Via Science, Reason and Critical Thinking
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2” Review by Aiptcomics.com
- AFRO SAMURAI’S Takashi Okazaki Brings Manga Flair to STAR TREK: DEFIANT Comics
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Lower Decks (2024) #2”
- Out Today: “Star Trek #27”
- New Star Trek Book: “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – The Making of the Classic Film”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to J.M. Dillard!
- “Star Trek: Picard: Firewall” Review by Theforgottenfiction.com
- RIP David A. McIntee
- John Jay Alumnus Derek Attico Discusses New Autobiography at Book Talk
- Preview of “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2”
- Movie Related Products
- ‘Subscribers Were Overwhelmed’: How Disney Made Streaming Profitable
- Silo ordered for full four season run
- “The Muppet Christmas Carol” Review
- Alex Garland at the BFI – The VFX in Civil War | Framestore
- STAR WARS FILIBUSTER: Patton Oswalt’s Rant Animated – Geek Week
- The WWE Network Is Officially Shutting Down Ahead Of Netflix Move
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Music Video DB
This website brought to you by The Tiki Web Group Unless specifically mentioned, we have no clue where this content came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments and content are the sole possesion of the commenters and members of the community and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS.
This web site does not seem to exist.
That’s because the pic is a joke, silly. Get a new girlfriend quick, your mental facilities are failing.
That explains why mine have been failing. 🙁 All the girls I ever like have boyfriends already. FML.
It’s rough out there, but the chickies can be found..
having a boyfriend doesn’t mean they can’t be yours…..trust me
*watches his ex gf walk off with her new guy* 🙁
uh. . .so how ’bout that rationalism, huh?
god, this makes me rage. is it possible that someone can look at the universe and decide it was created?
i dont go to church, but i beleive in god. i dont try to live my life in any “good” way, and i dont use the bible to determine how i should make my choices. the ten commandments dont keep me from killing or stealing or what have you. i’m just not a douchebag.
my parents didnt make me go to church. and i don’t believe out of blind faith.
tl;dr
i has been troll’d
Yes, Nate, it is possible. For tens of thousands of years of years that’s exactly what people did. That was the origin of creationism. Having grown up in the time you did, in the place that you did, you’ve grown up in a culture that decided your religious default setting.
my culture did not decide my belief, dawkins.
church people have a harder time with my beliefs than non-religious people. i was not forced to believe anything, and was allowed to come to my own conclusions based upon what i’ve experienced
You weren’t forced to believe anything and I never claimed you were. You have been raised in a predominantly judeo-christian society, and have developed a generic judeo-christian belief. It’s not surprising, it just is. The surprise would be if you developed a belief in Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam. But no, you were raised in the good ol’ USofA and you have a generic Protestant belief.
but if that were true, then why isnt everyone here protestant? and my beliefs are considered heresy by most “christians”, because i do not believe that the things we do (sins or good works) determine where the soul goes after death.
i also don’t believe in Heaven. i think God will come live here on the earth in a physical body, instead of everyone going up in the clouds
kudos, though, on at least posting “Successful Troll Is Successful”
rather than spending your whole life dedicated to preaching that Trolling is, in fact, a art.
I like the crack at Stalin at the end.
science is a religion
apples are oranges.
no their not…apples are apples and oranges are oranges. science is a religion…you can tell because people get really offended when you tell them that. its like when people who believe in religion say “its not religion its faith” “its not religion its science”. but its still something you either believe in and place your faith or its something you don’t believe in and do not place your faith. science is based on assumptions and requires one to believe one theory on top of another on top of another and so on is the answer. at each point along the scientific explanation one has to pick (believe) in one theory or another. Do you believe in the Savannah theory or the Aquatic theory? Which of the many explanations for the joining of amino acids do you subscribe to? which of the wild hair-brain theories on what was here before the big bang (really should be renamed to the “small quiet”) do you believe? no matter which track down the scientific explantion path you take you have to keep picking theories hoping that the theories you subscribed to before where correct. If they are not then everything you believe is wrong…but then try telling that to someone who believes in a religion as brainwashing as science.
