Belgian_Draft 0 #51 November 10, 2008 Yep.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #52 November 10, 2008 QuoteI defended my position very well. You, on the other hand, resorted to insult. Not a good thing for a student of the sciences to do. Would you respond to my question/post? QuoteHow do you define “true” scientist? What are the metrics? Do you exclude Linus Pauling, Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Helen Caldicott, Herb Abrams, etc? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #53 November 10, 2008 Quote What's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve? Let's refrain from going down the "Schoolboy", "Retard" and "Grandpa" name calling path. Take your corners and come out fighting but no name calling.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #54 November 10, 2008 QuoteWhat's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve? Instead of trying to engage in a civil discussion, you automatically jump into insults against people who don't share your beliefs and then wonder why the religious groups have a dislike for science. Gee, I wonder. QuoteI defended my position very well. You, on the other hand, resorted to insult. Not a good thing for a student of the sciences to do. We know you're not a scientist if that is what you consider to be defending your position ... I wonder if those scientists who were considered witches and burned at the stake would agree that those who have faith (in religion) have more regard to compassion and charity than those who lack faith (in religion)."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #55 November 10, 2008 QuoteI defended my position very well. No you haven't. How will science and technology come to govern all choices? Politician and scientist are generally seperate career choices. Why is religion the only effective repository of ethical knowledge? Why can't a true scientist distinguish between what he does in his day job (finding out how things work) and what is needed in society (morality and compassion). Do scientists not understand compassion? Are they heartless monsters?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #56 November 10, 2008 Quote So anybody who has some sort of faith is stupid? Yes. Quote Quoteand the last bad excuse for discrimination and oppression. What church did you step into that discriminated against anyone? All of them. Latest example, The Mormon church pouring $23 million into CA to eliminate the right of gays to marry, and the full throated support of that effort by churches to get their congregations for vote for prop 8. A pretty good example of religion discriminating against a group of people I'd say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #57 November 10, 2008 Quote"If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real." ~ Immanuel Kant Kant felt that belief in God was a practical necessity for anyone who also believed in moral objectivity. Moral objectivity was something Kant believed in because it seemed like a groovy idea, and because so many people seemed to be trying to figure out what that objective was. But no matter how many times any late philosophers abstract the final conclusion from the leap of logic, it is still a leap of logic. But anyway... The construction of the last sentence in that quote doesn't make sense, but I'm guessing something was lost in the translation from whichever 18th century Prussian language Kant wrote it in. It sounds similar to Pascal's wager but with less of a focus on the "what happens when you don't believe and you're wrong" box. Which is nice, it's a little more cheery that way. When I think of Pascal's wager, I like to focus on the "what happens when you do believe and you're wrong" box because it's one that gets glossed over by religious folks somewhat often. It's this box that makes me wonder why more religious folks don't take a stronger stand against horrible actions that are performed in the name of God. Is it because from some depth within the rabbit hole it becomes difficult to see them as horrible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #58 November 10, 2008 QuoteI'm guessing something was lost in the translation I agree it would help if it were worded differently... QuoteIt sounds similar to Pascal's wager Kant is not suggesting one should "act on the supposition of [God] being real." The passage merely offers a reason why one might choose to believe in God despite lack of scientific evidence He exists. I don't think it's a "stupid" reason as JackC asserted. Kant believed our sense of morality is not God-given.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #59 November 10, 2008 QuoteI am not the religious so dont flame. But why is it that some on here have such a hard on or hate for people who have are religious in some way? Depends on what way. I am all in on the war against The Propogation of Ignorance; which is heavily fueled by certain elements of organized religion. It's not a hard-on or hate. It is just my personal diligence, doing my part to ensure my kids and future generations are not taken back into the dark ages of oogie-boogie, wooo-wooo, witch doctor bullshit." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #60 November 10, 2008 QuoteI never said atheists were emotionless. My prediction was, and is, that as science and technology displace religion society will evolve toward a much more logic based decision making process and emotion & compassion will be considered less and less. Eventually they will be left out entirely. After all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion. What you said was this: QuoteThe danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. That is an incorrect assumption, and does not factor in the Human Equation. It is incorrect to assume that without religion, there will be no emotion, no compassion, no charity. It is equally incorrect to say that if religion is eliminated from society that science will take over. Humans will always be humans, and they will act accordingly, with or without their special clubs.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #61 November 10, 2008 Quote QuoteI never said atheists were emotionless. My prediction was, and is, that as science and technology displace religion society will evolve toward a much more logic based decision making process and emotion & compassion will be considered less and less. Eventually they will be left out entirely. After all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion. What you said was this: QuoteThe danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. That is an incorrect assumption, and does not factor in the Human Equation. It is incorrect to assume that without religion, there will be no emotion, no compassion, no charity. It is equally incorrect to say that if religion is eliminated from society that science will take over. Humans will always be humans, and they will act accordingly, with or without their special clubs. It is no more an incorrect assumption than assuming science will always leave room for human emotions. I have my predictions, you have yours. My assertion is not that science lacks emotion and compassion at this time, only that someday it will. It has been steadily moving towards that end for several hundred years and will take many hundreds more before society reaches that point.