I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Confusing Bible Question No. 72 [Pic]

Hits: 43082 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: Misc. | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 10537 Posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:40:40 PM
It does require such assumption its part of the method if the assumption is not there then the scientific method would be useless because if the universe didn't follow a set of rules experiments and observations would be useless because each experiment and observation would have infinitely possible results with great variations.


Which doesn't happen. Which means there is evidence. Which means that there is no need for the faith you're trying to find in it.

mischeif954
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 327 Posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:26:29 AM
@ Angilion Science is not a faith I said it is faith based. It does require such assumption its part of the method if the assumption is not there then the scientific method would be useless because if the universe didn't follow a set of rules experiments and observations would be useless because each experiment and observation would have infinitely possible results with great variations. Not undermining science in anyway whether its faith based or not its allowed us to make many advancements if I'm undermining anything its the belief of some atheists that they are beyond faith and that whose do have faith are somehow ignorant.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove God, believe what you want and find out, let others believe what they want and they'll find out. But both sides need to quit with he High and mighty act while we wait and see.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2742 Posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:25:10 AM
@madest:

"Why do you need a book to determine right from wrong?"

Isn't the answer obvious? It's easier for some to be told what to do rather than think about it for themselves.

He can just buy a bible and be told a bunch of certain truths about the world. It doesn't matter if they're true or not; it's the feeling of certainty he likes.

It's a comfort blanket for the brain. It suppresses all those unsettling thoughts about the uncertainty of the world...the kind of thoughts that make the rest of us become explorers and thinkers...the kind of thoughts that make him whimper and clutch for reassuring platitudes.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2742 Posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:20:23 AM
@CrakrJak:

"What reality is that ? Is it the 'I do whatever I feel like' Reality ?"

If us athiests do whatever we feel like, and we still do good things, then that surely means we are good people who feel like doing good things.

Whereas if you only do good through fear of being punished, then you might not even be a good person; if the threat ever lifted and you were unconstrained, who knows what you might be.

"Society needs a basis for it's morals or they are just empty platitudes that can be swept away because they lack authority."

Maybe weak-minded people who don't like to think for themselves need an instruction book.

And for them, we have such an instruction book; the rule of law, written democratically by all of us, not a handful of priests and prophets who appointed themselves rule-givers.

Because we abandoned that method of governance when we turned away from emperors and kings.

Mjustin
Male, 18-29, Western US
 335 Posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:40:09 AM
@ CrakrJak - Why is a book the only possible basis for morality? Do you think Atheists go around killing and raping any more than Christians?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 10537 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:48:34 PM
Arguing that science is faith because it seeks to find rules that describe how things work does not convince me.

It doesn't even require an assumption that there are rules - if there aren't, you won't find any when you look.

There is also that inconvenient issue of evidence - many such rules have been found, so the available evidence very strongly indicates that such rules exist.

It's silly to argue that science is faith when it so obviously isn't. I think you're trying to undermine science by misrepresenting it as nothing more than another religion.

PUDDING1961
Female, 40-49, Canada
 440 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:21:35 PM
*Move along people, there is nothing to see...move along¸...Do not cross the yellow tape*...

mischeif954
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 327 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:04:06 PM
@ Angilion here's the final point the nitty gritty.

"The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."

This is the basis of science is that the scientist believes the universe obeys a set of laws. Once again faith is the belief in an idea.

And therefore to continue to say science isn't faith based is silly, so if you don't like the word science makes certain "assumptions". Then everyone else in the world theist and atheist make their own "assumptions" as well. Does it nullify my point no...

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:09:29 PM
madest: Why do you need a book to determine right from wrong?


Society needs a basis for it's morals or they are just empty platitudes that can be swept away because they lack authority.

Angelmassb
Male, 18-29, S. America
 15497 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:41:11 PM
The good thing about flamewars is they are a equalizer. At the end we all lose!

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:50:18 PM
madest: Dahmer had a morality you agree with.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:08:32 PM
madest: What reality is that ? Is it the 'I do whatever I feel like' Reality ?

"I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics." - Richard Dawkins

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway." - Jeffrey Dahmer


Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 10537 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:59:49 PM
Also do you think all things can be explained through science?


No. Not even in the hypothetical case of a perfect and complete body of scientific knowledge. Some things simply aren't covered by science. Hence the quote from Steven Jay Gould that the author of the article you linked to disagrees with.

