Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/11 08:06 PM, Famas wrote: There are plenty of perfectly reasonable and academically honest religious people out there, and while you may not be able to 'reason away' their spiritual beliefs...

Yes, someone worth debating with.

Did you have something to say, or did you just feel like ejaculating a non sequitur?
;

I mean to say that by beleiveing in Science, you are putting faith into the methodical system which you have been told is right, and many people blindly ignore any evidence to the contrary. If enough people with a phd say somthing kinda in line with what everyone else says, you will beleive it. Thats reliogion to me.

I'm not talking about simple things like the world being flat, or gravity existing, becaseu relgious people knew that. They knew things fell down, and quite a few knew of the earths shape, ro suspected.

Can you truly say that there is no chance of mathmatics being wrong at some point?
Wouldn't that explain the existance of infinity, which common sense shows can't exist. The existence of imaginary numbers? The fact that you get minus numbers, which physcialy dont exist, (you cant have less than no matter, just anti-matter). Maths may be true, and these just questions that havn't been answered yet, but I cna guaranetee that a lot of you will dismiss these on the same line as a conspiracy theory, or religious deabte.

At 11/4/11 02:38 PM, pupot wrote: I mean to say that by beleiveing in Science, you are putting faith into the methodical system which you have been told is right, and many people blindly ignore any evidence to the contrary. If enough people with a phd say somthing kinda in line with what everyone else says, you will beleive it. Thats reliogion to me.

Then once again it would seem that you completely misunderstand how the scientific method actually functions. People don't place their confidence in science simply because they've been told it is 'right', they do so because for the past several centuries it has demonstrated that it works through actual application. People are willing to accept that the theory of electricity is a credible field, for example, because from it we've developed the entire world of telecommunications as well as an energy economy. People are willing to accept microbiology as a credible field because of the explosion of advances in medical technology that have resulted from it.

(Gullible) people can indeed be duped into believing that something is valid because a person in front of a camera wearing a lab coat says it is, but how you draw the conclusion from this that science is a religion as opposed to "there are a lot of stupid people in the world" is beyond me. You're connecting dots that aren't there.

I'm not talking about simple things like the world being flat, or gravity existing, becaseu relgious people knew that. They knew things fell down, and quite a few knew of the earths shape, ro suspected.

Knowing things fall down != understanding the laws of motion. Before Newton, the vast majority of people never actually bothered to question why things fall down, they simply figured "because they do". People didn't simply know that the Earth was round, either. It took a set of experiments by Ptolemy to deduce the shape of the Earth, and he even accurately calculated its circumference back in 100 freaking AD.

How did he do all this? With the scientific method. He didn't simply step outside one morning and go "Christ, I'm hung-over. Also, the Earth is an oblate spheroid." He stepped outside and scienced the shit out of the Earth.

Can you truly say that there is no chance of mathmatics being wrong at some point?

Well seeing as mathematical expressions can be demonstrated to either be functional or non-functional if you actually take five minutes to sit down and check the equation, yes, I can. Or you could just pull a Glenn Beck and be done with it.

Wouldn't that explain the existance of infinity, which common sense shows can't exist.

Then your common sense is busted. Pi is an infinitely long number. So are plenty of other long division problems. The Mandelbrot Set is an infinite series of recursion patterns.

For somebody who poorly understands the nature of mathematics, you seem pretty confident in making some pretty boldly incorrect statements. Oh wait, there's a term for that.

The existence of imaginary numbers? The fact that you get minus numbers, which physcialy dont exist, (you cant have less than no matter, just anti-matter)

What do negative integers have to do with matter? You are aware that numbers are an abstract concept, right? So, while you may not be able to 'see' negative three of anything, you can certainly have negative three dollars in your bank account when you overdraw. Next time this happens just explain to the teller that they must have made a mistake, because negative monies doesn't exist.

Maths may be true, and these just questions that havn't been answered yet, but I cna guaranetee that a lot of you will dismiss these on the same line as a conspiracy theory, or religious deabte.

No, I dismissed those by showing you that your 'questions' indeed have answers, and that your 'questions' are actually better described as 'your mathematical and scientific misconceptions'.

