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
Funny Stuff

Oddee

Extreme Humor

Free Samples

I hate retail

Gorilla Mask

Asylum

Funny Videos

Viva La Games

Funny Games

Pugorama

Chaostrophic

Urlesque

FreeGame Heaven

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

123 Games

Angelsfire.nl

Anon email

Friday Fun

Shi**y Stories

Nothing To Do?

Funny stuff

DailyFreeGames

Escape Games 24

Comic World

CityRag



Back to Listing

Aggressive Atheism

Hits: 7064 | Rating: (2.9) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: Enomai
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Myrmianin
Female, 18-29, Europe
 11 Posts
Sunday, March 04, 2012 6:43:23 PM
epic win, flawless victory XD

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Friday, March 02, 2012 10:43:38 AM
To borrow some of jendrian's words: just because YOU can't understand God, that doesn't mean God isn't real, it means you're not open enough to understand Him. (Or you're not really trying)
Or something like that, LOL.

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Friday, March 02, 2012 10:40:28 AM
"As for peer review: Well it's another scientist backing up the first one. So if two priests say they had the same experience under identical circumstances regarding God, that they were able to repeat the experiment, is that any different?"

Any thoughts? A lot of people experience God every day and have seen things that they consider evidence. (weeping statues, stigmata, full blown miracles) Why are they wrong? The problem I think is repeatability. Say you get something you pray for, by chance or divine intervention. There's no guarantee of it happening again, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Friday, March 02, 2012 10:35:24 AM
@jadoing: just because YOU can't understand the science, that doesn't mean the science is wrong, it means you're not educated enough to understand it.

I wasn't implying it was. I was asking what does the average layperson have to guarantee it is right, not falsified, or as close to right as it can be given the circumstances.

Somehow I knew you were a physicist or someone equally trained. LOL.

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Friday, March 02, 2012 10:32:56 AM
Hey Angillion, good to see you.
So we've established that science has a system of peer review to keep it honest. I can accept that. Should I always blindly accept facts as presented by science then? Or at least be certain, that soon, if there is a problem it will come out in the wash?
Religion should be open to the same scrutiny in my opinion. I think it is, just most people don't think so.
I know my example was silly, but it was just an example. I don't really think there is a huge conspiracy surrounding the LHC. To supply a reason for it though: Greed. Fame. One source says it cost 7.4 billion dollars. Spend a billion making a fake and you've got 6.4 left to play with. I know, silly, but it's an answer.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:28:26 PM
Now, when I said "how do we know the equipment functions as it is said to?" I didn't mean how do we know its not broken, but how do we know its not a flim-flam machine? a good con-man could con a world if done right. I know, unlikely, but impossible? I don't think so.


The degree of conspiracy required would be enough by itself to make it so unlikely that it's reasonable to treat it as impossible. Why would every person capable of replicating the experiment agree to lie about it?

But that's not the only thing. Science rarely remains purely theoretical for very long. At least some aspect of it is used for developing something physical, sooner or later. Nowadays, usually very much sooner. When that happens, even if there was the ridiculously unlikely conspiracy in place, it would be exposed. If widget X is even partially based on fake science, it won't work and everyone+dog will notice.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:25:53 PM
like I said, it's not like nobody was doing what we consider science today, it's just that "mainstream science" was philosophical thought, thanks to Aristotle.

Yes, I made a mistake, 3 is very close to 2 in the keyboard

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:21:29 PM
It took 3 millennia for somebody like Galileo to defy the teachings of such an illustrious master as Aristotle and demand that science be ridden with proof.


That argument was going on in ancient Greece, between philosophers who thought that philosophy should be purely mental and those who thought it should be tested by experiment.

Also, Galileo was more like 2 millenia after Aristotle, not 3.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:16:01 PM
@jadoing: just because YOU can't understand the science, that doesn't mean the science is wrong, it means you're not educated enough to understand it.

For the record, I don't think I could alone build an LHC, but I can understand exactly how it works, and given the resources, could very possibly build another one on the moon.

