Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Off Topic

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-01-2012, 06:26 PM   #151
sandorski
No Lifer
 
sandorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 56,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DixyCrat View Post
If you're walking with God then there is a spirit of caring that dwells within you; The love that you show is something that goes beyond what game-theory models predict regarding altruism. This other-loving mindset teaches you a lot about yourself and how you interact with others when not dwelling within such a spirit.

It is also the only appropriate way to engage scripture, because biblical hermeneutics is something that allows you to pull just about whatever you want out of a black-hole of meaning. Without a heart set toward ethical answer-ability you will pull from the bible the other-hurting/self-serving that you bring to it.

This has EVERYTHING to do with hate for homosexuals and justifying war: If the folks that read the teachings of Jesus were in the Spirit then they wouldn't conclude hate-filled and murderous things when they read what Jesus said.
Those people are as convinced of being "in the Spirit" as you and are perplexed as to how you can claim being "in the Spirit" at all. Being "in the Spirit" is really just stating Opinion then adding an Appeal to Authority to it.
__________________

FX 8320@4ghz||Zalman LQ310||AsusM5A99X EVO R2
||XFX 5870 1gb||16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3||Seasonic M12 II 500watts||Zalman Z9 Plus||Asus MS238H

Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow, Fundamentalism wants us to die.
sandorski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 12:32 AM   #152
Pray To Jesus
Diamond Member
 
Pray To Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,528
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RampantAndroid View Post
What you mean to say is "that doesn't make sense so....GOD WILLED IT!"

/facepalm
That's not what I said. I said that it makes sense to me because of the Holy Spirit.

Bible also says exactly that.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
6 But we speak wisdom among the mature, though not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are brought to nothing.
7 But we speak God's wisdom as a mystery, which has been hidden, which God foreordained from eternity for our glory.
8 Which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,
9 But as it is written:
"Things which no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
Nor conceived in the heart of man,
How much God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But1 God has revealed these things to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man that is within him? So also, no one comprehends the things of God, except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God.
13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things with spiritual things.
14 But a natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God2; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But, on the one hand, the spiritual man judges all things3, while on the other, he is judged by no one.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, who will instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Pray To Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 03:32 PM   #153
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote the bible all you like, it's a bunch of fiction combined with a few facts from history. I'll go online and read about Xanadu. Err, I me Xenu. Equally as real and believable.

You're as bad as my mother...people like you cannot be reasoned with because, clearly the bible is right and no evidence showing that it lied or gets things wrong is just people trying to tempt you or something.
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 03:52 PM   #154
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RampantAndroid View Post
Quote the bible all you like, it's a bunch of fiction combined with a few facts from history.
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

EDIT: I recall you saying you went to a Catholic Church or something while young. Sorry, but I thing you've been lied to. Shucks, don't blame the Bible though, it didn't lie to you. Your priests did. Blame them.

Just saying,...

Last edited by Retro Rob; 11-02-2012 at 04:05 PM.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:05 PM   #155
Cerpin Taxt
Diamond Member
 
Cerpin Taxt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?
For the same reasons we don't believe that Homer's Iliad is history - it describes events that appear inconsistent with reality.


Quote:
Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.
It has some, sure. If I told you I caught a 300lb trout in the creek down by the old oak tree, however, the existence of the oak doesn't prove that the fish ever existed.
__________________
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." ~ Arthur C. Clarke.

Always nice to meet another solipsist...
Cerpin Taxt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:09 PM   #156
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
 
AnonymouseUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 8,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.
__________________
NSA Homeland Security PRISM Denial of service Malware Trojan Keylogger Cyber Command
2600 Backpack Phishing Rootkit Agro Eco terrorism Conventional weapon
Target Weapons grade Dirty bomb Enriched Nuclear Chemical Biological weapon Black out
Pressure Cooker Grid Power Smart Body scanner Electric Failure Ammonium nitrate Brown Out
Bridge Organized crime National security State emergency Security Breach Threat Standoff
SWAT Screening Virus Environmental Terrorist Dock
AnonymouseUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:25 PM   #157
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt View Post
For the same reasons we don't believe that Homer's Iliad is history - it describes events that appear inconsistent with reality.
Without injecting old-mind sets, it probably was out of the realm of reality that the earth was flat. And I am pretty sure those guys thought they were at the pinnacle of scientific reasoning as we think we are, with unlimited potential, which I agree with.