At 11/4/11 03:29 PM, Famas wrote: Then once again it would seem that you completely misunderstand how the scientific method actually functions. People don't place their confidence in science simply because they've been told it is 'right', they do so because for the past several centuries it has demonstrated that it works through actual application.

Of course that's why people trust science. It's not like there are a bunch of unsupported theories or even contradicted theories that some scientists and many people treat like facts even when they aren't (man made global warming, dark matter, parallel universes, etc.). There are a lot of things that "science" claims to be true that aren't and people follow their dogma like religious zealots just because some scientist said so. How many people listen to everything Stephen Hawking says like he's some omniscient god just because he has a few popular books and hypotheses? How many people will hand over money to anything labeled as "green" just because there are some climate scientists who claim that humans are destroying the world with global warming? How many theories are dependent on the existence of dark matter, a substance with zero proof of its existence but still manages to permeate the field of astrophysics?

At 11/3/11 07:35 PM, kakalxlax wrote: every single time i spoke to religious people i found out that....

thats fun, but now you're corresponding with non-religious people and you seem to be acting...

At 11/4/11 03:53 PM, djack wrote: It's not like there are a bunch of unsupported theories or even contradicted theories that some scientists and many people treat like facts even when they aren't (man made global warming, dark matter, parallel universes, etc.).

...other than global warming, most scientists studying those things readily admit that they mostly don't know what they are or how they work.

as opposed to stating it isn't our business to know because its greater than us.

At 11/4/11 04:11 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 03:53 PM, djack wrote: It's not like there are a bunch of unsupported theories or even contradicted theories that some scientists and many people treat like facts even when they aren't (man made global warming, dark matter, parallel universes, etc.).

...other than global warming, most scientists studying those things readily admit that they mostly don't know what they are or how they work.

as opposed to stating it isn't our business to know because its greater than us.

Most, but not all (you'll notice that my post said some scientists not all scientists). The ones who don't admit it are also generally more outspoken and receive greater attention from the public than those that that do. Most creationists don't say that we shouldn't study science either but those are the ones you used as a generalization (or at least implied generalization) for all religious people.

At 11/4/11 04:27 PM, djack wrote:

Most, but not all (you'll notice that my post said some scientists not all scientists). The ones who don't admit it are also generally more outspoken and receive greater attention from the public than those that that do. Most creationists don't say that we shouldn't study science either but those are the ones you used as a generalization (or at least implied generalization) for all religious people.

You listed a bunch of emergent science fields. Ones with a lot of research behind them. Proposed hypotheses such as dark matter aren't just researched and discussed because they sound cool, they garner a lot of attention because there is a lot of solid data behind them. Abiogenesis is a great example of this. No scientist worth his weight in dirt would ever claim that these fields are completely developed and are working models, they would simply say "this looks extremely probable, but we don't know for sure yet." That's kind of the point of getting into emergent fields of science: to expand what we know.

Yes, a lot of people will believe things that come out of Hawking's mouth without doing any basic analysis of it whatsoever, that's not exactly surprising (in fact entire industries are based off of this concept such as political commentary and bogus remedies for various ailments). Conversely, a lot of people challenge his proposals because they aren't content with just taking established experts at their word. This is something we like to call "asking for evidence and empirically tested observation". That's how science works. People proofread each-other, confront them when they're wrong and high-five them when they're right.

This is more or less the antithesis of a religion. So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.

At 11/4/11 05:09 PM, Famas wrote: This is more or less the antithesis of a religion. So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.

My point is that while the scientific method in its purist form is not religious there are still many aspects of science that are more like religion than true science and many people treat science as if it were a religion often believing unproven ideas, following scientists like they know everything, and provides people with an excuse to form factions that often respond aggressively (and potentially violently) to those who question their beliefs.

At 11/4/11 06:10 PM, djack wrote:

My point is that while the scientific method in its purist form is not religious there are still many aspects of science that are more like religion than true science and many people treat science as if it were a religion often believing unproven ideas,

So you're reasoning is that there is a lot of stupid people, therefore science is like a religion?

