Because there's a finite amount of information, and since we as a species have an eternity to work with, we can eventually piece together absolutely everything, just like a jigsaw puzzle.
>>3
Science and math are a FUCK of a lot closer to infallibility than the alternative, which is the opinion of a largely drug-and sex-addled elder who believes in an imaginary friend.
However, your message is apt. We should not load up science and math with too much responsibility, lest we have a collapse.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-24 22:19
Philosophy > science and math.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-24 23:42
>>5
A University Physics department chair, tired of hearing non-stop requests for laboratory equipment, calls all of the department's professors into an office. He says to them, "We simply don't have enough funding for all of this expensive equipment. You need to be more like the math professors; all they need is pens, paper, and wastebaskets. Or better yet, the philosophy professors! They just need the pens and paper."
Science/math is just the breaking down of things into a simplified abstraction of reality; a model of the real world. Well actually, math doesn't even pretend to exist in the real world anymore. Scientists still arrogantly claim their models are reality though.
>>13
Einstein was using it metaphorically. He was either an atheist or a pantheist, though his pantheism was such that most religious people wouldn't recognise it as religion.
Too hard for you to understand? You're exactly as insightful as the theotards you oppose.
>>14
Einstein said that the more he discovered the secrets of the universe the more he was convinced there was an intelligence behind it all.
WHAT NOW?! CUNTS!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-26 14:48
>>16,17 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein
Einstein's God was Spinoza's God; that is to say, barely a god at all. He was a pantheist if anything.
>>21
Making shit up doesn't make them true, faggot. Einstein did not believe in your god.
>>22
This isn't about that, it's about his reputation, which these christfags are trying to shit all over.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-26 18:44
>>25
How do you know what god I believe in, or if I believe in any god, asscheese?
Are you willing to admit that Einstein believed in "A God?"
Because if you're not, you're intellectually dishonest and should be banned for life. And sodomized.
What some smart guy believed before he died in 1955 is IRRELEVANT.
What is relevant is EVIDENCE.
Cite all this evidence for the existence of this "god" or ADMIT that it doesn't exist.
Because, baby, this "god" thing looked pretty damned evidence-producing in all those stupid Bible stories. So where's a burning bush we can take video of? Oops! Where's the voice from on high we can capture on audio tape? Oops! NO FUCKING EVIDENCE, SUDDENLY?
The only logical answer is that there's NO GOD. And if you disagree, you STILL can't produce any fucking evidence. Evidence is key, and you just DON'T FUCKING HAVE ANY.
>>33
Trolled or not, my message stands. Prove the existence of this "god" or STFU as a babybrained fool.
>>36
You're talking waaaaaay over the heads of those kinds of people. They think that trolls are based upon fiction, when any rational examination of the facts would conclude that they are based upon real concerns to some degree.
In a similar fashion, all myths are based upon grains of truth. Those true items may be tiny, but they're still there. The "trolls" talking up religion are still basing their efforts upon ideas, which are still adopted by most of the populace. Too many people believe in this religious shitcrap. Troll-recognized or not, those beliefs a threat to rationality everywhere, and if Humanity is to truly advance as an intelligent civilization, we have to finally get rid of the religious stupidity.
>>40
Education gets rid of ignorance and illogic, not pogroms. gb2stormfront
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-31 15:34
>>2
Infinity? Yea right, as if such a fucking lowly developed monkey race that has already created the tools for their own doom is going to exist forever.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-31 17:23
>>42
So you're ok with deleting ethnic groups and any religious faith. But not in favour of a gentle eugenics program?
Which is the greater evil; killing a mans sense of self, culture and moral values, which would have a dubious if not negligable affect on net intelligence. Or killing his sperm count, which could have dramatic effects, literally revolutionise the human specices.
I ask you RedCream to be reasonable and rational. It is obviously in the benefit of man kind to have a form of eugenics, it is the greatest good and the goal of mankind.
Name:
4tran2008-03-31 20:17
>>44
RedCream never said he was ok with deleting ethnic groups.
Sense of self does not require religion.
Sense of culture may be tied with religion, but that can be changed (sometimes at least).
Sense of moral values does not require religion either. Those that require religion for moral values are inferior.
How do you propose we kill sperm count? Even if we do, what of the females? Kill their egg count?
>>44
Since religion is based upon a wholly false idea (that of the existence of a divine entity), deleting religion from Humanity would be like erasing a mis-spelled word from a book. It's fucking WRONG, so who in any rationality is going to miss it?
If there's anyone here who needs to be reasonable and rational, it's YOU. Religion is PROVABLY WRONG. There is no rational need to adhere to a philosophy that is based upon a PROVABLY WRONG assumption.
