LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksScience IS a religion because those who strictly subscribe to it, have faith that only that which can be scientifically proven to exist, does exist. Completely disregarding all the unsolved mysteries of the world
Science IS a religion because those who strictly subscribe to it, have faith that only that which can be scientifically proven to exist, does exist. Completely disregarding all the unsolved mysteries of the world
but contrary to religion, science produces USEFUL results, the feedback of which turns a belief in the scientific method into more than mere blind faithOriginally Posted by WVBIG
You've never heard of someone being diagnosed with a cancerous tumor & then after prayer, the tumor mysteriously disappears?but contrary to religion, science produces USEFUL results, the feedback of which turns a belief in the scientific method into more than mere blind faith
Anecdotal evidence is always convincing...
In 1981, when I was 15, my Syrum Creatnine level was 3.9 & I was told if I didn't have a bladder bypass, I wouldn't live to be 18. I refused the surgery & relied instead on prayer. My last Syrum Creatnine level was 2.2 & I've never had dialysis
See, this doesn't convince me at all. How would prayer help? You've just replaced one unknown with another and you're left with no actual answer for the described phenomenon/outcome (assuming it is true, of course).
There is no explanation here, just a story.
This willfully and ignorantly equivocates the definition of faith.
The religious use a definition which reads, a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
The non-religious definition is, complete confidence in a person or plan etc.
Since your argument is fallacious, it, therefore, does not follow to its conclusion that "science is a religion." Particularly given that a religion involves the appeasement of a supernatural deity or agent, which has nothing to do with science.
Therefore, we can assume that your intent was to hijack a well-intended thread. Thus, your posts are removed to a more suitable venue.
on the other hand, you rarely hear of someone diagnosed with cancer & after prayer, the patient dies ? because that wouldn't reflect very well on prayer, would it now ?
when considering enough instances where someone suffers from a potentially fatal condition, a few will ultimately pull through just out of pure luck, and those lucky few will then explain their survival through some factor such as alternative medicine, prayer or the direct intervention of god - for some reason, no-one seems to want to believe in pure luck
My post was in reply to the previous post, which also had nothing to do with science being a religion. But I see IT is still there. Let me guess. Mine have been moved to the Pseudoscience forumThis willfully and ignorantly equivocates the definition of faith.
The religious use a definition which reads, a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
The non-religious definition is, complete confidence in a person or plan etc.
Since your argument is fallacious, it, therefore, does not follow to its conclusion that "science is a religion." Particularly given that a religion involves the appeasement of a supernatural deity or agent, which has nothing to do with science.
Therefore, we can assume that your intent was to hijack a well-intended thread. Thus, your posts are removed to a more suitable venue.
And how exactly can the existence of luck be proven scientifically? :?on the other hand, you rarely hear of someone diagnosed with cancer & after prayer, the patient dies ? because that wouldn't reflect very well on prayer, would it now ?
when considering enough instances where someone suffers from a potentially fatal condition, a few will ultimately pull through just out of pure luck, and those lucky few will then explain their survival through some factor such as alternative medicine, prayer or the direct intervention of god - for some reason, no-one seems to want to believe in pure luck
luck is the mere tail end of the bell curve in statistics - extremely unlikely events that given enough rolls of the dice are bound to happen
Which is more likely, that your prayers were answered or that you were misdiagnosed? Or that you have simply been lucky? Rare things aren't impossible, after all, just rare. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, aside from the fact that you can't determine how exactly a thing works (assuming it does), you also can't tell how reproducible or rare the effect is.
Put it another way, if prayer can heal in this manner, shouldn't we be able to design a scientific study which will show that? Does it make sense to you that the healing effect will work while you are looking casually but vanish when some scientists are also looking?
It's a branch of mathematics called probability. The analytical arm of which is called statistics. Scientists use these to make sense of improbable events and to distinguish significant events from randomness.And how exactly can the existence of luck be proven scientifically? :?on the other hand, you rarely hear of someone diagnosed with cancer & after prayer, the patient dies ? because that wouldn't reflect very well on prayer, would it now ?
when considering enough instances where someone suffers from a potentially fatal condition, a few will ultimately pull through just out of pure luck, and those lucky few will then explain their survival through some factor such as alternative medicine, prayer or the direct intervention of god - for some reason, no-one seems to want to believe in pure luck
In other words. Things that happen for apparently no reason? Sounds like an excuse to dismiss things science can't explain. Just like some religious people do with Biblical contradictions
Some people react differently to situations than others. If a terminally ill person is unwaivering in their faith in God, some will be moved to embrace religion if that person looks forward to death & others will be moved to embrace religion if the person has faith they will recover & then do recoverWhich is more likely, that your prayers were answered or that you were misdiagnosed? Or that you have simply been lucky? Rare things aren't impossible, after all, just rare. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, aside from the fact that you can't determine how exactly a thing works (assuming it does), you also can't tell how reproducible or rare the effect is.