Fallacious.

following scientists like they know everything, and provides people with an excuse to form factions

What? There's 'denominations' of science now? I guess I need to join my local chapter of the Latter Day Scientists.

that often respond aggressively (and potentially violently)

When does this happen? What are you talking about? Who can you name that has resorted to violence because somebody pointed out the inconsistencies in their rationalizing of a science field?

Even if the things that you are saying were remotely accurate, I don't see how this means science = a religion. It means there's a lot of people who incorrectly believe their viewpoints are scientifically viable, when they aren't. Basically you're talking about pseudoscience. I'm talking about science. The two are very different. Just because there are idiots out there who think they're completely infallible in asserting that homeopathy works while self-proclaiming themselves to be experts in said pseudoscience doesn't mean jack squat in regards to actual science.

It means the world is full of people who think they know what they're talking about. And that's true, everyone is guilty of doing this at some point. That's why we point out the fallacies in their reasoning and go about our day. Not turn around and shout "HEY, THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE, THEREFORE SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK".

At 11/4/11 04:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/3/11 07:35 PM, kakalxlax wrote: every single time i spoke to religious people i found out that....

thats fun, but now you're corresponding with non-religious people and you seem to be acting...

nha i ended my acting course like 2 years ago

At 11/4/11 06:23 PM, Famas wrote: So you're reasoning is that there is a lot of stupid people, therefore science is like a religion?

No, it's that comparisons of the two aren't as farfetched as you might think especially with so many treating science like a religion.

What? There's 'denominations' of science now? I guess I need to join my local chapter of the Latter Day Scientists.

There are areas that have multiple different theories that many accept only one of those theories as being true and stupid people+differing beliefs=denominations.

When does this happen? What are you talking about? Who can you name that has resorted to violence because somebody pointed out the inconsistencies in their rationalizing of a science field?

Is this your first time dealing with people? If you question anyone's beliefs they respond aggressively which can easily escalate to violence when the person in question is stupid.

Even if the things that you are saying were remotely accurate, I don't see how this means science = a religion. It means there's a lot of people who incorrectly believe their viewpoints are scientifically viable, when they aren't. Basically you're talking about pseudoscience. I'm talking about science. The two are very different. Just because there are idiots out there who think they're completely infallible in asserting that homeopathy works while self-proclaiming themselves to be experts in said pseudoscience doesn't mean jack squat in regards to actual science.

It means the world is full of people who think they know what they're talking about. And that's true, everyone is guilty of doing this at some point. That's why we point out the fallacies in their reasoning and go about our day. Not turn around and shout "HEY, THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE, THEREFORE SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK".

I had prepared a reply about how when stupid creationists do something people blame religion but when stupid atheists do something it's just because they're stupid but then I realized that you weren't the one who replied to my first post and that you didn't make that claim in the "Does God hold us back" thread so it wouldn't be fair to use that here as it would imply that you had made that claim. Instead I'm going to say that I think you're reading too much into my posts (understandable because I am defending a post that said science is a religion). I'm not saying that people are filing into the church of science or planning a holy war against the creationist infidels, there are simply a lot of areas in science that don't have enough evidence (I find dark matter to be a perfect example of this as many of the articles I read about dark matter research act as if dark matter has been found and proven instead of looking for other possible explanations) to justify the level of support they get from people, and it's not just pseudoscience that gets that kind of following, for an example look at all the scientists and stupid people that will claim evolution as absolute inarguable fact.

That's not at all what Pupot asserted though. They claimed that using science to debunk creationism is hypocritical, and the people place their confidence in scientific progress simply because they were told to by an authority figure, all of which is bogus.

They then went on to demonstrate a complete lack of elementary scientific and mathematical principles. They're arguing from a place of ignorance, and pretty much everything they said was comically misguided.

Whoops. Scratch the hypocrisy part, that was the "arguing evolution thread". All the science vs. religion threads in Politics are starting to run together, apparently.

brand

At 11/4/11 10:53 PM, kakalxlax wrote: brand

again intensely silly. short of giving up the children, parents and their opinions will nonetheless shape a child's view without their consent.

At 11/5/11 03:09 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 10:53 PM, kakalxlax wrote: brand

again intensely silly. short of giving up the children, parents and their opinions will nonetheless shape a child's view without their consent.

