|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:39 pm
Akhiris Jubillie Akhiris Miss TiramiZu > It killed us most of the time! Without religion, there will be 60% less death This being a science forum you better have peer reviewed journals to back these statistics up. Otherwise it is just atheistic propaganda. Maybe it was her own hypothesis..
we don't need to be calling names now. (atheistic)
It's true that throughout history, most of the wars waged upon mankind have been fought over religion. Check out the middle east, they are still at it...this time with bombs - of some sort.
I don't really feel like researching, but I can later for those source hungry gians. wink
History shows there have been many religious wars waged, but what you should be asking to counter that is "how many more has it avoided?"
Religion has it's goods and it's bads, as does everthing else in the world. Not calling her names, I am labeling the type of propaganda. Unsupported facts have no place in a scientific forum... That would make them not science, but a matter of belief (sounds almost like religion then!) A hypothesis/belief/opinion doesn't have to be propaganda.
This is a science forum yes, but you can also have opinions/beliefs in science.
There is no rule to say you can't.
All science starts with some sort of belief, it's what drives you to research and prove your points.
Why are you going to prove something you don't believe?
That is why I agree with Einstein - science and religion can go hand in hand, because you need a little bit of both to truly understand the world around you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:10 am
Jubillie A hypothesis/belief/opinion doesn't have to be propaganda.
This is a science forum yes, but you can also have opinions/beliefs in science.
There is no rule to say you can't.
All science starts with some sort of belief, it's what drives you to research and prove your points.
Why are you going to prove something you don't believe?
That is why I agree with Einstein - science and religion can go hand in hand, because you need a little bit of both to truly understand the world around you.
A hypothesis is a educated guess based on prior established facts, usually the results of preliminary experiments or observations. I was taking issue with the fact that she made a quantitative statement (60% less killing) with no backup (especially with such an inflammatory statement). Some of the things in science you would never know or even have an inkling of thinking about. Science does not try to prove beliefs. Science try to explain observations. Beliefs only come in after experience. The individual scientist may believe that their explanation of the observation is correct, but the explanations themselves can't be arbitrary. They must at the very least be self consistent, and preferably be the simplest explanation. Science and religion do not inherently conflict. They are both efforts by humanity to understand the world around them. The only reason that they conflict is that people on either side feel that they have a monopoly on the "Truth" and they are right. This conflict is more political than ontological.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:17 am
Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord And so does science. You see, foster children are tested through medical obstacles, they're performed as lab rats to science.
That's interesting. I'd like to read up on that....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:19 am
Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Gimme proof that God doesn't exist! You can't prove or disprove God.
If you could then he wouldn't be a God.
The second you prove God will be the same second you disprove him.
First of all, I was directing that to with Miss TiramiZu who said God doesn't exist and I told her give me proof he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:20 am
Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Miss TiramiZu Science is just correct and exact, until someone proove the opposite or improve the science. Prove science is always correct.
You can't prove science is always correct, because it's not.
Nothing in science is 100%
Once again, that post was directed to Miss TiramiZu, not you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:29 am
Dahlia Thief Lord Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Miss TiramiZu Science is just correct and exact, until someone proove the opposite or improve the science. Prove science is always correct.
You can't prove science is always correct, because it's not.
Nothing in science is 100%
Once again, that post was directed to Miss TiramiZu, not you.
This is after all, a forum - a discussion between a group of people, not a converstaion between two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:32 am
Dahlia Thief Lord Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Gimme proof that God doesn't exist! You can't prove or disprove God.
If you could then he wouldn't be a God.
The second you prove God will be the same second you disprove him.
First of all, I was directing that to with Miss TiramiZu who said God doesn't exist and I told her give me proof he doesn't exist.
I think what Jubillie means is that asking for proof of god's existance is irrelevent because it's just not going to happen.
Asking for such information sounds silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:49 am
Akhiris Jubillie A hypothesis/belief/opinion doesn't have to be propaganda.
This is a science forum yes, but you can also have opinions/beliefs in science.
There is no rule to say you can't.
All science starts with some sort of belief, it's what drives you to research and prove your points.
Why are you going to prove something you don't believe?