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #62 November 10, 2008 QuoteMy assertion is not that science lacks emotion and compassion at this time, only that someday it will. It has been steadily moving towards that end for several hundred years and will take many hundreds more before society reaches that point. Do you have any thing to support your assumptions? After all, I think we are more compassionate now than during the Crusades, the Dark Ages, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #63 November 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteEvolution to is not only full of holes but it has yet to be observed and tested as well Lie. Quoteno-one has even conjured up an idea to even begin to explain how life arose from non-life. Lie. QuoteOn the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence Lie. Quote(one evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, admitted to the existance of evidence in the cell that pointed to a creator but said those signs were placed there by aliens that put us here and the aliens obviously evolved Hilarious lie. Quotehttp://www.icr.org/article/773/ Nonsense article attacking a barely recognisable, distorted strawman of evolutionary theory. Quote2. Believe what you want but don't attack others because they don't beleive the same; particularly when you are ignorant (this simply means you don't know the information) of such subjects. Believe me, the ignorance here goes in only one direction. QuoteThe few references I have given are only the beginning of the information lies out there. Fixed it. They're supposedly all lies yet you provide no evidence that they are.....I don't have that kind of faith to accept anything without evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #64 November 10, 2008 QuoteAfter all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion. It's decisions about what? QuoteIt is no more an incorrect assumption than assuming science will always leave room for human emotions. Science, in the sphere of scientific discovery, does not leave room for human emotion. The existence of gravity waves will not depend on happiness. A viable cold fusion reactor will not come into being because of envy. But what does that have to do with the working of society?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #65 November 10, 2008 QuoteThey're supposedly all lies yet you provide no evidence that they are.....I don't have that kind of faith to accept anything without evidence. OK, 1) "yet to be observed or tested." Billvon has posted, on numerous occasions, lists of examples of speciation that have been observed to happen. 2) Abiogenesis, see Nerdgirl's post. 3) Dawkins said aliens put stuff in our cells... Up to you to provide the evidence that he ever said such a thing (and was not being ironical at the time). 4) ICR article. Seriously? It's absolute tosh. Learn what evolutionary theory is actually about, go back and read that article, and laugh about how irrelevant it is. 5) Information lies. Read the verdict from the Dover school board trial. The ID proponents were shown to have lied, twisted and decieved every step of the way. They weren't just wrong, they know they're wrong and keep spouting nonsense regardless.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #66 November 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteAfter all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process. How do you define “true” scientist? What are the metrics? Do you exclude Linus Pauling, Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Helen Caldicott, Herb Abrams, etc? Or how about about James Warf? James C. Warf dies at 91; Manhattan Project chemist became peace activist, USC professor "While working on his doctorate in inorganic chemistry at Iowa State University in the 1940s, Warf headed the analytical chemistry section of the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II. ... "But as the decades passed, Warf's views evolved. He began sounding alarms about the effects of radiation after studying data collected over many years from residents near a nuclear test site in Kazakhstan and from victims of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. "Warf also held patents for the process of separating plutonium from high-level nuclear waste, the result of his work on the Manhattan Project. "Warf traveled widely to lecture on nuclear disarmament, testified before congressional hearings and served on independent review panels that surveyed safety and storage methods at nuclear power plants. "He also continued to advocate for nuclear technology applied to peacetime uses, such as energy and medicine. ... "Warf also wrote several chemistry textbooks, including six in Indonesian, or Malay, after having taught at various universities in Southeast Asia while on sabbatical from USC. ... "For 40 years, Warf read chemistry texts for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. His family suggests contributions in his name to that organization: www.rfbd.org." RIP Prof Warf. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #67 November 10, 2008 Quote What church did you step into that discriminated against anyone? I know of a Methodist one that used to turn black people away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #68 November 10, 2008 QuoteI know of a Methodist one that used to turn black people away. One? I saw a black guy sell crack the other night. Does that mean all blacks sell crack?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #69 November 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteI know of a Methodist one that used to turn black people away. One? I saw a black guy sell crack the other night. Does that mean all blacks sell crack? You asked the question, I gave the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #70 November 10, 2008 QuoteYou asked the question, I gave the answer. Fair enough. Kinda interested where this church is than bans blacks from attending.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #71 November 11, 2008 The word "true" was used in a sarcastic manner. Sorry if it caused you any confusion.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #72 November 11, 2008 Quote Quote After all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion. It's decisions about what? Quote It is no more an incorrect assumption than assuming science will always leave room for human emotions. Science, in the sphere of scientific discovery, does not leave room for human emotion. The existence of gravity waves will not depend on happiness. A viable cold fusion reactor will not come into being because of envy. But what does that have to do with the working of society? ZOOOOOM! Right over your poor little head! HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #73 November 11, 2008 QuoteZOOOOOM! Right over your poor little head! Really, it's cute what you do when you realise you've painted yourself into a corner. But seriously, an answer to even one of my questions would be appreciated, unless you want to just admit right now that you were talking shite.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #74 November 11, 2008 Quote The word "true" was used in a sarcastic manner. Sorry if it caused you any confusion. You're correct that sarcasm is frequently difficult to read over the internet ... perhaps that's a lesson that applies across the board, eh? What was your intention in your statement then? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #75 November 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteZOOOOOM! Right over your poor little head! Really, it's cute what you do when you realise you've painted yourself into a corner. But seriously, an answer to even one of my questions would be appreciated, unless you want to just admit right now that you were talking shite. Sure. Which one?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
