|
I'll just drop this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus[^]
The guy that said that earth travels around the sun was from the church.
I do agree with you that dogma and lack of intelligent thought/scientific reasoning is bad, but being religious does not implies that.
|
|
|
|
|
But from reading about Galileo much of his work was agreed from the Catholic church but they said that it couldn't conflict with people's religious beliefs.
from what I read it implied that the church tried to suppress scientific advancements in its early years to safeguard its teachings.
But I also believe that it didn't suppress science or intellectual advancement but very selective at the time due to its power what it released / agreed with.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, church as a organization really tried to suppress scientific advancement.
But religious people were capable of overcoming that suppression and laying the foundations of today's theories, that was my point, being religious does not automaticaly implies that the person has no capacity for scientific thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
What astonishes me is the number of highly intelligent and capable people who are religious as I consider religion the panacea of a weak mind.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The human mind is weak and religion is the panacea, created to explain what we can not.
Realizing the amount of stuff we don't know and taking a glance at the possibilities can be devastating to the mind, that's why people turn to religion.
One example of such realization is Sir Arthur C. Clarke's Quote:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke: Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
Once we know the "truth", we get used to it. But, in the mean time, the possibilities make we look for confort, and religion is aways there to say that you don't have to think about it, after all, it's some god's work.
And just because i like his quotes, i'll drop this one here too:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke: If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
By your reasoning, here's a short list of stupid people, some who wrote books:
Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, the Wright brothers, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, Neils Bohr, Galileo Galilei, James Clerk Maxwell, Edwin Hubble, Dmitri Mendeleev, Erwin Schroedinger…
I'm not telling you that your belief is correct or incorrect, but when you make sweeping statements, it does not help your argument.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are stupid.
If someone claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, would you respect their right to believe something that you don't, or would you laugh at them for being stupid?
If someone tried to pass a law asserting that π is exactly 3.2, would you accept their belief, or laugh them out of court[^]?
Unfortunately, most people who refuse to "believe" in evolution do so not because they have a better theory, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I am not debating evolution, that discussion needs to go no further.
I was just pointing out to the honearble Dalek that answering in the same manner of childish argument of those he opposes does nothing to support his contentions. It places him in the company of those he opposes.
As Mr. Lynch pointed out "calling people stupid because they don't agree with you is bigotry"
Assuming that your opponent is stupid, and saying as much, does little to support the veracity of your point of view. This also immediately shuts down any avenue of meaningful discussion to provide support to the validity of your point of view. A kind of "I can't talk to you, you're too stupid to understand" before any dialog even begins.
You only end in shouting matches or discussions with only people who think the same way. The opportunity to enlighten or to be enlightened in either case is lost.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 1 + 1 = 3
Quote: π is exactly 3.2
The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: The difference is those are not theories.
I refer you to my earlier post[^] - the term "scientific theory" does not mean "guess". The word has a very specific meaning, which many people seem to either miss or deliberately ignore.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I understand. However, saying 1+1=3 is ludicrous because it is not. 1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory. So, yes, if someone said that 1+1=3 you could laugh at them. But when someone disagrees with a theory, why would you laugh at them? You know, by your own definition, that your theory may in fact be wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
When someone disagrees with a theory by pointing out genuine flaws in the evidence, producing new evidence which contradicts the theory, or providing a new theory which better fits the facts, then we will not laugh at them.
When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
1. OK, who needs to be moved to the soapbox now?  Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
2. The people that walked out didn't understand. Bill Nye didn't say anything wrong or anything that conflicted with religion. The story makes no sense and I have to believe there is more to it than is being said.
3. There is no such thing as magic. Magic is not real.
4. Only fools mock what they do not understand.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
- No offence was intended. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
- The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis. They believe that every word written in the bible is literally true, and cannot accept anything which casts doubt on that.
- OK, now you're offending the HarryPotterists, whose religion clearly states that magic is real!
 - But it's OK to mock fools, right?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: No offence was intended.
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
Quote: I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
Well, since faith is believing in something you can't see, which is true, then yes, I can see how you can say this. However, keeping religion out of this, what is irrational about believing in a creator? Follow me here. I believe I can safely assume that you would agree that it is not plausible that humans are the most advanced species in all of space and time. And when you consider the vastness of space and time then most plausibly there are species more advanced than humans. So, what is irrational about believing in a creator, or in believing that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
Quote: The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis.
Like I said, if they believe that then they don't even understand the Bible. It seems odd that they would believe it the way the story was written. I still say there has to be more to it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote: what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race?
How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It was intended to be a humorous reference
Fair enough.
Quote: your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
No, but that is an option. So, is that irrational?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: So, is that irrational?
It seems somewhat unlikely. I'll accept the possibility that the basic building-blocks for life could have arrived on comets, but aliens depositing fully-formed humans on the planet is a step too far for me.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: 1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory.
Yep that is exactly the problem.
People, well educated people, who take some or all of science and exalt it to an absolute Truth because they fail to recognize or perhaps never even learned the basics of which all science is based upon.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
It is in fact basically correct as an analogy.
For the first case, "1 + 1 = 3" one need do nothing more than recognize that one is mostly talking about term definition. I can in fact define "+" to be something else.
For the second that is just politics and is in fact stupid because it was put forth by a politician and not a mathematician. One might as well say that politicians have the right to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom based on what others think I should be doing...oh wait...they do that don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I can in fact define "+" to be something else.
In that case we would laugh because it has been established as a fact that 1+1=2. It's proof, fact, truth, not theory.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
The problem however is that scientists, almost universally, fail to respond correctly and instead deny the belief at all.
Which does nothing but display their ignorance of science itself.
Those that attempt to prove, scientifically, that the world began 6000 years ago are probably doomed to failure. Those that accept, as a belief, that the world began 6000 years ago and understand the assumptions that one makes for a belief system can go on to have a long career as a evolutionary scientist and risk only ridicule from their scientific peers who do not in fact understand science.
|
|
|
|
|
The Moon is shaped like an egg: it only looks round because the big end points towards Earth.
Shouldn't it be like egg is shaped like moon? I guess Moon existed before eggs did.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think they need to be more specific about egg-shaped.
Eggs[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Ellipsoid?
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