That is why I agree with Einstein - science and religion can go hand in hand, because you need a little bit of both to truly understand the world around you.
A hypothesis is a educated guess based on prior established facts, usually the results of preliminary experiments or observations. I was taking issue with the fact that she made a quantitative statement (60% less killing) with no backup (especially with such an inflammatory statement). Some of the things in science you would never know or even have an inkling of thinking about. Science does not try to prove beliefs. Science try to explain observations. Beliefs only come in after experience. The individual scientist may believe that their explanation of the observation is correct, but the explanations themselves can't be arbitrary. They must at the very least be self consistent, and preferably be the simplest explanation. Science and religion do not inherently conflict. They are both efforts by humanity to understand the world around them. The only reason that they conflict is that people on either side feel that they have a monopoly on the "Truth" and they are right. This conflict is more political than ontological.
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. -wikipedia
Hypothesis
Preliminary experiments must have come from somewhere....most likey something someone believes.
In the 1500 people believed the world was flat...but someone believed it wasn't.
Believing something is true, when everyone say's it's not is a part of science - perhaps not directly but indireclty, sure.
Neither Science or religion is ever JUST right.
That's when ethics and morals come in at the individial level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Akhiris Jubillie A hypothesis/belief/opinion doesn't have to be propaganda.
This is a science forum yes, but you can also have opinions/beliefs in science.
There is no rule to say you can't.
All science starts with some sort of belief, it's what drives you to research and prove your points.
Why are you going to prove something you don't believe?
That is why I agree with Einstein - science and religion can go hand in hand, because you need a little bit of both to truly understand the world around you.
A hypothesis is a educated guess based on prior established facts, usually the results of preliminary experiments or observations. I was taking issue with the fact that she made a quantitative statement (60% less killing) with no backup (especially with such an inflammatory statement). Some of the things in science you would never know or even have an inkling of thinking about. Science does not try to prove beliefs. Science try to explain observations. Beliefs only come in after experience. The individual scientist may believe that their explanation of the observation is correct, but the explanations themselves can't be arbitrary. They must at the very least be self consistent, and preferably be the simplest explanation. Science and religion do not inherently conflict. They are both efforts by humanity to understand the world around them. The only reason that they conflict is that people on either side feel that they have a monopoly on the "Truth" and they are right. This conflict is more political than ontological. I'm not sure what an inkling is.. confused but..
If things in science were never imaginaged or thought of then how would we ever get anywhere?
We'd probably still be trying to figure out the wheel or how to make a fire for that matter.
Thoughts are science. Not all thoughts, but you cant pull the two apart.
Science is subject to criticism and criticism is subject to oppinions.
You can't separate science from oppinions completely. A hypothesis can have some kind of oppinion. It doesn't make it more or less of anything.
It's still a hypothesis, which really is just a mear guess.
You can't really get technical in this thread because it's about science and religion, which is obiously going to be subject to opinions. Her statement was inflamitory in your opinion, and quanative statements do not have to be accurate.
Opinions don't have to be a bad thing, as long as you don't allow yourself to be offended by them.
I don't think that either sicence or religion tries to monopolize the "truth", it occurs at the individual level and groups of individials lobbying together to monopolize. But the idea of Science and the idea of religion is just that an idea, and neither one try to molopolize anything, they both offer expliations to different things. I think this has been mentioned before a few times, but I'll mention it again, the bible or any religious book isn't meant to be taken literally. That's when the problem's arise, when people take the bible literally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Dahlia Thief Lord Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Miss TiramiZu Science is just correct and exact, until someone proove the opposite or improve the science. Prove science is always correct.
You can't prove science is always correct, because it's not.
Nothing in science is 100%
Once again, that post was directed to Miss TiramiZu, not you. That post was directed to anyone in the thread. This isn't a private discussion between you and Miss TiramiZu - as Emily has stated - this is a forum.
And anything you say can be subject to critiscim from anyone.
heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:23 pm
Jubillie And anything you say can and will be subject to critiscim from anyone. fixt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:23 pm
VoijaRisa Jubillie And anything you say can and will be subject to critiscim from anyone. fixt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 4:23 pm
Jubillie I'm not sure what an inkling is.. confused but..