Religion is just an idea, and a wrong one at that. We delete wrong ideas all the fucking time. Time to grow up, Humanity. It's time we got rid of the religious ideas that have stopped us from becoming a fully-enabled lifeform in this universe.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 2:04
Another way to look at it is that God either created the dinosaurs, or he placed stone bones in the ground with the understanding that we would come to the conclusions that the evidence brings. The problem is the people who concentrate on the idea that religions are made of people who say that their groups faith is historically what God wants people to have faith in. If God wanted you to believe people, we wouldn't have lies or misunderstandings. I have faith that God created the universe so we could learn from it, and from each other. Isn't that the most wonderful gift of all? I have faith in God, and I trust his creation to teach me what he wants me to know about this life. I consider it a heresy to call evolution a lie. God didn't create the dinosaurs to challenge our faith. For some reason, he wants us to understand that there was a world here before we existed, because that's what the evidence implies, and so it is so. Demanding that the universe is made of only of one book or faith is to call the rest of his creation a lie. God wouldn't do that. I practice science because I have faith in God.
Name:
4tran2008-04-01 3:38
>>47
You're either a very clever troll, or a respectable moderate. Either way, you're going to get yelled out by RedCream. As long as you support stem cell research and abortion of unwanted children, you have my support.
>>47
If you really practiced science you would have noticed the 100% lack of evidence for this "god". Since the reputation of this "god" is that it interferes in Human affairs, SOME evidence should have been produced. The conclusion is inescapable: There is no "god". It's just a fiction made up by some very fiction-oriented hominids.
Anyone who disagrees with this has to STFU and produce some evidence. Remember, without evidence, you're really only talking about your ass. Evidence is the data from which valid conclusions can only be produced. Without evidence, you literally and figuratively have NOTHING TO CONCLUDE.
>>Anyone who disagrees with this has to STFU and produce some evidence.
Okay. But it will cost you 2.2 billion dollars.
In advance.
Or you can step off my human heart.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 10:52
God or no, faith is personal. Even if I'm dying(again), I want to be able to have faith in something I feel I can trust in, because sometimes my body fails me, sometimes I'm not smart enough, and I usually can't trust people like RedCream, because they have the tendency to lie or misunderstand.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 13:21
Why are people still discussing "science vs religion"? It's just like arguing apples vs pears. They're just 2 completely different systems.
RedCream is a faggot. Feels like he is somehow enlightened beaucse he gave head to his college tutor.
>>51
YOU are the one making the outrageous claim that Gilgamesh or something like that exists in the sky and is oh-so-concerned about you. YOU are the one with the delusion. So the onus of proof is upon YOU. If it costs $2.2B, then you have to cough it up. And for that matter, you MUST have already spent that amount, since otherwise you're simply believing in something WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Only retards do that. You're just saying you are a retard and you'll defend your mental retardation.
>>52
Faith may be personal, but the requirement of EVIDENCE remains.
It seems boldly silly to state you put more trust in an imaginary friend than in a real person. Get some pharmaceutical help; you have a CLEAR mental illness.
>>53
It's not arguing apples and pears. It's akin to arguing apples, and fanciful stories about golden pears that have magical powers and allow you to shoop da whoop.
They are indeed different systems. One is based upon evidence, rationality, and logic. The other is based upon BULLSHIT. For those of you who are confused about my terms, religion is the latter one.
We may as well allow people to come into court and lay their hands on a Hanna Barbara catalog, as they can swear the truth to Thundarr the Barbarian, since Thundarr is about as real and applicable as this "god" you cretinous morons have imagined.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 14:18
| They are indeed different systems. One is based upon evidence, rationality, and logic. The other is based upon BULLSHIT. For those of you who are confused about my terms, religion is the latter one.
Oooh right, I thought you tended to argue the other way round.
Hardly. Religion doesn't seek to make any discoveries using the scientific method, and science doesn't make moral judgements, societal choesion and judgements on human spirituality.
Fact is the only thing we're arguing about is evolution, not sceince vs religion. Fact is you can't really argue scientific method against religiosity, that's just dumb.
Science isn't a replacement for religion and isn't a philisophical system which will guide people morrally. Like Darwin said “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” And this is true.
I'm all for people being logical, but it must be PEOPLE being logical not some system.
You millitant athiests make me lol. I'm not religous in the slightest, never have been, I don't pray whatever.
Why do you require my faith to have evidence? I don't demand proof that you love/hate me(although, it is apparent by the way you express yourself), and neither do I demand that you believe what I believe, or that you have faith in what I have faith in. Why should I care about your lonely image of reality?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 15:04
I pity RedCream. Even with friends and family, he manages to be alone.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 15:06
Science is a tool and religion is a consequence of sapience and will. I would believe that sapience is core to any form of spirituality, but it barely gets any mention compared to religion. I think that's the problem rather than religion itself. You will have to force the entire determinism v free will debate into your ass for but 1 second in order to contemplate this.
>>56
Religion tries to draw real conclusions all the fucking time about our real world -- you know, the world of fucking EVIDENCE. You are being a blind fucker about what religion actually does in the world. That's the real dumbness here -- your continued assertions that religion somehow has no effect and therefore we believers in evidence can just go on our merry way. Look at the billions of dollars wasted on warfare based upon all these religious wackos in the government and the military. What kind of fucking RETARD are you to even assert that that sort of thing has no effect on me? DIPSHIT.
