Print

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

[Willfor]

False politeness and smileys make one a dick.

If you are not false then he was wrong, but it is really hard to tell.

Ahh, that must be it. I didn't know if my intentions behind the post would be visible, so I stuck a smiley on it to show there were no hard feelings. And apparently my whole point was wrong, and I'll accept that, but I wasn't being disingenuous.

PPE: @willfor: Criptfeind got it.
sorry for not expaining that, that's kinda a jerk move from me. 

No, it's my bad, sorry.

[Phmcw]

so that doesn't change anything : when you decide to use a mathematical theory, either the setup suggest an axiom, either the reading suggest a theory.
But an axiom is no more true than it is true that an axe make 2d6 damage. True within it setup, not something to believe in general.
Of course, when it come to science, nothing should ever be believed. True until it turn out wrong.

[Vector]

Bah, I'm talking about the old definition of axioms, where they were taken as things that seemed intuitively obvious.

You're right, though, that I'm wrong by the current definition.

[Criptfeind]

I'm starting to worry that a full blown argument is blowing. While heated-ness is okay, and chill preferred, I'm willing to lock this thread. And please don't jump in if you have nothing to say at all.

You do not want a full blown debate but you started a religion vs science thread?

Things are going waaaaaay more chill then I thought possible.

Honestly, I would call you a troll if you were not such a upstanding member of this community and the relatively gentle way you opened this thread.

[Earthquake Damage]

"Science," as an edifice, is far weaker than most people seem to think it is.

I think the value of science is less in the textbook/professor/dude-who-totally-took-a-couple-Physics-classes-in-college telling you how the world works, and more in the scientific method as a philosophy.  In other words, it's not so much that it offers Truth^TM as it does a means to approach (but not necessarily reach) it.

Now, I suppose you might call religion a form of ethical science in line with the other squishy sciences like sociology.

I don't see how a normative field can be a science, as it would be subjective by definition.

[chaoticag]

I'm starting to worry that a full blown argument is blowing. While heated-ness is okay, and chill preferred, I'm willing to lock this thread. And please don't jump in if you have nothing to say at all.

You do not want a full blown debate but you started a religion vs science thread?

Debates and arguments are two separate things. When you disagree, that's a debate. When you go out of your way to insult others, it's an argument. And I started it to more or less defuse it from the sad thread. Better this thread get locked than that.

[Vector]

I think the value of science is less in the textbook/professor/dude-who-totally-took-a-couple-Physics-classes-in-college telling you how the world works, and more in the scientific method as a philosophy.  In other words, it's not so much that it offers Truth^TM as it does a means to approach (but not necessarily reach) it.

Yes.  That's what I meant.  Thank you for translating.

[Phmcw]

I think the value of science is less in the textbook/professor/dude-who-totally-took-a-couple-Physics-classes-in-college telling you how the world works, and more in the scientific method as a philosophy.  In other words, it's not so much that it offers Truth^TM as it does a means to approach (but not necessarily reach) it.

Yes.  That's what I meant.  Thank you for translating.

Yeah, but THAT is completely incompatible with religion.

[Criptfeind]

Why?

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Phmcw]

Why?

Look at my first post. Religion is everything you should not do in science.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Zrk2]

Ok, here's my view. (Prefacing with that to deflame replies)

Religion preaches 'faith'. Faith means that you must accept something even though you do not understand it. Religions then claim (to maintain their power) that faith is a virtue, and that you should have 'faith' that the priest caste knows what's best for you, so you should let them tell you what to do, they then tell you to fear change because it endangers the faith they have indoctrinated one to have.

Science on the other hand is the antithesis of faith, science demands inquiry and critical thinking, things that religion clais should not happen to it. So religion then attempts to stifle science to maintain its power.

Therefore religion retards scientific development.

[Phmcw]

Moreover, religion is one way to live one's life. A philosophy, a way of thinking. Science, more than a assemblage of fact, is another one. And the two are conflicting.

[Sowelu]

I get the feeling that a lot of you are taking the standard atheist bylines about religion...

...on faith.