I am after all a physicist...

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:07:40 PM
I think a lot of scientific proof is as sketchy as biblical proof. Are we not taking people's word about what results were found where?


No, not for actual science (as opposed to things falsely claimed to be science).

Have there not been faked experiments?


Probably occasionally, and probably not at all recently. When science is done, actual science and not pseudoscience, fakery will be exposed.

Look at how real science is done:

i) A scientist observes something happening, forms hypotheses explaining how it happens, develops theories and conducts experiments *to try to prove their own theory wrong*.

ii) If they can't, they write a detailed report and submit it for peer review, *where several different scientists independently try to prove it wrong*.

iii) If they can't, it's published an *every scientist of Earth is free to try to prove it wrong*.

It is always open season on every the

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:00:57 PM
Scientific proof requires the method be followed, otherwise you're just fishing in the dark like the alchemists did.


I'll quote one example. Just one of very many that we still know about today. Many, many more were lost over time.

Eratosthenes observed that at noon on a particular day of the year in a particular place, a rod placed vertically in the ground cast a particular shadow.

Using logic, reason and experimentation, he deduced and confirmed that the shadow cast by an object was affected by the angle at which the light from the sun hit it.

He further deduced that it would be possible to calcuate the curvature of the surface of the Earth by comparing the shadows of two rods in different places at the same time, and thus to calculate the size of the Earth.

He conducted an experiment to test that hypothesis and then calculated the size of the Earth.

A scientist using the scientific method. Over 2000 years ago.

Canoas
Male, 18-29, Europe
 429 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:54:30 PM
@jadoig
Yes, you do have to take their word for it. However, it's very unlikely that there's a huge conspiracy to try and give fake results. It would have to be a huge conspiracy since every single person who works on that area and is able to replicate the experiment would have to agree to lie about it. If just one single person does not want to lie about it then he can contradict the fake result with a replica of the experiment.
So, for the conspiracy to work everyone in that area would be involved right? Now, if everyone who cares about it is involved why the hell are they giving fake results? The only people who are affected by the results of such experiment already know it's fake because they're part of the conspiracy.
And it would be found out that they cheated the moment that theory would be put to use.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:52:34 PM
The modern scientific method has only been around since Galileo in 1638. So your "2000 years" statement is wrong, it's been less than 400 years.


Some ancient Greek philosophers followed the same scientific method as Galileo, so you could go back even further than 2000 years. It's arguable that some Indian philosophers would also have qualified as scientists at about the same time, although much less is known about them. Some Arabic philosophers from close to 2000 years could also be reasonably classed as scientists and certainly so as far back as 1000 years.

The essence of the scientific method is finding a rational, natural explanation for things that are observed to happen, using logic and reason and testing those explanations against reality by experimentation. Some ancient philosophers did exactly that.

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:12:38 PM
jendrian: Can you? I certainly can't. I have to take everyone's word for it.

Sorry, that was vague. Are you able to build another one? On earth, let alone saturn? Would you be able to interpret the raw data? I'm pretty sure I couldn't. They could tell me, "If this light blinks, it means x" and I could see the light and go Ahhh, yes, it blinks. So X!" But I'm still taking their word for it.

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:09:40 PM
evanbartlett:
you said:"But scientists at the end of the day are only looking for 'truth.' "
I hate to focus on this triviality as it is not the core of your statement, but I need you to be aware that that is all I am looking for as well and, I think, what any intelligent theist should be doing.