>>57
Because you religifags continue to draw conclusions from your wacky myths that strongly affect our POLITICAL reality. Since there's no stupid fucking thing like a "god", then there's no rational reason to bomb Muslims or stop homosexuals or all that other CRAAAAAP that you religifucks come up with out of that vast empty space in your heads.
Keep your crazy faux theories in your head and your home, and leave that wacky, PROVABLY WRONG FUCKSHIT right the hell out of the public. YOU are the crazy one here. YOU are the one who believes in spirits (angels, demons, souls) and all that other CRAAAAAP that should have been flushed out in grade school.
>>58
Pity yourself, for being so fucking stupid that you actually believe there's some big Jewish guy sitting in the sky all concerned about some extra flesh on your cock or what sort of meat you ate today.
RELIGION IS FAIL. You religicreeps flock to such FAIL like moths to a flame. Too bad it doesn't fry you instantly like a real flame does.
Again, you prove what people are saying about you. If you look back, there was nothing about the statement that says I have faith in any religion. I have faith in God. Your assumption makes the example you need to look at.
If dinosaurs existed, or if God set them in the ground that way, the evidence should be treated the same. Not coldly and without passion, but with innocent delight. Someone else said that you need a heart of stone to do science, but without the enjoyment, there's no good reason to.
And as far as the "POLITICAL" reality is concerned, you are just as much to blame for that as everyone who accepted the vote.
Go over to someone you care about and share a conversation and a drink, like tea. You're too bitter and angry for anyone to want to read your posts.
>>62 If dinosaurs existed, or if God set them in the ground that way, the evidence should be treated the same.
Except that the evidence carries no indicator of this "god" thing. You're still placing extraneous and unsupported data into your figures. You're in so deep with such stupidity, that you literally can't see your way out of it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS GOD-THING, AND THERE SHOULD BE, HENCE THERE IS NO GOD-THING. This wholesale absence of evidence really DOES mean that there's nothing there.
You're too bitter and angry for anyone to want to read your posts.
YET YOU DID. Irony. I'll continue in my ways, god-boi.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-01 18:53
Irony. Your posts still aren't worth reading. It's dull and angry, without any reason. You still need to relax, and you harping on me actually is you winding yourself up at someone who is neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or responsible for how the world views scientists or responsible for the current political situation. Congratulations, you're making an argument that no-one cares about. Isn't that wonderful?
I read your posts because I like you, not because you're right.
Name:
4tran2008-04-02 3:13
>>60
Religion affects political reality, and some of the nuts attempt to corrupt science. Are there any other reasons you insist upon crushing religion (aside from it being a stupid idea, I'm looking for a practical reason)?
You would be a lot more convincing if you start listing all the 100+ ways that religion is corrupting the world, instead of calling the religinuts stupid.
>>62
Many people don't accept the vote. What are we supposed to do? Attempt armed insurrection, then be mowed down by Abrahms tanks?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-02 3:31
Any conceptual god that can exist alongside scientifically understood reality is such a fuzzy, neutered being that it's hardly worth believing in. The "God of the Gaps" has always been a losing proposition for religion because it's in the very nature of science that those gaps will shrink constantly. In some sense you have to give credit to the fundies, because they've recognized that and have quite openly declared that they're willing to throw science out in order to keep their imaginary friend. They're more honest that then "let's have our cake and eat it too" moderates, in that respect.
But if the moderates are honest about acknowledging science and the evidence of their senses, then in the end we'll all be left with nothing more than the idea of "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we could all stop being dicks to each other, and if there were a god, whatever that means, he, she, or it would probably agree with that too" and we can all go home.
Except for Redcream, who will have to find something else to bitch about first.
Name:
4tran2008-04-02 3:53
I just saw this in my email, and I lol'd
[UCPD complaining about people camping in trees]
I ask you to imagine a different, but parallel scenario: a group opposed to our study and teaching of evolutionary biology occupies a laboratory and refuses to leave until we agree to their demands. Would you suggest that we change our curriculum? Would you support closing the lab? Would you want to reward the tactics?
Why don't they just announce a date, and then cut the fucking things down whether those filthy hippies are in there or not?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-13 12:32
Science is fallible, mistakes are made all the time. The fun thing about Science is that we accept this fact and compensate it. That's why scientists are not afraid to adjust or even reject previously-thought-to-be-correct laws and theories.
Math is a purely theoretical, human construct and therefore cannot be fallible. A mathematical truth is a mathematical truth, within the given mathematical model. It can only fail when applied to the real world (which falls outside of Math and in the realm of Science).
I have discovered an amazing site. Turn the volume for your computer ON, and go to http://blocked.on.nimp.org with Internet Explorer. After going there with Internet Explorer, go there with Mozilla Firefox.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-18 22:40
>>Why is Science and Math so infallible?
Because you touch yourself at night.