taking something on faith is ok....forcing that upon others, claiming it's more than faith is absurd nonsensical bollockry.

People who don't believe in god(s) are harder to fool...because they're not trained to respond to such craptacular appeals to authority, as are found in sermons, and churchiness in general. There's more to life than those particular morality tales....dogma is the anti-thought.

This includes people who go to church, but don't believe it..and are there for social reasons (wife/kids/family/work/politics/gossip/boredom etc...

I think that t3h Boobyclumsyninja has hit on one of the most important points in the discussion which has been overlooked. Religious beliefs can only exist where someone has placed reason secondary to faith. That is, faith comes first. Now if someone is willing to believe in magic sky wizards, then it isn't too far off to start including witches in the mix as well. Once you literally believe in witches, well, it follows that you should do nasty thing to them. Especially when such acts are sanctified by your religion;

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Exodus 22:18

I have also had a thought about religion and why I don't think it's a good thing. There has been a general trend for the religious people here to say "Hey, I don't believe in old men in the sky." But regardless, these people have claimed that god had a role in the creation of the universe, the creation of life, of evolution ect.

The questions of how the universe arose, how life arose, why the physical constants are the way they are, are all difficult questions. What we know of them so far, came from many scientists, carefully building a framework from experimental evidence over time. The religious person says "I don't need that stuff. The answers to questions like these can be found by sitting here and making **** up". As though sciences most difficult endeavors can be revealed to you magically just by thinking about them.

That's bullshit and it doesn't matter whether you want to force your revelation on other people or not, you still hold onto the principle that what you personally think is better than any scientific inquiry. That looks pretty egotistical and self-centered to me.

I think that t3h Boobyclumsyninja has hit on one of the most important points in the discussion which has been overlooked. Religious beliefs can only exist where someone has placed reason secondary to faith. That is, faith comes first. Now if someone is willing to believe in magic sky wizards, then it isn't too far off to start including witches in the mix as well. Once you literally believe in witches, well, it follows that you should do nasty thing to them. Especially when such acts are sanctified by your religion;

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Exodus 22:18

I have also had a thought about religion and why I don't think it's a good thing. There has been a general trend for the religious people here to say "Hey, I don't believe in old men in the sky." But regardless, these people have claimed that god had a role in the creation of the universe, the creation of life, of evolution ect.

The questions of how the universe arose, how life arose, why the physical constants are the way they are, are all difficult questions. What we know of them so far, came from many scientists, carefully building a framework from experimental evidence over time. The religious person says "I don't need that stuff. The answers to questions like these can be found by sitting here and making **** up". As though sciences most difficult endeavors can be revealed to you magically just by thinking about them.

That's bullshit and it doesn't matter whether you want to force your revelation on other people or not, you still hold onto the principle that what you personally think is better than any scientific inquiry. That looks pretty egotistical and self-centered to me.

Can you post one thing that isnt chalked full of logical fallacies? Please? Just one...

Some people believe in a religion.

Part of that religion is that witches exist, and should be killed.

If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't have a reason to kill those children.

OK when was the last time a bunch of atheists got together to put nails in children's heads because a priest told them they were witches?

If they didn't believe in all that **** do you really think they'd pay any attention to the priests?


Actually I think it was fear, and not faith, that drove the witch hunts.
Greed that drove the Crusades.
Ignorance that drove the Inquisitions....and so on.

These things are not faith.

Nobody can actually prove atomic structure or quantum theories either, yet we believe those... No one can mathematically pinpoint the entity known as "I" (Hawking), its impossible... yet we each believe in ourselves... with no proof.

Can you post one thing that isnt chalked full of logical fallacies? Please? Just one...

boobyclumsyninja concurs, stop artfully destroying Zapruder's arguments. You...you meanie.

My sister is a materials science phd....she studies some of the things you're trying to channel....it's taken some of the brightest humans, entire lifetimes of dedicated study to achieve what we KNOW about this existance, and also some of what we don't, or can't know.

It's a little insulting to their work, to assume faith conquers science....without looking to find out (with science, that's what it's for).

Nobody can actually prove atomic structure or quantum theories either, yet we believe those... No one can mathematically pinpoint the entity known as "I" (Hawking), its impossible... yet we each believe in ourselves... with no proof.

The visualizations applied to atomic structure or quantum mechanics are mostly for dumbasses like _______(fill in the dumbass blank)

The data and the equations that relate to it are veeeeery complex, and beyone most of us.
Unlike pronouncing the truth on faith....If the math doesn't hold, then the description evolves..including the dumbass version. But it has to relate to the data....they don't just make it up and everyone agrees.

The measurements are what they are...the description and equations are our attempt to document and understand.

Oh I wasn't saying faith conquers science. But we could probly learn a lot more by all saying collectively "I don't know" (good luck getting either side to do that); and then working from a state of non-biased objectivity.

Isn't "truth" just a euphamism for "reality" or "that which is" or "the universe". I honestly both sides of the argument are guilty of collecting only the facts that confirm their ambitions, while ignoring valid points from the other side. Quantum Mechanics hints at multi-sum equations... could be something there that neither side of the debate has considered.

The visualizations applied to atomic structure or quantum mechanics are mostly for dumbasses like _______(fill in the dumbass blank)

The data and the equations that relate to it are veeeeery complex, and beyone most of us.
Unlike pronouncing the truth on faith....If the math doesn't hold, then the description evolves..including the dumbass version. But it has to relate to the data....they don't just make it up and everyone agrees.

The measurements are what they are...the description and equations are our attempt to document and understand.

What about Von Neumann's Catstrophe of Infinite Regression?