Put it another way, if prayer can heal in this manner, shouldn't we be able to design a scientific study which will show that? Does it make sense to you that the healing effect will work while you are looking casually but vanish when some scientists are also looking?
You are not doing yourself any favours here WVBIG. Let me give you some background first.In other words. Things that happen for apparently no reason? Sounds like an excuse to dismiss things science can't explain. Just like some religious people do with Biblical contradictions
I have followed your posts in the Bigfoot thread with interest. I don't rule out the possibility of Bigfoot being real. I am enchanted by the idea and would be delighted by the reality. I have followed your posts there in the hope that something new might emerge in favour of Bigfoot's reality. Let me put it more briefly: "I want Bigfoot to be real."
Unfortunately I suspect he (or rather they) is/(are) not. I simply find the evidence unconvincing and - here is the point of my ramble - your presentation of the case to be flawed. I don't wish to get into the Bigfoot debate here, but to offer advice that may help your presentation in the future.
Your statement quoted above reveals an abyssmal lack of understanding of simple statistics that I think I was taught when I was twelve or thirteen, or possibly younger. If you come on a science forum and utter such stupidities you will not be taken seriously.
You do not appear to understand what a bell curve is, so I shall explain. If we take any measurement of a variable we shall find a distribution of values. This might be height of people, age at death, weight of fish caught in the Potomac. Anything at all. The typical distribution is shaped like a bell, with very few occurences of low values, rising to a maximum at some point, then falling off again. That is the way the world often works.
So if I find an example of a very short person, or a very heavy fish, I do not need to invoke some strange theory to account for it, but simply note that it is likely an outlier in the tail of the distribution curve. It is not something that needs explaining. It is not something that science cannot explain. It is not a mystert. It is a fully explained everyday observation.
You would do well to ponder these points before posting such nonsense again.
Yes indeed. This, in a nutshell, is what sampling and large scale studies are all about. We find an unusually small fish of species X. We can blithely assume that all of fish X are that size or we can take a large, representative sample to figure out if we're dealing with something that resembles the average or something rare and unusual.You are not doing yourself any favours here WVBIG. Let me give you some background first.In other words. Things that happen for apparently no reason? Sounds like an excuse to dismiss things science can't explain. Just like some religious people do with Biblical contradictions
I have followed your posts in the Bigfoot thread with interest. I don't rule out the possibility of Bigfoot being real. I am enchanted by the idea and would be delighted by the reality. I have followed your posts there in the hope that something new might emerge in favour of Bigfoot's reality. Let me put it more briefly: "I want Bigfoot to be real."
Unfortunately I suspect he (or rather they) is/(are) not. I simply find the evidence unconvincing and - here is the point of my ramble - your presentation of the case to be flawed. I don't wish to get into the Bigfoot debate here, but to offer advice that may help your presentation in the future.
Your statement quoted above reveals an abyssmal lack of understanding of simple statistics that I think I was taught when I was twelve or thirteen, or possibly younger. If you come on a science forum and utter such stupidities you will not be taken seriously.
You do not appear to understand what a bell curve is, so I shall explain. If we take any measurement of a variable we shall find a distribution of values. This might be height of people, age at death, weight of fish caught in the Potomac. Anything at all. The typical distribution is shaped like a bell, with very few occurences of low values, rising to a maximum at some point, then falling off again. That is the way the world often works.
So if I find an example of a very short person, or a very heavy fish, I do not need to invoke some strange theory to account for it, but simply note that it is likely an outlier in the tail of the distribution curve. It is not something that needs explaining. It is not something that science cannot explain. It is not a mystert. It is a fully explained everyday observation.
You would do well to ponder these points before posting such nonsense again.
And some people will "miraculously" get better despite not having any interest in God. Or will attribute it to some other God or to another unproven influence such as an alternative therapy. How do we tell what is pure chance and what is cause and effect? Statistics is a good place to start.
and YOU sound to me like someone who doesn't understand statisticsIn other words. Things that happen for apparently no reason? Sounds like an excuse to dismiss things science can't explain. Just like some religious people do with Biblical contradictions
I understand statistics. I just don't believe in a statistic dedicated to luck. I think there is an explanation for everything. I also understand what a bell curve is. Dr. Fahrenbach has compiled data that indicates most Bigfoot tracks fall within a bell curve
Considering that Bigfoots have never been shown to exist, the category of "Bigfoot Tracks" also cannot exist. Please don't label them as such.
