[RhinofromWA]

No, it is only rational when it is thought through rationaly. Again, subtly different.

splitting hairs, in fact that is what you said. THere is a lot of "subtle" differences on your side.

No, that's not what I said. Read it again. Sheesh. I think I'll go back to being blunt. It's less typing.

The thing about faith is that it is 'faith'. It is inherently irrational. When someone's deepest beliefs are based on faith, then there comes a point where rational discourse is impossible to persue. When these 'faith based' beliefs happen to intersect with the creation of laws which will apply to those who do not subscribe to that faith, I have a problem.

You can take your irrational laws and stick them up your g-ds arse.

Funny, you are bringing your own personal beleifs into the picture.

So laws are inplace (and not being challenged) that punish someone for being different? I guess.....

How about denouncing someone for being religious? Seams like the same thing....maybe you should practice what you preach

 

[Changleen]

splitting hairs, in fact that is what you said. THere is a lot of "subtle" differences on your side.

Good! The world is NOT black and white, however much GW tells you it is. Seriously, many religious people appreciate the difference between a rational argument and one based on belief structures and can differentiate between them when it is appropriate to do so. I get the feeling that this differentiation is being intentionally forgotten and/or blurred recently.

Funny, you are bringing your own personal beleifs into the picture.

My 'belief' that a rational and scientific solution to a problem is better than one based on unproven and unprovable 'beliefs'? Guilty.

So laws are inplace (and not being challenged) that punish someone for being different? I guess.....

Worse, more are being planned.

How about denouncing someone for being religious? Seams like the same thing....maybe you should practice what you preach

I won't denounce someone for being religious as long as they don't try and legislate my actions based on those beliefs. Similarly I will not criiticise a religious person in public office unless their (religious) beliefs begin to inform their decisions in an irrational way.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I need to update that: Religion is A lube. Along with Prozac, Cialis, and Congressional hearing on steroids in baseball.

hahaha, reminds me of a book or something i read.. i think it was huxley.. who wondered of a time, where humans worked 18 hours a day 7 days a week, with low salaries, no entertainment and had absolutely no free will over themselves.. but they were fed pills so they stayed quite happy and nothing of that bothered them, in fact, they were the happiest humans in history of mankind...

about the slaves thing... ohh c´mon.. go tell the laborers in honduras or china that work since age 12 making shirts 16 hours a day for 3 dollars a day, and sleep and eat in the same quarters where they work with no vacation, nor doctors. working so that you can buy a tshirt for 5 bucks (almost 2 day wages for them) with the money you earn in 10 minutes....... and tell them "we dont have any slaves"

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, SOMA.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Good! The world is NOT black and white, however much GW tells you it is. Seriously, many religious people appreciate the difference between a rational argument and one based on belief structures and can differentiate between them when it is appropriate to do so. I get the feeling that this differentiation is being intentionally forgotten and/or blurred recently.

My 'belief' that a rational and scientific solution to a problem is better than one based on unproven and unprovable 'beliefs'? Guilty.

Worse, more are being planned.

I won't denounce someone for being religious as long as they don't try and legislate my actions based on those beliefs. Similarly I will not criiticise a religious person in public office unless their (religious) beliefs begin to inform their decisions in an irrational way.

CHangleen,

What you don't understand is you can't remove religion from a person. Hell I am not even that religious but I understand that much.

You rational and scientific solution is often as sided and rebukable as a persons beleif.

What I find horrific is your attitude like you have the only answers that are right....and everyone else is blind. How objective of you.

Point is your prejudice of religious people is what blinds you from what good or constructive decisions they might make......that is where you faulter. With that "holy'r than thou" outlook you have you are just as bad as the people you hate. Actually, I might place you above them....

Rational is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

I feal the world would work a lot better if everything wasn't so GRAY. We end up in bickering contests because people want to argue the definition of "is"! while they avoid the problem at hand.

I can appreciate your quest for a rational and scientific solution, but often we take what is "proven" and see what we want in the "facts" and that is NO DIFFERENT than that of a person of religion does with their beliefs. If that wasn't so, there wouldn't be as many religions out there. They all find their own truths......as you try to.

So pride yourself in argueing over the definition of "is" all the while knowing you screwed the intern....because that isn't the important part is it? neaky:

Yeah it might not have made much sense, but neither did your side stepping above.

