. Its purpose is to punish people.
I'm going to complain here, because no-one else cares...
One of my pet hates is that when the media publishes a measurement, they will give both metric and imperial, and will calculate it to ridiculous significant figures.
For instance, this imaginary robot might weigh, you know, round about 100 kilo - which is 220.5 lbs! Yep, they know know the measurements to the nearest 10th of a pound, but coincidentally it happens to be a really round figure in metric terms.
Rant over. Feel free to ignore.
It's also an Iroquois word for "beautiful water."
He could have avoided the chase and subsequent suicide/prison by not carjacking an innocent person.
And we can show sex and nudity, here: http://www.redtube.com/
Knock your socks off, show your kids. Is that the type of thing you want shown on TV?
I get your point regarding nudity. Those episodes of Survivor or WipeOut (not that I watch those shows) that censor bum cracks and cleavage are ridiculous. But it's only a small minority who complain about those. Sort of like the small minority who act indignant when a suicide is shown.
Because it's exciting an interesting to watch. That's why movies have car chases.
Humans have a curiousity that has enabled them to invent tools and discover new places. We like to watch things that interest us.
This event wasn't staged, it wasn't set up. Why not show it? Why should we censor it because you're too delicate to witness real life?
* - they behave that way only if we let them.
Bullshit. They're not all Apple.
Companies are run by people, they're led by people, and people decide what happens. If an arrogant sociopath runs a company stacked with members of his cult, a company may behave in a terrible manner.
But Google doesn't have any laws stopping it from operating in China - it forgoes all that money out of principle of refusing censorship.
Then there's the drug companies refusing to sell propofol to people for the death penalty.
My boss takes a chance and hires some people who need a break. He acts ethically, and would not make money out of loopholes in funding systems.
If a company acts in a sociopathic way, then we need to blame the people running them - they need to be held to account legally and ethically instead of excusing them by saying "corporations are functionally sociopathic" - only if we let them.
If I yell "Fire", a rational person will try to leave a theater quickly, possibly causing injuries to others.
If you yell "Fire" in a Muslim theatre (okay, well mosque), you won't get the same response. You'll have a whole lot of selfish men trampling over women and children to escape.
Compassion for others and selflessness are not inherent behaviours in humans. We are taught them as children because it makes our society a better place. Some groups do not share these values.