However, I don't mind admitting when I don't know something. So I don't need faith.

Why did the universe start? I don't know. Maybe there isn't a reason. Maybe there's an unknown reason. Maybe the question is meaningless because time is a function of the universe and thus there cannot be any such thing as before the universe. Maybe we're a simulation running on an alien computer. Maybe the universe was created by some person or people...but that just moves the question to one of how they were created. So religion also doesn't answer and can't answer that question.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 10537 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:50:01 PM
If you still some how believe Science is completely separate from faith read this article


The author makes the usual mistake of confusing evidence and faith almost straight away, with some meaningless statements thrown in. Here's a good example:

You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.


We have ample *evidence* that the universe isn't a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. Evidence is not faith. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in?

or

All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way.


As a result of the vast amount of evidence indicating that it is. Drawing conclusions from evidence is not faith.

Many theists are really desperate to make out that science is a religion, desperate enough to look silly.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 10537 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:40:16 PM
When scientists have little or no evidence they guess, They imagine and develop philosophies. So Yes, Scientists have faith or they'd never makes 'guesses'.


Your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument. Making an educated guess about what might be true and then testing it is not faith.

If a scientist makes a guess and then decides that it's true regardless of any and all evidence, that would be faith...and it would be the opposite of science.

You might be referring to unverifiable hypotheses, but (a) they're not really important and (b) no scientist should simply believe that they're true.

Sometimes scientists do have faith. That's when they're doing it wrong.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.


Hallucinogenic drugs work very well for that.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:13:02 PM
Musuko42: When scientists have little or no evidence they guess, They imagine and develop philosophies. So Yes, Scientists have faith or they'd never makes 'guesses'.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:07:42 PM
madest: I'm free to pick and choose what I believe just as you are free to pick and choose what 'morals' you want to follow.


mischeif954
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 327 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:01:43 PM
If you still some how believe Science is completely separate from faith read this article Also do you think all things can be explained through science?

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2742 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:34:55 PM
@CrakrJak

For the record, science is all about doubt. It's what the scientific method is BUILT upon; you doubt doubt doubt, so you are constantly exploring and testing and experimenting to cure that doubt with knowledge.

I think that's why religious types like you get so prissy about science; you don't like uncertainty, so you'd rather be certain about something you have no idea is true, rather than be uncertain and use that as motivation to learn.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2742 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:31:40 PM
@CrakrJak:

"Isn't it a bit Ironic that Atheist scientists believe in, Gravitons, Something they can't see, hear, touch or measure and yet they denigrate those that believe in God for the same reasons."

They don't "believe" in them.

They see evidence that suggests they exist. So they look to see if they can find out more about them. And the more they find out, the more certain they can be about whether or not they exist.

But why do I bother arguing with you? Your ways of thinking are so alien that I might as well be trying to explain the offside rule to a dog.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2742 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:28:24 PM
@CrakrJak

So those two lines of the bible refuting slavery that you quoted directly contradict the line of the bible I quoted that condones slavery?

Tell me again, then, how this book can be a reliable code of morality?

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:47:40 PM
madest: Pulling a Lewinskyesque "What the definition of is is", Interesting.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:43:07 PM
MattPrince: Most people don't understand theoretical sub-atomic physics, That and 'Big Bang' theory start entering the realm of philosophy and imagination.
The definition of a graviton is that it has no mass and even it's effects have not been observed.

Isn't it a bit Ironic that Atheist scientists believe in, Gravitons, Something they can't see, hear, touch or measure and yet they denigrate those that believe in God for the same reasons.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:26:20 PM
madest: Seeing madest doubt science theory, Has got to be one of the most ironic things ever.

MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:03:49 AM
Crackerjack, my point was that newtonian mechanics is a beautiful simplification, which arose naturally enough as Newton tested his laws against what was observable on a human scale.

Gravity isn't actually covered by Newton's 3 laws as they relate to dynamic motion. If you're talking about Newtons theory of gravitation - then its not that it doesn't hold at the atomic level - its just that its very small compared to the other three forces on this scale.

At the sub-atomic... well...

Unification theories, (and there are many) do struggle with gravity, a lot of them tied up with the elusive and hypothetical graviton, and you're getting into areas I don't understand, nor I suspect, do you ;)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.