 

[Silver]

You rational and scientific solution is often as sided and rebukable as a persons beleif.

That's simply not true.

Religious beliefs are futile to argue with for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the ultimate argument from authority (God wants it. Uh ok...)
2) Faith is itself defined by belief in something with no evidence. And, the more outrageous the belief, the more "pure" faith is.

A scientific belief can change as the evidence is discovered and incorporated into theories that have predictive power.

Faith can't change...and it's predictive power is pretty poor.

 

[fluff]

And it appears that science can no longer agree on 'dark matter'. Of course science is not faith-based, it's fact-based, right?

 

[Changleen]

Rational is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

No, that's beauty.

 

[Silver]

And it appears that science can no longer agree on 'dark matter'. Of course science is not faith-based, it's fact-based, right?

We've had the scientific method for a few hundred years. Give it some time...

 

[fluff]

We've had the scientific method for a few hundred years. Give it some time...

Jehovahs Witnesses and The Crutch of the Latter-Day Saints are younger than that.

 

[Changleen]

CHangleen,

What you don't understand is you can't remove religion from a person. Hell I am not even that religious but I understand that much.

You can keep you religion as long as you don't try to enforce it's tennets on me.

You rational and scientific solution is often as sided and rebukable as a persons beleif.

How so? Have I tried to remove your rights in some way? All I am trying to point out is that Religion is NOT BASED ON FACT and therefore should not be used as the basis for law. It's just dumb.

What I find horrific is your attitude like you have the only answers that are right....and everyone else is blind. How objective of you.

Well, if you use the religious definition of 'right' which is often actually demonstrably 'wrong' then you might have a point. Not everything religion does is 'wrong' but their stance on reproductive issues and scientific research is abhorent and stupid, no question.

Point is your prejudice of religious people is what blinds you from what good or constructive decisions they might make......that is where you faulter. With that "holy'r than thou" outlook you have you are just as bad as the people you hate. Actually, I might place you above them....

Hmm, I think you may be over-reading into my position a little. I have not condemned every action by every religious person, now have I? Of course a 'religious' person is equally as capable as anyone in acting in a constructive and positive way. I really would be dumb to think otherwise. However increasingly in the US and in the UK there are large factions of religion that wish to impose their narrow minded world views and strict 'laws' based on nothing but 2000 year old stories. THESE are the people who can **** off, and stick their 'morals' up their ass while they're doing it.

I feal the world would work a lot better if everything wasn't so GRAY. We end up in bickering contests because people want to argue the definition of "is"! while they avoid the problem at hand.

Sorry I TOTALLY disagree with you about that. A black and white world leds to intollerance, death and destruction more than anything else.

I can appreciate your quest for a rational and scientific solution, but often we take what is "proven" and see what we want in the "facts" and that is NO DIFFERENT than that of a person of religion does with their beliefs. If that wasn't so, there wouldn't be as many religions out there. They all find their own truths......as you try to.

How can you possibly find a truth when you start out building it on a lie? If you think you've found truth this way, you are, by definition, decieving yourself. That's fine. Decieve yourself all you want. Don't expect me to buy into it though, or try to claim it is a valid a position as one based on millions of hours of exhaustive research using solid scientific methods. It may well be in your own head, which again, is fine, but for the x hundredth time, you have no right to impose such views on me.

Yeah it might not have made much sense, but neither did your side stepping above.

No, I understood where you were coming from - I just don't agree with most of it. Still I'm not calling for your point of view to be banned. I will not refrain, however, from pointing out the obvious flaws in such thinking.

 

[Damn True]

You can't prove the big bang, it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe in Carl Sagan.

You can't prove evolution (thats why it's still called a theroy), it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Faith can't change...and it's predictive power is pretty poor.

That's a very Western understanding of faith - the Eastern understanding leans more toward faith as being dynamic and unfolding.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Jehovahs Witnesses and The Crutch of the Latter-Day Saints are younger than that.

Throw in most Penatacostal/Charismatic groups.............

 

[Damn True]

A scientific belief can change as the evidence is discovered and incorporated into theories that have predictive power.

Faith can't change...and it's predictive power is pretty poor.