Your wrong. Scientists don’t “have faith” in the theories they research. They believe that they might be true and then test that hypothesis. If it turns out that such theories are not true, they reject them. If they had faith then they would hold onto these theories and try to skew the data towards its favor. These would be bad scientists.
The only “Dogma” that science has is that ideas should be tested, and ideas that don’t hold up to this are wrong. If so then everything is a religion and your argument is meaningless.
scientists do have faith. I saw this lecture (cant find the video now) recently in which a scientist explained what he thought was around before the small quiet. He said, basically, that before the small quiet there was just a quantum field in flux. This quantum field is so random and complex that it was inevitable that physical mater would manifest. This assumption that this is the beginning, that this is the thing that simply exists to allow for the rest of reality is a point of faith. At some point the buck has to stop. At some point there just has to be something that exists with out their being an origin for it. Science may debate and question this origin but it still has to assume there is an origin and it picks a thing or process to place at the start. This is A BELIEF STRUCTURE. its a religion. And how the fuck does everything being a religion mean that science being a religion is meaningless? if everything is a religion then that means reality is what you make of it. reality is your own internal religion.
And scientist constantly bend their results to fit what they think or are encouraged to think by the people providing their funding. A quick study of statistics would show you that any scientist has the tools to rational justify any hypothesis they can conjure.
I agree, though, that scientist dont have faith in their theories as such. however, they do place large amounts of belief in their theories until someone manages to change their mind. Reality is crazy (i mean honestly look at it) and science is just a small part of the picture. How can any one place belief, faith or explanation is science when it is yet so young and is only just beginning to explain the human experience of reality. there is the whole of reality to explain and science has done little for this endeavour. Proof? what does science prove in concrete terms that is not subject to assumption or the presence of some kind of human observer or interpreter?
If everything is a religion then saying anything is a religion doesn’t change anything IE is meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that every human endeavor is based on assumptions. Assumptions that actions have causes; assumptions that the rules of the universe are consistent; and all the others. If you don’t question any assumption then you have faith. If you do question then seek answers you are a scientist. Incidentally, if you question all of these you are a philosopher.
A belief structure is not a religion, however. A religion is closer to a BELIEF CULTURE. If religion is a belief structure then there are as many religions as there are people as no one has the exact same belief structure.
Derp. That’s the whole fucking point, they change their minds based on the new data. Science is NOT religion. The fact that superficially it appears to have common tenets does not mean they’re equally possible.
Titan, did you miss the part in science class where they explained the definition of theory?
lol sorry mr PhD I can’t help myself…its to easy to piss you scientists off lols
Liar.
sigh.
I understand the position you are taking.
It is a poor position to argue.
Why?
Please look at the picture that started this thread.
Those are the differences between the two.
All of the things you are referencing are bad examples for this reason:
The question marks at the end of those concepts and theories are constantly being pushed and tested. Even if a plausible explanation is found, scientists do their best to thwart it.
Religion doesn’t ever investigate its question marks. C’mon, man. Seriously.
you are right…religion (as in tradition Christian, Jewish, Hindism…) does not investigate its questions. This is why science is such a good religion for the times we live in. People dont question science they just question the questions with in it. thus people generally believe in science and dont have to worry about if the Savannah theory or the Aquatic theory is correct because they believe is the over all principle of science. i can’t be arsed with this any more tho and i will leave my unpopular comments at this. if you fail to see that science is a religion then you are simply to brainwashed by it.
Way to cop out. you’re mighty brave while running away. Please try to come up with a rational argument that does more than reference these two arguments that you think validate your beliefs.
Scientist question everything, eventually. Any given scientist every single tenet of scientific method, but it has been tested and questioned nearly constantly. What you’re not seeing is that science is correct because it works. We can use to determine future events, and when it does, we know we got it right. If it doesn’t, we start over. If you can’t see that science is not religion, then you’re stupid to waste brain power on.
…and religion is rational to those that believe it
That is the dumbest thing I’ve seen anyone post in a very long time.
Believing it is so doesn’t make something rational. It being logically consistent makes it rational. Also, itt being in line with reality makes it true.
sorry, that’s just not true.
how about this:
science can be a religion to some people
I could quibble, but people are retarded, so I’ll agree just ’cause it’s you, bro.