Ok alleged Bigfoot tracks. But the fact that the data Dr. Fahrenbach has compiled indicates most of these tracks fall within a bell curve, also indicates they may be the real thingConsidering that Bigfoots have never been shown to exist, the category of "Bigfoot Tracks" also cannot exist. Please don't label them as such.
Yes and science doesn't have all the answers yet. So it may come as a surprise when something unpredicted happens, but it does not nearly imply that it cannot be explained by science ever.
True. But when an improbability pops up & science scoffs at the possibility instead of investigating it further, how can the question ever be solved? Non religious people tend to try to explain away near death experiences as temperal lobe seizures. The problem with this is not all near death experiences are the same. Some people see the bright light, some see hellish things, & others never realize they were technically clinically dead until they are revived & told they were. So the experience is like a dreamless sleepYes and science doesn't have all the answers yet. So it may come as a surprise when something unpredicted happens, but it does not nearly imply that it cannot be explained by science ever.
1. Measurements cannot 'fall within' a bell curve. At least try to get the terminology right.
2. Which aspects of bigfoot tracks show a Gaussian distribution?
3. How many data are these conclusions based upon?
These two questions are not intended to develop the Bigfoot discussion here, but to explore your understanding of statistics. You have claimed you understand it, yet the next quote calls it into serious doubt. So I'd like to see some evidence that you do understand. So far all the evidence points the other way.
There is no such thing as luck. There is chance. And there is variability. The uneducated, the unsophisticated and the superstitious often confuse chance events with luck. In that respect statistics is a means of quantifying 'luck'. If you do not believe that statistics can do this then you do not understand statistics.
But that is the difference, you see. Religious people almost automatically credit prayer and God for the amazing recovery or the existence of an afterlife for near death experiences, while other more ordinary explanations are much more likely and are investigated afterwards. People experience all kinds of hallucinations, even while awake, and not necessarily due to mental illness. It is a well documented fact that low oxygen levels in the blood can cause hallucinations and the nature of the hallucinations can vary according to what the person is thinking about or the environment (people talking in the background, random sounds) or more simply might be one of a bright light or feelings of comfort and content, or fear and distress. A bunch of other factors might come into it as well, like drugs the dying might have been given by hospital staff or high levels of toxins that might be in the blood due to organ failure, etc, etc. Also, don't discard counter examples of people that experienced nothing while dying, people who never recovered even after thousands of prayers or recovered from terminal illness while entertaining zero or alternate faith in a God, as has been mentioned.True. But when an improbability pops up & science scoffs at the possibility instead of investigating it further, how can the question ever be solved? Non religious people tend to try to explain away near death experiences as temperal lobe seizures. The problem with this is not all near death experiences are the same. Some people see the bright light, some see hellish things, & others never realize they were technically clinically dead until they are revived & told they were. So the experience is like a dreamless sleepYes and science doesn't have all the answers yet. So it may come as a surprise when something unpredicted happens, but it does not nearly imply that it cannot be explained by science ever.
WVBig's initial argument was that "Science is a Religion."
Is he now recanting or retracting this assertion or is he willing to support the conclusion with sound premises?
I blinked away six months of my life(post mordem). I still say it was brain inactivity and a long recuperation of my short term memory's ability to transfer to long term. I made a full recovery though, and still have no desire to bow before some unseen deityTrue. But when an improbability pops up & science scoffs at the possibility instead of investigating it further, how can the question ever be solved? Non religious people tend to try to explain away near death experiences as temperal lobe seizures. The problem with this is not all near death experiences are the same. Some people see the bright light, some see hellish things, & others never realize they were technically clinically dead until they are revived & told they were. So the experience is like a dreamless sleepYes and science doesn't have all the answers yet. So it may come as a surprise when something unpredicted happens, but it does not nearly imply that it cannot be explained by science ever.
Again, don't make the same mistake by assuming the real thing, nothing indicates it may be such. Many turn up to be hoaxes.