With the exception of the Jehoveahs Witness' I don't think anyone is trying to use faith to replace cancer research.

 

[Westy]

You can't prove the big bang, you just have to believe in Carl Sagan.

Actually they kinda have proven the big bang. Not exactly the big bang but what happend say .000001 seconds after it. The guy the Hubble telescope was named after predicted that a highly compressed universe would produce a certain frequency radiation due to the high temperatures. He predicted that since that radiation was produced everywhere in the universe it should be still detectable today coming equally from every direction with the same strength. Well he did find it so going back in time it is safe to say things really looked like they started from a big bang but if you go back to the time of the big bang current science breaks down.

 

[Westy]

You can't prove the big bang, it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe in Carl Sagan.

You can't prove evolution (thats why it's still called a theroy), it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe.

But a decent scientific theory can predict events and be tested to see if the outcome matches the theory. On a small scale evolution can be tested.

 

[Changleen]

You can't prove the big bang, it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe in Carl Sagan.

You can't prove evolution (thats why it's still called a theroy), it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe.

You clearly don't actually understand what a 'theory' means.

 

[Silver]

You can't prove the big bang, it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe in Carl Sagan.

You can't prove evolution (thats why it's still called a theroy), it isn't based in fact, you just have to believe.

Well, first off, I'm not a cosmologist. Having said that, I'll get back to you after I get to a book by Steven Weinberg I have on my shelf. The Big Bang isn't made up from nothing you know...it's merely a theory that is being worked on. There are others being tossed around as well. When observations don't match predictions, stuff gets reworked.

As far as evolution goes, you're confusing the difference between a scientific theory and the vernacular usage of the word. I'll take a theory with enormous explanative and predictive power over a creation myth anyday.

Hell, going by your standard of evidence, we should all be solipsists...

 

[Damn True]

Actually they kinda have proven the big bang. Not exactly the big bang but what happend say .000001 seconds after it. The guy the Hubble telescope was named after predicted that a highly compressed universe would produce a certain frequency radiation due to the high temperatures. He predicted that since that radiation was produced everywhere in the universe it should be still detectable today coming equally from every direction with the same strength. Well he did find it so going back in time it is safe to say things really looked like they started from a big bang but if you go back to the time of the big bang current science breaks down.

I'm no physicist, but it seems that all that proves is that everything gives off radiation. What I do know is that not everything gives it at the same strength, and if there was a big bang shouldn't it all be headed outward not in every direction?

Furthermore, how come physicists cant even agree upon whether the universe is expanding or contracting?

Ooh, ooh, I know!

Because they have no freakin idea!
It's all theroy.

 

[Changleen]

I'm no physicist, but it seems that all that proves is that everything gives off radiation. What I do know is that not everything gives it at the same strength, and if there was a big bang shouldn't it all be headed outward not in every direction?

Furthermore, how come physicists cant even agree upon whether the universe is expanding or contracting?

Ooh, ooh, I know!

Because they have no freakin idea!
It's all theroy.

Sorry DT but you are way off the ball with this one. You need to learn a lot more about this before you can start to dismiss it as you do. Try reading the 'Elegant Universe' or 'Brief History of Time' for a start. I'm not trying to put you down here, but you are really making yourself look stupid.

 

[Damn True]

Well, first off, I'm not a cosmologist. QUOTE]

Oh bummer, I was gonna ask you about changing hair color.

QUOTE=Silver]Well, first off, I'm not a cosmologist. Having said that, I'll get back to you after I get to a book by Steven Weinberg I have on my shelf. The Big Bang isn't made up from nothing you know...it's merely a theory that is being worked on. There are others being tossed around as well. When observations don't match predictions, stuff gets reworked.
I don't dispute that. There is har science behind the theroy, but as of right now it is unprovable and therefore.....requires faith.
As far as evolution goes, you're confusing the difference between a scientific theory and the vernacular usage of the word. I'll take a theory with enormous explanative and predictive power over a creation myth anyday.
But again....unproveable.
Hell, going by your standard of evidence, we should all be solipsists...

Damn....I hate it when I have to look one up. I'm pretty proud of my vocabulary.

Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 'sä-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

Ahhh, well done. But, that's not my point. My point is you can't discount my faith in God as being foolish because it isn't scientific. You say that I can't prove god exisits while at the same time science itself requires of it's subscribers similar faith.