😀
lol…you are fast becoming my fav person here. and your comment is a sound reminder that people are free to think what ever they want, because, at the end of the day, no matter who says what, everybody will think what they want. i love posting on here when i’m drunk :S night peeps
If science can be religion to some, they’re clearly deluded about what science is and what it can do.
Max Planck (google him if you dont know who he is) was once asked if science might be a substitute for religion. this was his response:
“Not to a skeptical state of mind; for science demands also the believing spirit. Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words Ye Must Have Faith. It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with.
The man who handles a bulk of results obtained from an experimental process must have an imaginative picture of the law that he is pursuing. he must embody this in an imaginary hypothesis. The reasoning faculties alone will not help him forward a step, for no order can emerge from the chaos of elements unless there is the constructive quality of mind which builds up the order by a process of elimination and choice. Again and again the imaginary plan on which one attempts to build up that order breaks down and then we must try another. This imaginative vision and faith in the ultimate success are indispensable. The pure rationalist has no place here.
…we are always being brought face to face with the irrational. Else we couldn’t have faith. And if we did not have faith, but could solve every puzzle in live by an application of the human reason, what an unbearable burden life would be. We should have no art and no music and no wonderment. And we should have no science; not only because science would thereby lose its chief attraction for its own followers–namely, the pursuit of the unknowable–but also because science would lose the cornerstone of its own structure, which is the direct perception by consciousness of the existence of external reality. As Einstein has said, you could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception, and therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion, but it is the same in regard to science”
Planck was wrong. Science is about verification. Faith may have its place, even in the first steps of science, but it will not give answers. Religion does not require verification; in the case of Christianity, verification is scorned. Religion has been the same for thousands of years. It has not progressed. You can’t learn or discover anything new from religion. Science does and has progressed. The science we have now is not the same as it was several thousands of years ago. Each generation adds to what’s known. Sometimes they reverse what was thought to be known when it’s been shown that it can’t be right. Every aspect of religion has been shown, over and over again, to be false, yet it has not changed significantly.
I don’t care if you believe in a god or even a particular religion. I do care when it’s used to control people who do not believe as you do. Religion and/or God don’t get to tell me I can’t have an abortion, or that two gay people cannot marry and get the same privileges straight people get, or that some people are inherently better than others. They don’t get to have a say in my life.
(All this is a generic you, not you Nate)
you’re totally missing Planck’s point.
No PLanck is missing the point. He’s changing the definition of faith and then claiming that science requires the same kind of faith as religion.
also, “Every aspect of religion has been shown, over and over again, to be false”
that’s a pretty broad brush you are using there.
Yes and perhaps not broad enough. If religion gets anything right, it accidental and coincidental.
Nyokki- you are right in point, but wrong in argument- like Nate said, your comment misses the point of Plank’s comment (unless I’m missing some context not included.) Science needs exactly the kind of Faith Planck talks about, as soon as it is removed from absolute mathematics
Even math requires that we have faith that the universe isn’t a place of chaos (one that defies even 1+1=2) But that’s getting to the point of silliness in a discussion taking place in a world created from math.
Religion is ridiculous, and many times dangerous, and at the best of times, right for the wrong reasons, beneficial though that may be.
But you have to have Faith, even if it’s just the faith that there IS an answer out there to hunt down, and that it is worth all the Science it takes to pursue it.
It’s not faith because we don’t know it’s true. We think it’s true; we act as if it’s true, but we don’t actually know it. That’s the very opposite of faith. Faith says it is true, even though it can’t be tested or verified. Faith is believing it is Truth. Science thinks it’s true. Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference.
Knowledge source: do some research and discover when and why the scientific method was created. (hint) It had to do with studying the first book of the Bible
Correction method: review over thousands of years still no contradictions found.
Primary selection method: if you’re accepting indoctrination, you’re not being taught Christian principles. Test the spirit hold fast to that which is true.
Reasoning method: Logic and Faith, neither mutually exclusive.
Verification method: Scientific method proving the multiple creation references written over many ages at different times in different places yet not a single contradiction or discrepancy.
Authentication method: Thousands of years of history. Archeological digs that were found only through the Bible (Hittites) etc…..
The men in white coats are looking for you.
derp derp
i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh21/madtabby66/Online/ObviousTroll.jpg