Now, when I said "how do we know the equipment functions as it is said to?" I didn't mean how do we know its not broken, but how do we know its not a flim-flam machine? a good con-man could con a world if done right. I know, unlikely, but impossible? I don't think so.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:03:13 PM
@jadoing: like I said, by reproducing it. If the results are valid, then you can build another LHC in saturn and find the same results

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:00:06 PM
Take the LHC for example. Now for the record, I'm not doubting it's validity, I'm not saying that what I'm about to say is true, I'm using it as my example. They use this thing to accelerate particles to try and answer some fundamental open questions in physics; properties of quark-gluon plasma, the nature of dark matter, etc. (Nevermind that we have no proof that either of these things exist, or existed,) Once they find their results, How can the average lay-person validate or verify their findings?
Pretty sure we can't. We have to take their word for it. As for peer review: Well it's another scientist backing up the first one. So if two priests say they had the same experience under identical circumstances regarding God, that they were able to repeat the experiment, is that any different?

jadoig
Male, 30-39, Canada
 435 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:50:27 PM
Musuko, I understand about peer review. The same thing has been said about The Bible in cases where scripture has been written or dictated by someone who was there, who saw. There are others who were there and saw and were able to read what was written and say "this was not true" if that is the case.
It seems to me that in the end, we are still taking someones word for it.
I'm not disputing science, I'm not saying any specific "proven fact" is wrong. I'm saying there is an element of uncertainty that a lot of people overlook simply because it is science.
Let's pretend I'm paranoid: How do I know "science" isn't a group of guys who are willing to corroborate and back each other up no matter what?

evanbartlett
Male, 30-39, Western US
 555 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:40:36 PM
@jadoig: Interesting interpretation. You're correct that from time to time a scientific experiment yields a conclusion which is later, upon peer review, deemed inaccurate. But scientists at the end of the day are only looking for 'truth.' Reliance on equipment to help find that truth is high, and so the very things that you're concerned about is the very thing that concern scientists and thus what they spend the most amount of time ensuring proper use and accuracy of concluding data. But these massive machines rely on scientific principles which have been known to be true for, in many cases, hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of years. Skepticism is an admirable trait, and might make you a good scientist. But a healthy skepticism should be balanced with knowing that those who present scientific results do so only after struggling and ensuring that their own skepticism has been resolved.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26157 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:46:13 PM
Hee hee hee
This made me laugh! It's a cartoon that's way to big to put up here. Very funny!

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:35:06 PM
hey madest, that makes 2 of us who believe in extraterrestrial life. It would be 3 but Carl Sagan died.

@CrakrJak (again): UFOs are not a "belief". ETs are a belief. Unidentified Flying Objects litter the sky every day and until there's an explanation, they remain UFOs.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:33:21 PM
another answer to Jadoig: Well one of the tenants of the scientific method is replicability and collective perception: if the experiment is able to be re-done and everybody (including objective observers like machines) finds the same results every time, then that's enough to count as proof. While there's extensive arguments about the human nature of this part of the scientific method is debated, it doesn't mean the description will be wrong. Even if we lived in 21 dimensions and what we describe is only partially true because it's only true in our 4 dimensions, that still makes it a better truth than religious dogma.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26157 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:31:43 PM
@5cats - Challenge accepted! - What now?


lolz! @LillianDulci! But now you will be killed since you insulted Islam. Sorry.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:22:20 PM
@patchgrabber: Aristotle preached that the world was made of 5 basic things: wind, water, fire, earth, and a fifth entity called "quintessence" (literally meaning fifth-state). That all motions were based on stuff trying to go back to their basic "state" (earth goes back to earth, air floats, fire tries to make everything fire), and that all knowledge could be attained by thinking about it (or to paraphrase him: by philosophical argument).

It took 3 millennia for somebody like Galileo to defy the teachings of such an illustrious master as Aristotle and demand that science be ridden with proof.

So... yeah, CrakrJak is right, the scientific method as we know it was pretty much demanded (although perhaps not invented) by Galileo. Not meaning in any way that any actual science done before him doesn't count, or that in any respect "god" didn't have to show any proof for 2000 years, give or take.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:14:02 AM
@CrakrJak.

You say Madest can't make fun of religion because he believes in UFOs...

...you believe in a magic sky friend. I'd say that puts you in no position to make fun of Madest.

Equally, how can you mock Madest for believing in something without proof, when that's the entire basis of your religious belief?

The double-standard is staggering.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 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.