If things in science were never imaginaged or thought of then how would we ever get anywhere?
We'd probably still be trying to figure out the wheel or how to make a fire for that matter.
Thoughts are science. Not all thoughts, but you cant pull the two apart.
Science is subject to criticism and criticism is subject to oppinions.
You can't separate science from oppinions completely. A hypothesis can have some kind of oppinion. It doesn't make it more or less of anything.
It's still a hypothesis, which really is just a mear guess.
You can't really get technical in this thread because it's about science and religion, which is obiously going to be subject to opinions. Her statement was inflamitory in your opinion, and quanative statements do not have to be accurate.
Opinions don't have to be a bad thing, as long as you don't allow yourself to be offended by them.
I don't think that either sicence or religion tries to monopolize the "truth", it occurs at the individual level and groups of individials lobbying together to monopolize. But the idea of Science and the idea of religion is just that an idea, and neither one try to molopolize anything, they both offer expliations to different things. I think this has been mentioned before a few times, but I'll mention it again, the bible or any religious book isn't meant to be taken literally. That's when the problem's arise, when people take the bible literally. Just to be clear, a hypothesis is not a mere guess, it an educated guess. It is constrained by a) plausibility and b) testability (can this be falsified by experiment or observation). This is why you cannot hypothesize about God or religion because it is not falsifiable. An example of things that you would not normally think about are quantum behaviour of electrons and other fundamental particles. They act in ways that are completely counter-intuitive, because our intuitions are based on the world as we experience it on our scale (which is tens of orders of magnitude removed from the scale of the atom). We only discerned the mathematical descriptions of these phenomena when our technology allowed us to measure them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 6:16 pm
Ang Yi Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I believe that. As long as one doesn't step into the boundaries of the other everything is ok. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/11/slack.html Quote: A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954) Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. (Albert Einstein, 1936) Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/ I like Einstein even more now!!! heart 3nodding heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:32 pm
Akhiris Jubillie I'm not sure what an inkling is.. confused but..
If things in science were never imaginaged or thought of then how would we ever get anywhere?
We'd probably still be trying to figure out the wheel or how to make a fire for that matter.
Thoughts are science. Not all thoughts, but you cant pull the two apart.
Science is subject to criticism and criticism is subject to oppinions.
You can't separate science from oppinions completely. A hypothesis can have some kind of oppinion. It doesn't make it more or less of anything.
It's still a hypothesis, which really is just a mear guess.
You can't really get technical in this thread because it's about science and religion, which is obiously going to be subject to opinions. Her statement was inflamitory in your opinion, and quanative statements do not have to be accurate.
Opinions don't have to be a bad thing, as long as you don't allow yourself to be offended by them.
I don't think that either sicence or religion tries to monopolize the "truth", it occurs at the individual level and groups of individials lobbying together to monopolize. But the idea of Science and the idea of religion is just that an idea, and neither one try to molopolize anything, they both offer expliations to different things. I think this has been mentioned before a few times, but I'll mention it again, the bible or any religious book isn't meant to be taken literally. That's when the problem's arise, when people take the bible literally. Just to be clear, a hypothesis is not a mere guess, it an educated guess. It is constrained by a) plausibility and b) testability (can this be falsified by experiment or observation). This is why you cannot hypothesize about God or religion because it is not falsifiable. An example of things that you would not normally think about are quantum behaviour of electrons and other fundamental particles. They act in ways that are completely counter-intuitive, because our intuitions are based on the world as we experience it on our scale (which is tens of orders of magnitude removed from the scale of the atom). We only discerned the mathematical descriptions of these phenomena when our technology allowed us to measure them. A hypothesis can be an educated guess, but doesn't have to be. Like Emily said, whether or not a guess is educated is subject to oppinion.
One of the online dictionary meaning is a mear guess.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. (I never did say her hypothesis was useful.)
Anyhow I don't even know why we are arguing about hypothesis, I simply said, and if I didn't say it right well I meant to say that her "inflamitory" statement could of just been her own personal hypothesis. Which you then judged by your opinion to be inflamitory and named it "atheistic". Which I felt was name calling and felt like I should call you on it.
'tis all.
whee heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