I say that to say this, it would behoove us not to simply dismiss something that has yet been observed or what seems un-observable.

EDIT: Are you rejecting the notion that someday science could cure sickness or old-age? For what I've read, though it seem nearly impossible, it's a well accepted possibility someday.

Correct me if I am wrong here, Taxt, but isn't the whole basis of science to do what was undo-able? See what's unseeable. Discover the undiscoverable?





Quote:
It has some, sure. If I told you I caught 300lb trout in the creek down by the old oak tree, however, the existence of the oak doesn't prove that the fish ever existed.
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to find out. If you go fish the creek, you may see one.

But honestly, it makes some hard or impossible to believe claims. I think we say it's "not reality" is because we can't replicate it. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

Last edited by Retro Rob; 11-02-2012 at 04:38 PM.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:28 PM   #158
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser View Post
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.
Hey. I read that and it does. I love vamps!!!
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:45 PM   #159
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser View Post
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.

too add, this is typical of a person who didn't get what he wanted or expected out of religion. Some blame lies with them, true, but also shovel some of that back into your own pile of rubbish.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:46 PM   #160
pelov
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,512
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Childs View Post
hahahahaha "Is this 911? John Travolta just stroked my shaft, call the president!"
pelov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:44 PM   #161
Pulsar
Diamond Member
 
Pulsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Without injecting old-mind sets, it probably was out of the realm of reality that the earth was flat. And I am pretty sure those guys thought they were at the pinnacle of scientific reasoning as we think we are, with unlimited potential, which I agree with.

I say that to say this, it would behoove us not to simply dismiss something that has yet been observed or what seems un-observable.

EDIT: Are you rejecting the notion that someday science could cure sickness or old-age? For what I've read, though it seem nearly impossible, it's a well accepted possibility someday.

Correct me if I am wrong here, Taxt, but isn't the whole basis of science to do what was undo-able? See what's unseeable. Discover the undiscoverable?

No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to find out. If you go fish the creek, you may see one.

But honestly, it makes some hard or impossible to believe claims. I think we say it's "not reality" is because we can't replicate it. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence. There are facts that lead us to believe that we will continue to make strides and may eventually wipe out illness.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no factual background, no provable tests, that there is a god. You keep suggesting we keep an open mind. Yet if I keep an open mind and believe that I'm going to start pooping pink unicorns tomorrow, that doesn't make it true. There is an exactly equal number of facts supporting God.

There is no provable evidence to support God's existence. No repeatable tests. That is the entire non-rational basis of the existence of God. More specifically, the argument that you have to take God 'on faith' is circular and self sustaining.

This is the forth or fifth time you've tried to re-define what science is. You really need to look up the Scientific process and understand it.

Science and God are incompatible. Science is the antithesis of faith, and no amount of word-smithing can change that. The "Theory of God" fails every single scientific test you can throw at it. Prayer fails. Miracles fail. On and on.

To sum this all up: true scientists don't think about God, because there is absolutely no reason to think about something that is absolutely untestable or unprovable. It has nothing to do with keeping an open mind.

Last edited by Pulsar; 11-02-2012 at 05:52 PM.
Pulsar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:48 PM   #162
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

EDIT: I recall you saying you went to a Catholic Church or something while young. Sorry, but I thing you've been lied to. Shucks, don't blame the Bible though, it didn't lie to you. Your priests did. Blame them.

Just saying,...
Been lied to? wth? I read the entire god forsaken piece of crap bible. You are either a real lunatic, or a really good troll.

The bible has very little merit. The walls of Jericho - they'd been rebuilt numerous times, they didn't fall just ONE time. There's evidence of a flood, but zero evidence of an ark. I believe in things like history books because they cite sources. Sources like texts from the time, paintings, ruins found. We understand things like the various forms of Egyptian language, script and Hieroglyph - because of the Rosetta Stone. There's so much out there to find and understand from writings of the time. Much of what we know of the Roman empire is from writers of the time. Just go read up on Nero for example to find all the references. Much of history is based on hard evidence. This changes as new evidence surfaces at times, but regardless it's hard evidence.