It certainly does not indicate that. If they were all hoaxes, then they would only not show a bell curve if they all used the same print. To think that would be silly.Ok alleged Bigfoot tracks. But the fact that the data Dr. Fahrenbach has compiled indicates most of these tracks fall within a bell curve, also indicates they may be the real thingConsidering that Bigfoots have never been shown to exist, the category of "Bigfoot Tracks" also cannot exist. Please don't label them as such.
Before we can start talking about the statistical significance of footprints, perhaps it would be helpful to first define what data are used for the statistics. Simply stating "most Bigfoot tracks fall within a bell curve" is meaningless. It could simply mean that some are big, some are small, but most are medium-sized. It says nothing about "bigfoot" or any other mythical being.
I have a feeling it means just that, a few are small, a few are giant, most are medium, and probably that's also true of the other traits of the alleged foot prints as well. If they were modelled after Human feet, it stands to reason that, most likely, they are all proportional to a human foot print. If they are all proportional, then it says that the most common size foot used to make a bigfoot print is a medium sized fake, instead of a giant or small sized fake.
Yeah... and there's a UFO in my backyard.
And now for something completely different!
Science is a man made system. Proof is simply the common acceptance of an idea. All we can almost definitely say is that science shows things to be untrue. Yet, this is still only our observation of a small number of events. We have faith that these observations will hold true forever.
I would say that if science were a religion, proof would be it's nonexistent deity.
Useful? Can science tell me what makes something useful?
If "useful" is subjective that both science and religion produce useful results.
If proof is the common acceptance of an idea than I suppose we have found proof of God. Boy, that was far too easy.
"If there were no God it would be necessary to invent him." -Voltaire
no, science doesn't tell you whether something is or will be useful
what i was using was the very vernacular meaning of useful, as in the sense of "it's useful that i have a vacuum cleaner, rather than trying to clean the house with a dustpan and brush"
science has provided us with a number of these useful tools, something that can't be said of religion - praying hasn't done one iota to lighten my workload, using the proper tools, on the other hand, has
The point is you are biased in your use of the word "useful". You find things of scientific nature useful and things of religious nature not useful. However, if you were a religious person it might well be the other way around. You can't base an argument on a biased opinion of an idea. Though, I suppose that's what most "creationists" might do. Still, it doesn't work.
I find this computer is useful for communication and I find the Bible to be full of useful knowledge (mostly for the purpose of arguing against it I must admit).
That doesn't make these things useful to others.
if you were to list all the items that many people find useful, such as computers, planes, electricity, lasers, glasses, etc. you'll find that the application of science created them
now it may be true that usefulness is subjective but given sufficient numbers you achieve some kind of inter-subjective objectivity
I can think of only one common place for the statement of "Science is Religion": which is human mind. Other than this, science is not religion. Science denies to deal with untestable ("untestable therefore can not be proven"). Religion deals with untestable. They both require a degree of devotion from human imagination and thoughts, since they were both the products of human mind. But human mind is an ape mind, and it can devote itself everything which are not necessarily scientific or religious: Games, sex, strategy, dreams, gadgets, stories, music, money, tattoos, animals, swimming, fishing, just name it.
Science is a human endeavour.
Those who 'strictly suscribe to it'? I guess I don't fit that definition b/c I don't subscribe to the statement that follows that comment. 'completely disregarding the unresolved mysteries of the world', please, there would be no scientists if people disregarded the mysteries, scientists look for mysteries, then try to solve them. Nor do I have faith in science, only I think that if all we see around us is real, then science and observation are the best ways, but not the only ways, to find the truth. If what's around is not real, then either there's no point trying or I'll find evidence of this fact.
Plus I don't think science can rule out bigfoot (science is observation not lack of it) but possibly statistics could (I personally don't think it's real but if it is real it won't radically change my view of the world). If I'm not mistaken I think apes were once considered an animist myth.
I'm a research scientist.
I strictly adhere to it.
I don't believe in science though. So how can it be religion?
I know all the shit associated with science. It doesn't rank high on the moral ladder with me.
if you don't have a subscription to Science, is one to Nature OK then ?
I work in a hospital where almost everyone in there is on their way out... People pray all the time for their sick in hopes that "god" will make things better. The truth is it doesn't mean anything... In fact they have done studies on this. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1072638.ece
Yeah it's sad to see a 95 yr old screaming out god help me, I don't want to die, but they only yell out "god" because it is all they have been taught. If they had grown up in another country or believed in a different cultural practice they would be yelling out allah, buddha, or krishna... Sometimes the fear of death is all we need to overcome many things, and sometimes the fear of death is what consumes us, or maybe our cells are done with us and there is nothing we can do.