 

[Westy]

I'm no physicist, but it seems that all that proves is that everything gives off radiation. What I do know is that not everything gives it at the same strength, and if there was a big bang shouldn't it all be headed outward not in every direction?

Furthermore, how come physicists cant even agree upon whether the universe is expanding or contracting?

Ooh, ooh, I know!

Because they have no freakin idea!
It's all theroy.

There is a difference between an accepted scientific theory and a personal theory or idea. An accepted theory typically has to be tested and usually will not become accepted if a test is produced that does not agree with the theory.

Actually they know it is expanding. They can tell by the red shift in the spectrum of light that a star gives off and a bunch of other crap. You have confused the expanding universe with whether or not the universe will continue to expand. The current rate of expansion is known, what is not known is the total mass of the universe. If the total mass of the universe is higher than a certain value at some point in time is will begin to collapse upon itself, if it is lower than that amount it will continue to expand indefinitely. Current measurements lean towards continued expansion but there has been no scientific concencus on this yet. Once there is a consensus it could be considered a theory.

 

[Silver]

Ahhh, well done. But, that's not my point. My point is you can't discount my faith in God as being foolish because it isn't scientific. You say that I can't prove god exisits while at the same time science itself requires of it's subscribers similar faith.

And I actually don't...until it starts to make false predictions and demands on me. Stickering of biology textbooks, what I can do with my body, and the like. The confidence a scientist has in his craft isn't the same thing.

Besides, your faith in God is much more scientific than you may think. There are some very sound evolutionary reasons why religions are so prevalent.

 

[$tinkle]

let's start with this gem

A black and white world leds to intollerance, death and destruction more than anything else.

now let's see if we can apply this to just this one post

Religion is NOT BASED ON FACT and therefore should not be used as the basis for law. It's just dumb.

their stance on reproductive issues and scientific research is abhorent and stupid, no question.

THESE are the people who can **** off, and stick their 'morals' up their ass while they're doing it.

How can you possibly find a truth when you start out building it on a lie? If you think you've found truth this way, you are, by definition, decieving yourself.

but for the x hundredth time, you have no right to impose such views on me.

see a pattern here?

 

[Silver]

Damn....I hate it when I have to look one up. I'm pretty proud of my vocabulary.

Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 'sä-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

The classic story there is the one about the woman who wrote to Bertand Russell stating that she was a solipsist. She was surprised that more people weren't.

 

[Changleen]

And I actually don't...until it starts to make false predictions and demands on me. Stickering of biology textbooks, what I can do with my body, and the like. The confidence a scientist has in his craft isn't the same thing.

Besides, your faith in God is much more scientific than you may think. There are some very sound evolutionary reasons why religions are so prevalent.

Fear managment.

 

[Damn True]

Sorry DT but you are way off the ball with this one. You need to learn a lot more about this before you can start to dismiss it as you do. Try reading the 'Elegant Universe' or 'Brief History of Time' for a start. I'm not trying to put you down here, but you are really making yourself look stupid.

Dude, the big bang is unproven and pysicists can't even agree as to if the stuff is still moving. These are facts.

Sorry dude. String theroy is theoretical physics.

Brilliant quote from Amanda Peet, Astrophysicist from U of Toronto:

"You can never prove that a theory of nature is correct. All you can prove is that it's the best theory you have that satisfies your theoretical consistency and describes the real world to the accuracy that we can test it. I'm not sure if we'll ever know whether a particular theory is the truth, because physics is an operational science. What we do is experiments, and we check our theoretical predictions against our experimental results. Once we've come up with a theory that agrees with the experimental results, we then try to predict something new that we haven't measured before. That's the process by which we keep refining our theories of nature."

 

[Damn True]

Actually they know it is expanding. They can tell by the red shift in the spectrum of light that a star gives off and a bunch of other crap. You have confused the expanding universe with whether or not the universe will continue to expand. The current rate of expansion is known, what is not known is the total mass of the universe. If the total mass of the universe is higher than a certain value at some point in time is will begin to collapse upon itself, if it is lower than that amount it will continue to expand indefinitely. Current measurements lean towards continued expansion but there has been no scientific concencus on this yet. Once there is a consensus it could be considered a theory.