The bible is based loosely on things that happened in certain time periods, but nothing supports the walls of Jericho coming down because an army marched around it, everything supports earthquakes. I'll say it again: religion is based on faith, which is believing without evidence. If you doubt me, I'll cite the bible. Again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
Troll troll troll your boat....
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:51 PM   #163
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulsar View Post
Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence.

That situation is entirely different than stating there is a god. There is no provable evidence. No repeatable tests. That is the entire non-rational basis of the existence of God. More specifically, the argument that you have to take God 'on faith' is circular and self sustaining.

This is the forth or fifth time you've tried to re-define what science is. You really need to look up the Scientific process and understand it.

Science and God are incompatible. Science is the antithesis of faith, and no amount of word-smithing can change that. The "Theory of God" fails every single scientific test you can throw at it. Prayer fails. Miracles fail. On and on.
This - science is about advancing our understanding and using that new understanding to create new stuff, or as a basis for further questions and answers. It has NOTHING to do with the "un-doable" beyond the fact that showing someone from 200 years ago the ability to take a pill and have a headache go away would seem like magic.
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:56 PM   #164
amish
Diamond Member
 
amish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,295
Default

"15 But, on the one hand, the spiritual man judges all things3, while on the other, he is judged by no one."

whatever happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged."

it just seems like a total hypocrisy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOfSheffield
And i have never, EVER been a member of any army.
amish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:13 PM   #165
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulsar View Post
Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence. There are facts that lead us to believe that we will continue to make strides and may eventually wipe out illness.
Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence. True, the evidence we have does indeed give us faith in what science can do.

I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude. Should I use this evidence to argue that the misuse of science (generally speaking) will ultimately result in the destruction of our race as humans? Many non-religious people believe this. I for one, don't. I can make a valid argument for that.

Evidence doesn't hold as much weight as what we choose to accept/reject. Giving just one side of science is convenient, and disillusional





Quote:
On the other hand, there is absolutely no factual background, no provable tests, that there is a god. You keep suggesting we keep an open mind. Yet if I keep an open mind and believe that I'm going to start pooping pink unicorns tomorrow, that doesn't make it true. There is an exactly equal number of facts supporting God.
So you say...
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:21 PM   #166
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence.
And I circle back to this whole nonsense of "you must believe without seeing." This is why you can't argue with Religious nuts. No matter what you show, they must believe because god said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
So you say...
Then provide evidence, or go sit in the corner and be quiet and accept that you believe in ghosts.
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:25 PM   #167
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RampantAndroid View Post
And I circle back to this whole nonsense of "you must believe without seeing." This is why you can't argue with Religious nuts. No matter what you show, they must believe because god said so.
So, can you see the future? No, but do you believe in the future science gives you? Yes.

So, you believe without seeing, right?




Quote:
Then provide evidence, or go sit in the corner and be quiet and accept that you believe in ghosts.
I will, if you'll consider it.

What do ya say?
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:49 PM   #168
Mr. Pedantic
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence. True, the evidence we have does indeed give us faith in what science can do.

I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude. Should I use this evidence to argue that the misuse of science (generally speaking) will ultimately result in the destruction of our race as humans? Many non-religious people believe this. I for one, don't. I can make a valid argument for that.

Evidence doesn't hold as much weight as what we choose to accept/reject. Giving just one side of science is convenient, and disillusional
Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The strength of said evidence just depends on how well you've been looking.
Mr. Pedantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 07:01 PM   #169
amish
Diamond Member
 
amish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude
I wonder how many died in the name of science verse the vast amount of people that have died in the name of any religion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOfSheffield
And i have never, EVER been a member of any army.
amish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 07:08 PM   #170
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amish View Post
I wonder how many died in the name of science verse the vast amount of people that have died in the name of any religion.
Nice way to twist my words. I didn't say " in the name of science". I said due to the misuse of science.

Both numbers are astronomical.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 07:10 PM   #171
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic View Post
Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The strength of said evidence just depends on how well you've been looking.
Hmmmm... I see.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 07:59 PM   #172
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
So, can you see the future? No, but do you believe in the future science gives you? Yes.