Hey we need research scientists here in Texas.
pfft. I already was in Florida once as a researcher. I didn't last long. I heard that Texas is even worse than florida.
Although I would like to have a gun collection though.
Lexicon is hiring, they were voted best place to work 2008 according to The Scientist... Ya know just a thought. Florida? I know of lots of places but most have a hiring freeze, but not good ole Texas where the oil flows like molten rock
I'm not a total pathetic loser. I have a job.
Ok.
I even have a wife.
Imagine that.
Yeah imagine that... I think most people over the age of 25, will most likely be married.
don't forget to mention your children and grandchildren - and the hamster
Never trust a research scientist with a pet hampster.don't forget to mention your children and grandchildren - and the hamster
It is rubbish to say religion does no produce useful result.but contrary to religion, science produces USEFUL results, the feedback of which turns a belief in the scientific method into more than mere blind faith
Religion does not mean a disregard of science.
Science has killed billions of people, with swords, spears, gunpowder, explosives and nuclear bombs. Were all those kille by science 'useful results'?
Only in the mind of a madman blinded by science.
Allah is just a different name for God, people have different langauges you know.
I note they were not yelling out to you, you sound a horrible person to be around the sick, it is disgusting that you work in a hospital.
I doubt you will live to be 95 though, you make not make half that age.
You think you are smart but you are a fool, God help yyou when you get ill.
You will be in for a shock.
It is time you changed.
Don't be a fool all your life.
There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you will live forever on Earth.
And how do you know the prayer did not help them?
Can you say for sure they went to Hell, I am petty certain that is where you are heading.
For all their airs and graces and studies some scientists are among the least intelligent people on the planet, that study you give is and an example, I would use the word 'retard' but that would be an insult to many people who are consider by society as 'retarded'.
it's a sad but true fact of life that science has made its greatest strides during times of war - but that was only because of the political will to throw money at science to advance the war effort
funny enough though many of those war inventions have subsequently found good peaceful application (ever been in a plane that has to land under poor visibility ? ever wondered when radar was perfected so that it could be used for this purpose ?)
at least no-one has gone to war in the name of science - something that can't be said about religion
most likely divorced.
'There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you will live forever on Earth.
And how do you know the prayer did not help them?
Can you say for sure they went to Hell, I am petty certain that is where you are heading.
For all their airs and graces and studies some scientists are among the least intelligent people on the planet, that study you give is and an example, I would use the word 'retard' but that would be an insult to many people who are consider by society as 'retarded'.
There is no hell in the bible.
[quote="esbo"]
Allah is just a different name for God, people have different langauges you know.
Yeah... I am pretty sure I know more about Islam then you ever will. Period. P.S I speak five languages, and Arabic is one of them
I note they were not yelling out to you, you sound a horrible person to be around the sick, it is disgusting that you work in a hospital.
I am a very compassionate person, it is often my hand that is held when someone takes their last breath, and reguardless of the religion they practice I will pray with them because I know it gives them solace. The fact that I am in touch with reality is whats sets me apart from ignorant, judgemental people like you. From what you have posted so far, it is clear you lack the ability to fully comprehend a simple post, and it's intentions. You have misconstrued the point, and you are abusive. Congrats, I bet you consider yourself a "religious" person.
I doubt you will live to be 95 though, you make not make half that age.
Given my glorious genetic code, you are most likely right, but again I am in touch with reality, and thank science! I now know what I need to do to stay as healthy as possible.
You think you are smart but you are a fool, God help yyou when you get ill.
I don't think I am smart, I know I am :wink: I think if you spent more with your face in a science book you too may gain some insight of this wonderful world we live in. I have been ill many times, that is life... I have lost family, pets, and people I cared for deeply, but life goes on. How you look at your future is all that matters, you make a choice everyday what you will do, and what impact you will have, hopefully yours will be more positive. You seem very angry, are you sure the religion you believe in is peaceful?
You will be in for a shock.
What shock? Am I supposed to be scared? Are you trying to use fear tactics? Come on really? I think the only person here who needs to learn how to be a better person is you.
It is time you changed.
No... I think it is time you changed, it seems it is you who has been living beneath a shroud of delusion, anger, hate.
Don't be a fool all your life
Insinuations get you nowhere.
Then I am doing good I have been married for 8 years!!!most likely divorced.
There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you will live forever on Earth.
And how do you know the prayer did not help them?
Can you say for sure they went to Hell, I am petty certain that is where you are heading.
Since when did you gain the ability to prognosticate the future?