You are correct, I mis-spoke on the matter of expansion.

 

[Changleen]

Dude, the big bang is unproven and pysicists can't even agree as to which way the stuff is moving. These are facts.

Sorry dude. String theroy is theoretical physics.

Brilliant quote from Amanda Peet, Astrophysicist from U of Toronto:

"You can never prove that a theory of nature is correct. All you can prove is that it's the best theory you have that satisfies your theoretical consistency and describes the real world to the accuracy that we can test it. I'm not sure if we'll ever know whether a particular theory is the truth, because physics is an operational science. What we do is experiments, and we check our theoretical predictions against our experimental results. Once we've come up with a theory that agrees with the experimental results, we then try to predict something new that we haven't measured before. That's the process by which we keep refining our theories of nature."

Yes. Exactly. Please look up 'Scientific Theory'.

 

[Damn True]

Way to steer the conversation away from the point I was making.
You can't prove your faith in science so how can you you condemn my faith in god?

When you can prove there is no god you can call my belief foolish. When I can prove creation I'll condemn your belief in evolutionary theroy.

Deal?

 

[Silver]

Way to steer the conversation away from the point I was making.
You can't prove your faith in science so how can you you condemn my faith in god?

You're using a word with multiple meanings two different ways in the same sentence. Let me help (with thanks to dictionary.com)

You can't prove your faith (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing) in science so how can you you condemn my faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Or alternatively: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will) in god?

Now, where does that "confident belief in value" come from in the first half of that sentence?

In the predictive and explanatory power of science.

 

[Silver]

When you can prove there is no god you can call my belief foolish. When I can prove creation I'll condemn your belief in evolutionary theroy.

Deal?

Heads I win, tails you lose...

 

[Westy]

You are correct, I mis-spoke on the matter of expansion.

Have you ever read some of the books Changleen recommended like A Breif History of Time? (this is in no way intended as a show of support fo Changleen) Basically a bunch of space crap but it really does leave plenty of room open for god and divine creation, even leans towards it. Not so much in the traditional 6 days and a Sunday way but it personally pushed me towards beleiving that there is such a thing as god.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

dude, saying a "scientific theory" is "just a theory" is like saying an olimpic swimming medalist is just a swimmer...

to get to the point of being a "scientific theory" a "theory" must have hurdled many rebuttals on the way, and most likely, such theory, gains the "scientific theory" nickname by hurdling the most rebuttals correctly compared to other "theories"...

 

[Damn True]

dude, saying a "scientific theory" is "just a theory" is like saying an olimpic swimming medalist is just a swimmer...

to get to the point of being a "scientific theory" a "theory" must have hurdled many rebuttals on the way, and most likely, such theory, gains the "scientific theory" nickname by hurdling the most rebuttals correctly compared to other "theories"...

But can you prove it?

 

[Damn True]

You're using a word with multiple meanings two different ways in the same sentence. Let me help (with thanks to dictionary.com)

You can't prove your faith (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing) in science so how can you you condemn my faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Or alternatively: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will) in god?

Now, where does that "confident belief in value" come from in the first half of that sentence?

In the predictive and explanatory power of science.

Semantics.
Can you prove it?
If not, your faith is no different than mine. But I'd like to think that Jesus was a better lookin and more pleasant guy to be around than Steven Hawking.

 

[Damn True]

Have you ever read some of the books Changleen recommended like A Breif History of Time? (this is in no way intended as a show of support fo Changleen) Basically a bunch of space crap but it really does leave plenty of room open for god and divine creation, even leans towards it. Not so much in the traditional 6 days and a Sunday way but it personally pushed me towards beleiving that there is such a thing as god.

Honestly no. But I did look this over pretty well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Theoretical physics is just that. A bunch of unproveable maybes and what if's about stuff that is happening in a world that can't be seen.

I will check out the book you mentioned. Sounds interesting.

 

[Westy]

But can you prove it?

Does a plane fly on faith?

 

[Damn True]

Does a plane fly on faith?

No, I can prove that air moving at an increased velocity over the top of a foil causes the pressure to drop. If the pressure delta over the surface of the foil (there is a bunch of math here that I would have to refer to textbooks at home to spell it out) exceeds the weight of the aircraft you have lift.