So, you believe without seeing, right?
I believe in a trend. It's that simple. In the last 100 years we went from punch cards being used in the census to computers that can do billions of floating point math operations per second. We went from amputating legs to treating wounds and preventing gangrene, and when needed creating prostheses. We came to understand a lot about cancer and can treat it. We can image a baby in the wound. We went from Goddard suggesting that man might set foot on the moon in the 1910s and being laughed at (by the Smithsonian among many!) to the Smithsonian displaying equipment used to go to the moon, and sending a probe to the outer reaches of the solar system.

I can keep going, but my point is quite simply, I can extrapolate that within a period of time, we will need a new way to make CPUs because the limit of the size of the transistor is the size of the electron, in basic terms. I can extrapolate that we will continue to advance, and so forth. You however...just quote bible verses from what I've seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
I will, if you'll consider it.

What do ya say?
I'd LOVE to consider it. Let's go.
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 08:01 PM   #173
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
 
RampantAndroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Nice way to twist my words. I didn't say " in the name of science". I said due to the misuse of science.

Both numbers are astronomical.
Misuse of science? I'm sorry, but we didn't need to invent the nuke to kill tons of people. We were able to butcher plenty of people using sticks and stones. I don't get what your point is here. People will kill each other, just the human condition.
__________________
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons people back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth, when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun", to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?"
RampantAndroid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 08:13 PM   #174
DixyCrat
Diamond Member
 
DixyCrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandorski View Post
Those people are as convinced of being "in the Spirit" as you and are perplexed as to how you can claim being "in the Spirit" at all. Being "in the Spirit" is really just stating Opinion then adding an Appeal to Authority to it.
I can see why you think that way and I can't tell you that flowers smell better than farts because folks that sniff asses will say their having a great time!

I appeal to your ability to reason out a difference between methane and perfume; but I can't prove a subjective social-cognition if you don't want to engage in my word-game.

Shit, I can't prove that you aren't the only being in all of existence and the rest of life is just your projection while you die of a hallucination.
__________________
The fundamental ethos of Christianity is tolerance, turning the other cheek, caring for those in need, etc., but that is not what today's Christianity is about. We can say we're about loving our neighbor until we're blue in the face, but unless our actions start matching our words, it's meaningless.
DixyCrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 09:45 PM   #175
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RampantAndroid View Post
I believe in a trend. It's that simple. In the last 100 years we went from punch cards being used in the census to computers that can do billions of floating point math operations per second. We went from amputating legs to treating wounds and preventing gangrene, and when needed creating prostheses. We came to understand a lot about cancer and can treat it. We can image a baby in the wound. We went from Goddard suggesting that man might set foot on the moon in the 1910s and being laughed at (by the Smithsonian among many!) to the Smithsonian displaying equipment used to go to the moon, and sending a probe to the outer reaches of the solar system.

I can keep going, but my point is quite simply, I can extrapolate that within a period of time, we will need a new way to make CPUs because the limit of the size of the transistor is the size of the electron, in basic terms. I can extrapolate that we will continue to advance, and so forth. You however...just quote bible verses from what I've seen.



I'd LOVE to consider it. Let's go.
You're acting like I am saying science is a bad thing. I don't recall saying that. In fact, you can read back and we can squash all that. Heck, I benefit from science every single day of my life and then some. I am in debt to these people!

It would be foolish to say that.

Quote:
Misuse of science? I'm sorry, but we didn't need to invent the nuke to kill tons of people. We were able to butcher plenty of people using sticks and stones. I don't get what your point is here. People will kill each other, just the human condition. ]
You don't get what my point is because you don't want to get what my point is. You're obviously intelligent enough to.

So, using a computer and a network connection to steal people's credit card information isn't the misusing of science? That's not what it was designed for, yet that's how it's used sometimes. This is my point. We misuse science because we choose to. Doesn't have much to do with the "human condition" as you're excusing.

Sticks and stones paled in comparison to more convenient and broad ways to kill, such as the inventing of nuclear weapons borne from the "human ingenuity" you so proudly championed a page ago. Sure, it's the human condition, but we can't use that as an excuse all the time. We have choices.

Keep living in your bubble thinking science is perfect and infallible and it can only be used to do good. I wish I could accept such a fantasy....

You also have a ridiculously opposite extreme thinking, as far as I have read, that religion can only be used bad.

Typical of scientific pandering and anti-religious bigotry all in one.

Last edited by Retro Rob; 11-02-2012 at 09:57 PM.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.