For all their airs and graces and studies some scientists are among the least intelligent people on the planet, that study you give is and an example, I would use the word 'retard' but that would be an insult to many people who are consider by society as 'retarded'.
Do me a favor, read what you typed above and tell me how many mistakes you made. When you are done with that I would like you to define retarded. Then define yourself, and tell me who now has obtuse perceptions.
No. Science has only provided us with the tools to do as we wish. It is wrong to say science has killed billions of people. People killed billions of people; they only made use of science to do it better. Science was only used because it did things better; it has never once asked anyone to kill someone else. It has only ever been a tool, and not a mastermind ordering people to kill each other.It is rubbish to say religion does no produce useful result.
Religion does not mean a disregard of science.
Science has killed billions of people, with swords, spears, gunpowder, explosives and nuclear bombs. Were all those kille by science 'useful results'?
Only in the mind of a madman blinded by science.
Contrast that with religion. The Catholic Church, for example, had no problem with the Crusades; it actually encouraged it, and started it in the first place. It had no problem with the Salem witch trials; it had no problem in sending missionaries to convert people, often by denouncing the people's own religion. Religion, in fact, has asked people to massacre each other because they worship different gods.
I would say anything which drives people to kill each other is far more dangerous than something people make use of as an advantage in battle.
it's a well-known statistic that divorce rates reach a peak after about 8 years of marriage
When does it slope or does it ever ? :/it's a well-known statistic that divorce rates reach a peak after about 8 years of marriage
LOL what do I do????
Just ignore everyone and live your life happily with your husband because you both have a long way to go !!
^_^
I don't have or desire a husband. Call me ungay if you want.
ungay !
Unless, of course, you believe in God.
now it may be true that usefulness is subjective but given sufficient numbers you achieve some kind of inter-subjective objectivity[/quote]
"Inter-subjective objectivity", right, there's that too.
If science is an invention of our own that it would make sense that things we make using science would be considered useful to us.
Would it be safe to say that science and religion are both man-made practices/disciplines?
don't know whether it's safe to say so, but it certainly is true
however, not all human endeavours are of the same kind, hence i don't see any need to equate one with an another - surgery is another human invention, but you don't hear people say that surgery is religion (unless you're a surgeon, of course)
what ungay ??
or does it mean that a person who's not a gay !!
Is that what it means ??
yep
and an ungulate is the same as a non-gulate
Nobody ever went to war in the name of religion, all wars are fought over worldly things such as money and land, land being the main interest, it's a lie to say anyway ever has been fought over religion co sit ain't true. Every war is fought over the control of land on earth not in heaven.it's a sad but true fact of life that science has made its greatest strides during times of war - but that was only because of the political will to throw money at science to advance the war effort
funny enough though many of those war inventions have subsequently found good peaceful application (ever been in a plane that has to land under poor visibility ? ever wondered when radar was perfected so that it could be used for this purpose ?)
at least no-one has gone to war in the name of science - something that can't be said about religion
Science has been the cause of a lot of wars becaause a country thinks it has a scientific edge over another country and so it goes on the slaughter.
Happens everyewhere, the USA was aginst the natiiive Indians aand many British empire wars against natives, all wars are caused by science.
So you is 100% wrong.
All wars are scientific wars based on the science of wealth and money.
It is mentioned numerous times.'There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you will live forever on Earth.
And how do you know the prayer did not help them?
Can you say for sure they went to Hell, I am petty certain that is where you are heading.
For all their airs and graces and studies some scientists are among the least intelligent people on the planet, that study you give is and an example, I would use the word 'retard' but that would be an insult to many people who are consider by society as 'retarded'.
There is no hell in the bible.
That's a fact, is it? What about the crusades?
[quote="Sfere"]You are an idiot a fool and a liar. Not much point replying to someone with your mentality, you earlier posts betray your personalilty.Any anyway I know what you are and so do you so we are in agrement there.Allah is just a different name for God, people have different langauges you know.
Yeah... I am pretty sure I know more about Islam then you ever will. Period. P.S I speak five languages, and Arabic is one of them
I note they were not yelling out to you, you sound a horrible person to be around the sick, it is disgusting that you work in a hospital.
I am a very compassionate person, it is often my hand that is held when someone takes their last breath, and reguardless of the religion they practice I will pray with them because I know it gives them solace. The fact that I am in touch with reality is whats sets me apart from ignorant, judgemental people like you. From what you have posted so far, it is clear you lack the ability to fully comprehend a simple post, and it's intentions. You have misconstrued the point, and you are abusive. Congrats, I bet you consider yourself a "religious" person.
