Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naresomez]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

— Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE)

[Andir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ

A panel discussion with Dawkins, Tyson and two other, less visible and eloquent personas. Mostly about science and religion.
Quite relevant to the discussion Sordid and Siquo have had a while ago.
Not at all irrelevant to the thread in general.
If you have an hour to spare, that is.

Even if you don't have an hour to spare... it was a pretty good video.  Just try to ignore the tendencies of Ann and listen to the message.  (She tended to be a bit... drawn out... in her cases.)  Neil did great, as did Richard Dawkins.  The other gentleman (Victor) sounded almost like the grouchy old man in the room though. :p

[Bauglir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ

A panel discussion with Dawkins, Tyson and two other, less visible and eloquent personas. Mostly about science and religion.
Quite relevant to the discussion Sordid and Siquo have had a while ago.
Not at all irrelevant to the thread in general.
If you have an hour to spare, that is.

Even if you don't have an hour to spare... it was a pretty good video.  Just try to ignore the tendencies of Ann and listen to the message.  (She tended to be a bit... drawn out... in her cases.)  Neil did great, as did Richard Dawkins.  The other gentleman (Victor) sounded almost like the grouchy old man in the room though. :p

Although, I do have to disagree with the ending for technical reasons. Science has nothing to say about supernatural phenomena because if science has something to say about it, it has become a natural phenomenon. Science and religion operate in non-overlapping spheres, not because science shouldn't investigate things stated by religion, but because any scientific investigation into a matter of faith eliminates the faith in that matter. Essentially, religion gets whatever science CAN'T answer (practically speaking, anyway; I don't think it's worth trying to persuasively argue against a believer in order to convince them of something that hasn't been demonstrated), and whenever science comes to a new answer, religion doesn't get to explain that anymore. Or at least, that's how I see the dichotomy.

Short version: it's not that science has no place dealing in the supernatural, it's that science by definition does not deal in the supernatural.

[Sordid]

Ah, I didn't know that you're just playing games with Siquo. Please let me know next time so I don't bother actually having a discussion with you...

QFT.

I'm just in the habit of taking everyone seriously, however strange they may be. That makes me an easy joke-target, but I can live with that. The benefits outweigh that tremendously.

What the hell is wrong with this forum? Can't you people recognize sarcasm when you see it?
But why would you, Siquo, of all people, take offense at that and cut the conversation, even if you mistook it for being serious? I thought you didn't believe in reasoning.

[dreiche2]

Siquo, I'd recommend you just ignore those people who only seem to come in here to have an angry argument with you specifically.

Anyway, moving on...

[Jackrabbit]

Siquo, I'd recommend you just ignore those people who only seem to come in here to have an angry argument with you specifically.

Anyway, moving on...

I'd have to agree.

[Andir]

any scientific investigation into a matter of faith eliminates the faith in that matter.

Describe to me the difference between faith and ignorance then.

[Sordid]

Siquo, I'd recommend you just ignore those people who only seem to come in here to have an angry argument with you specifically.

Anyway, moving on...

I'd have to agree.

I also agree. People getting angry at each other on the internet, that's just a waste of time.

[Jackrabbit]

Well done. Now moving on.

[RAM]

It is pretty easy to reason that an all-powerful god is not supporting human agendas. It may be helping humans out according to its own agenda, but given the differences of opinion between humans and such a god, it isn't actually helping humans at all.

So I suggest that the real question is, how weak/blind/uncaring can it get and still be a god?

[Areyar]

That video sure pegged Siquo.

supernatural deals in fantasy and is opposed to reality, so yeah, science can only prove it false.

[Bauglir]

any scientific investigation into a matter of faith eliminates the faith in that matter.

Describe to me the difference between faith and ignorance then.

The investigation can fail to turn up evidence, allowing ignorance to remain, while still eliminating faith in the matter, if the actual investigation was sound and only got fouled up due to technical errors. The difference is that faith implies belief in something regardless of evidence or the lack thereof (not NECESSARILY in spite of), while ignorance simply implies a lack of knowledge one way or the other.

[Zironic]

 I always wanted to be a magician, so I choose to be a scientist.

[Siquo]

Haven't seen the video yet.

Bauglir: I whole-heartedly agree.

Sordid: I also take sarcasm seriously (IMNSHO: sarcasm is a form of weakness), but in that last quotewall-"rebuttal" you were really grasping at straws. If you want to be responded to again, please do so seriously, and I'll resume taking you seriously as well

Areyar: Re-read Bauglir: Science cannot prove it false if it's outside of the realm of science. Science pretends/believes/assumes that the supernatural does not exist. It's quite autistic like that. It's an entymologist that ignores the Gorilla because "that's not his field". That filtered view is what's gotten science where it is: disregard as much information as possible.

[Il Palazzo]

That video sure pegged Siquo.

supernatural deals in fantasy and is opposed to reality, so yeah, science can only prove it false.

I disagree. As Tyson said(around 54th minute in), science can disprove fallacies like Earth being created 4000 B.C., but it's got nothing to say about whenever believing in Jesus will get you to heaven. It just doesn't concern itself with that kind of questions.
From what I gathered, Siquo's religiousness is centered around this personal affirmation of something good coming from his belief in God, and not around blind acceptance of every word in the scripture.