Isn't "truth" just a euphamism for "reality" or "that which is" or "the universe". I honestly both sides of the argument are guilty of collecting only the facts that confirm their ambitions, while ignoring valid points from the other side....
no...


religeon and religeous beliefs aren't a side of the facts. They are taken on faith IN SPITE of the facts...no in tandem with, or just behind.

I've been kicked out of more churches than the devil himself for saying the same thing. And I'll bet some kid's been kicked out of a class or two for questioning the infallibility of science... the point is ALL humans are prone to mistakes. Even the math we live and breathe by is a self-imposed system... some neanderthal counted some rocks, and perception took over from there. Just some weird **** happened; and some collected together a bunch of books full of what they say they saw. Faith may be a silly delusion; may be a bio-chemical thing; odd wiring...who knows? But thats faith in general--- faith in the idea that our lives are controlled by some giant imaginary executioner just waiting for us to break a rule so he can send us to hell---and faith in the infallability of man, after some of things I've seen or heard or read about, seems just as silly.

We've been through this before but it looks like it something that's going to come up again and again like a bad _ing _un thread.

I agree totally, faith in the infallibility of man is silly. Which is why the scientific method exists. We recognize that people have biases that affect their judgment, we recognize that
we are more critical of the ideas we are opposed to than those we hold. This is why a good experiment must be designed as such that bias is factored out. Take medicine for example, if I was testing homeopathy by giving it to a bunch of people then it would be best if I didn't know if I was giving someone a placebo or the homeopathic preparation. That way my huge bias against the load of fucking bollocks has been accounted for. Science has safeguards against human judgmental errors. Religion doesn't. It has "believe it, it's infallible." and that's it. It is a combination of reading old books of made up **** and making up new **** to deal with the knotty points.

Science doesn't claim infallibility. Religion does. What part of the bible says that it's possible that the whole thing could be wrong? What bit of it says "we might be wrong on this god stuff but we'll run with it until better evidence comes along." What bit of it even suggests that one of the other religions could be right? None of it. The bible has it's head firmly up it's own arse with regards to t3h tr00th, and so does religion.

In science you believe only so far as the evidence supports it, and that you must be prepared to discard that if better evidence comes along. We started using science because we needed a better way than just making things up. There is no comparison to religion which is just "believe it no matter what."

Also, quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions experimentally, as does all reliable scientific models. We accept them as true because they have this power. Religion has...nothing. It can't be used to build knowledge, it doesn't make accurate predictions, it isn't based on a single bit of evidence.

No discovery has ever been dependent on accepting a religious model of the universe. When you use religion to answer a question, you really aren't doing any better than saying "magic".

It really amuses me when people talk of scientists as a bunch of stuffy old gits with their heads up their arse that can't see that their own views are "just another faith". If you think you can rock the foundations of quantum mechanics, or mathematics, or medicine, or physics, or chemstry then go and collect superior evidence and show them.

We've been through this before but it looks like it something that's going to come up again and again like a bad _ing _un thread.

I agree totally, faith in the infallibility of man is silly. Which is why the scientific method exists. We recognize that people have biases that affect their judgment, we recognize that
we are more critical of the ideas we are opposed to than those we hold. This is why a good experiment must be designed as such that bias is factored out. Take medicine for example, if I was testing homeopathy by giving it to a bunch of people then it would be best if I didn't know if I was giving someone a placebo or the homeopathic preparation. That way my huge bias against the load of fucking bollocks has been accounted for. Science has safeguards against human judgmental errors. Religion doesn't. It has "believe it, it's infallible." and that's it. It is a combination of reading old books of made up **** and making up new **** to deal with the knotty points.

Science doesn't claim infallibility. Religion does. What part of the bible says that it's possible that the whole thing could be wrong? What bit of it says "we might be wrong on this god stuff but we'll run with it until better evidence comes along." What bit of it even suggests that one of the other religions could be right? None of it. The bible has it's head firmly up it's own arse with regards to t3h tr00th, and so does religion.

In science you believe only so far as the evidence supports it, and that you must be prepared to discard that if better evidence comes along. We started using science because we needed a better way than just making things up. There is no comparison to religion which is just "believe it no matter what."

Also, quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions experimentally, as does all reliable scientific models. We accept them as true because they have this power. Religion has...nothing. It can't be used to build knowledge, it doesn't make accurate predictions, it isn't based on a single bit of evidence.

No discovery has ever been dependent on accepting a religious model of the universe. When you use religion to answer a question, you really aren't doing any better than saying "magic".

It really amuses me when people talk of scientists as a bunch of stuffy old gits with their heads up their arse that can't see that their own views are "just another faith". If you think you can rock the foundations of quantum mechanics, or mathematics, or medicine, or physics, or chemstry then go and collect superior evidence and show them.

lol tl;dr pretty much

Some people believe in a religion.

Part of that religion is that witches exist, and should be killed.

If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't have a reason to kill those children.

Fail...well in your overall scheme of things. see below syllogism

1. For some x, Y(x).
2. For some x, Z(x).
3. Therefore for some x, Y(x) and Z(x).

boobyclumsyninja concurs, stop artfully destroying Zapruder's arguments. You...you meanie.

My sister is a materials science phd....she studies some of the things you're trying to channel....it's taken some of the brightest humans, entire lifetimes of dedicated study to achieve what we KNOW about this existance, and also some of what we don't, or can't know.

It's a little insulting to their work, to assume faith conquers science....without looking to find out (with science, that's what it's for).

By art you mean bad logic? Ah the ole humpty dumpty fallacy...I guess everyone is gettin in the game