I doubt you will live to be 95 though, you make not make half that age.
Given my glorious genetic code, you are most likely right, but again I am in touch with reality, and thank science! I now know what I need to do to stay as healthy as possible.
You think you are smart but you are a fool, God help yyou when you get ill.
I don't think I am smart, I know I am :wink: I think if you spent more with your face in a science book you too may gain some insight of this wonderful world we live in. I have been ill many times, that is life... I have lost family, pets, and people I cared for deeply, but life goes on. How you look at your future is all that matters, you make a choice everyday what you will do, and what impact you will have, hopefully yours will be more positive. You seem very angry, are you sure the religion you believe in is peaceful?
You will be in for a shock.
What shock? Am I supposed to be scared? Are you trying to use fear tactics? Come on really? I think the only person here who needs to learn how to be a better person is you.
It is time you changed.
No... I think it is time you changed, it seems it is you who has been living beneath a shroud of delusion, anger, hate.
Don't be a fool all your life
Insinuations get you nowhere.
There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you will live forever on Earth.
And how do you know the prayer did not help them?
Can you say for sure they went to Hell, I am petty certain that is where you are heading.
Since when did you gain the ability to prognosticate the future?
from an early age
For all their airs and graces and studies some scientists are among the least intelligent people on the planet, that study you give is and an example, I would use the word 'retard' but that would be an insult to many people who are consider by society as 'retarded'.
Do me a favor, read what you typed above and tell me how many mistakes you made. When you are done with that I would like you to define retarded. Then define yourself, and tell me who now has obtuse perceptions.
The only mistake i made was responding to an evil ignorant liar. I note also you were unable to respond to the main thrust of my post - you failed.
Spotting the odd typing error does not excuse you total failure to respond, the real reason is you can't because I am right and you are wrong. Try admitting if you can find it within you.
I have already explained all wars are a s cientific land grab and how science causes all of them, see my previous response to someone.
God made the world mankind and hence science, everything you attribute to science you attribute to God.don't know whether it's safe to say so, but it certainly is true
however, not all human endeavours are of the same kind, hence i don't see any need to equate one with an another - surgery is another human invention, but you don't hear people say that surgery is religion (unless you're a surgeon, of course)
Might I say, esbo, you do a good job in spreading your beliefs. I'm sure everyone dreams one day of being an angry, arrogant and abusive person because of their beliefs. Good job!
Land grab (re-grab)That's a fact, is it? What about the crusades?
I'm afraid not. No land was taken.Land grab (re-grab)That's a fact, is it? What about the crusades?
i've said it before and i'll say it again : those who prepare to commit genocide first make out that their intended victims are somehow less than human, and therefore it's ok to kill and maim them - you're having a nice first stab at making out that sfere is below you, and therefore it's ok to summarily dismiss everything she said out of hand ? next step a re-education camp ?
Stop being an asshole turtle, there is nothing in your post but abuse, what a hypocrite you are.
What garbage you speak the biggest genocides in the world are atheits, hitler lenin pol pot etc.i've said it before and i'll say it again : those who prepare to commit genocide first make out that their intended victims are somehow less than human, and therefore it's ok to kill and maim them - you're having a nice first stab at making out that sfere is below you, and therefore it's ok to summarily dismiss everything she said out of hand ? next step a re-education camp ?
So what was theri excuse, they were just plain murderers they knew their victims were humman it made no difference.
Again the big genocides crried out by atheists in the name of science, Hitler is a perfect example with his killing regeime inspired by science.
6 million Jews gassed for scientific reasons.
i did not say a single word about whether the genocides were inspired by atheism or not - i was merely stating that, independent of their religious (dis)inclination, people intent on genocide have first denied their intended victims the right of having their opinions heard "because they were not fully human"
you, my dear friend, are hovering quite close to that line - you're unwilling to listen to sfere's arguments because of what you perceive her to be, and in doing so, you deny her one basic human right, and that is the right to be heard
Ditto.Stop being an asshole turtle, there is nothing in your post but abuse, what a hypocrite you are.
Again that's rubbish as I have heard what she has said/posted, it is pointles argueing with someone who is clearly one thing but then professes to be another.
Consider the following two statements:-
"I will pray with them because I know it gives them solace"
"People pray all the time for their sick in hopes that "god" will make things better. The truth is it doesn't mean anything.."
On accepts that prayer will give them solace but then posts on a public board so say that it "doesn't mean anything" to deny them solace.
So there you have it, an uncaring and unworthy person, who would take away any hope a dying person has. That's pretty sick in my book.
A hypoctite just like yourself, so don't use the.
patronising "my friend" with me, you are no friend of mine.
That's absurd. Science doesn't say "something doesn't exist until it can be proven." The whole idea of science is to not make any assumptions for or against the existence of any object or concept without evidence pointing to one of the only two options. It doesn't require faith it requires comprehension. It doesn't disregard the unsolved mysteries of the world, it just says that they may or may not be true and we don't know until we gather evidence for or against them by experimenting and gathering data.
Does science say ghosts don't exist? No, it says there is currently no evidence to support the existence of ghosts. Does it say spontaneous human combustion is impossible? No, it says there is a lack of evidence supporting the idea that such a phenomenon occurs.
Science IS NOT a religion, it's designed to eliminate faith based assumptions regarding the truth of the universe.
Science is merely a process of observing the universe and recording events thats all. A process of discovering how little we know about the world.That's absurd. Science doesn't say "something doesn't exist until it can be proven." The whole idea of science is to not make any assumptions for or against the existence of any object or concept without evidence pointing to one of the only two options. It doesn't require faith it requires comprehension. It doesn't disregard the unsolved mysteries of the world, it just says that they may or may not be true and we don't know until we gather evidence for or against them by experimenting and gathering data.
Does science say ghosts don't exist? No, it says there is currently no evidence to support the existence of ghosts. Does it say spontaneous human combustion is impossible? No, it says there is a lack of evidence supporting the idea that such a phenomenon occurs.
Science IS NOT a religion, it's designed to eliminate faith based assumptions regarding the truth of the universe.
Maybe so. But at least it deals with knowledge rather than belief.
What does the "Holy" stand for in the phrase, "Holy Wars?" What does the phrase mean?
Or, have you never seen this phrase before?
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
yeah, Hitler killed in the name of God, not science... But, ironically, he did make advancements in medicine through his treating of Jews and 'undesirables'.
You could call it 'making the best of the mess that results from religion'.
I'm not really helping the arguement, am I?
It was just a land grab between states with different religions.What does the "Holy" stand for in the phrase, "Holy Wars?" What does the phrase mean?
Or, have you never seen this phrase before?
What was holy about world war one or world war two where the greatest number of deaths occurred, or indeed about every single one of the other wars. They were all unhily warss, atheits land grabs.
Yeah, you're right, I can't see how religion was involved at all.The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe. The specific crusades to regain control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.[1]
The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[a] usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication[2] for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[3] Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope.[4] The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.[5]
[quote="drowsy turtle"]
Yeah, you're right, I can't see how religion was involved at all.
Of course you can't beause itthey were battles over land an terrority and who controled it. The fighting was over land not religion there was no aempt to eradicate the religions, except perhaps in the land they were ighting for.
You could say WWII was a battle over the German language.
I could say that every war over the last 5000 years was caused by the increasing price of turnips. So what?
Whether or not religion was the main reason for the war, it was invariable a cause.
I would argue it was a major one.
And it's the only reason for much of the terrorism we see worldwide today, as proclaimed by the terrorists themselves usually.
Bullshit. The Crusades were fought for one reason and one reason alone; to take the Holy City of Jerusalem from the hands of the "heathen Muslims" and return it to Christian control. It was fought in the name of and for Christianity.Land grab (re-grab)That's a fact, is it? What about the crusades?
And what about the Crusades against the Norse Pagans in Lithuania and Germania? No land was even taken in those Crusades. The Teutons were sent in to either convert the pagans to Christianity or kill them. And what about the Spanish Inquisition? That was genocide committed in the name of Christianity.
And what about all the wars fought by the Arabs in Africa? What about the Reconquista? The Jewish-Roman War? The French Wars of Religion? The Thirty Years War? The Taiping Rebellion? The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947? The Yellow Scarves Rebellion? The White Lotus Rebellion? The Arab Israeli War? The Sikh Uprising?
To say no wars have ever been fought in the name of religion is foolish. Most wars have been fought in the name of religion. Learn some history.
i was merely being polite - something you obviously feel is not worth attempting on a forum
i also make a note of how quick you are to jump to the conclusion of calling someone a hypocrite after a mere couple of posts
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
Hitler as no Christian, his religin was Darwinism and the Nazi party.
He would of course use anything to justify his actions.
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity ... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
[Quoted from Hitler's "Table Talks" with Bormann,
| « "Future IT" | Symphony of flight » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