I don't want to defend the absurd level of sensationalism in that picture, but people do have a point when they object to parents who financially, psychologically, corporeally or otherwise punish their children for choosing something other than the religion their parents chose for them.

At 11/5/11 03:09 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 10:53 PM, kakalxlax wrote: brand

again intensely silly. short of giving up the children, parents and their opinions will nonetheless shape a child's view without their consent.

While this is true, a very critical difference is that disbelieving anything else that your parents tell you doesn't lead to eternal damnation and hellfire. This is what religion does - it controls people by teaching them that they are no good without submitting to this authority, that there's no escaping an impending judgment and that not believing in these things, however unlikely, will lead to pain beyond belief. As a person who has been there, the entire concept can be traumatizing to a child. Some religious practices are, literally, the last legal and socially acceptable forms of child abuse(the many forms of the aforementioned traumatization, non-consensual genital modification, just to name a few.)

the issue with a picture as opposed to posting a thought out argument is that its hard to tell what the precise stance is. punishment for disbelief is one thing while infant baptism and the like are another, i.e. i'm pretty sure i'm technically still a Catholic (through baptism) despite my disbelief, and yet i never had to face any issues about lapsing despite the fact that my parents and family were responsible for my baptism.
this isn't an art gallery, its the politics forum and its serious business.

At 11/5/11 09:47 AM, Yorik wrote: While this is true, a very critical difference is that disbelieving anything else that your parents tell you doesn't lead to eternal damnation and hellfire.

And being part of the proverbial "them" instead of "us" isn't just as much of a punishment for nonconformance?

Face it, kiddos are shaped by their parents regardless of what their parents are and how their parents try to treach their kids. This happens in religion, kindness, work ethic, lifstyle, health, political beliefs, educational achievement, and so on. Religionb is but one of many factors children have no choice over at that stage in life.

This is what religion does - it controls people by teaching them that they are no good without submitting to this authority, that there's no escaping an impending judgment and that not believing in these things, however unlikely, will lead to pain beyond belief.

Oh stop being so melodramatic. Sure, religion may use flowery words, but like I said before its actual punishments for nonconformance are not worse, and in many cases more tame than other forms of nonconformance.

Either way, I still like seeing the irony of a non-religious person preaching about the hellfire and brimstone of religion's preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Just like the Red Sox say regarding the Yankees: "If you can't be them you might as well become them." Watch your step their, Pastor.

At 11/5/11 12:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/5/11 09:47 AM, Yorik wrote: While this is true, a very critical difference is that disbelieving anything else that your parents tell you doesn't lead to eternal damnation and hellfire.

And being part of the proverbial "them" instead of "us" isn't just as much of a punishment for nonconformance?

Face it, kiddos are shaped by their parents regardless of what their parents are and how their parents try to treach their kids. This happens in religion, kindness, work ethic, lifstyle, health, political beliefs, educational achievement, and so on. Religionb is but one of many factors children have no choice over at that stage in life.

It is the only thing children can pick up that insists they have no choice for THE REST of their life. Yes, the consequences promised in the event of apostasy are FAR worse than social ramifications of simply not going along with a group. There's no reason to care how other people live their lives or whether or not they choose to include you in their lives so long as you are able to live comfortably without anyone infringing upon your rights (which you can't do under theocracy because the state forces you to go with the group or be punished, hence the problem with theocracy and the topic of this thread.)

The punishment for apostasy in many religions is death. Punishment for being gay in most of those same religions is death. The horrible defaming of our human sexual nature, not to mention the cruel exclusion and evident disgust of female private parts is psychologically damaging to developing teens, girls in particular. The bible says that a man who rapes a woman should be "punished" by having to marry that woman, which I shouldn't have to tell you is pretty disadvantageous for women. Then you have the advocation of slavery and all of the guidelines for keeping slaves, even tips for how you should beat them. Not to mention you have everyone telling you that you deserve to be tortured for eternity. How is this comparable to not being picked in gym class or not fitting in with the popular cliques? The worst social ostracism you could possibly expect is from ones family, but people who grow up with assholes for parents are happy to be rid of them when they finally get the fuck out of there anyway.

Either way, I still like seeing the irony of a non-religious person preaching about the hellfire and brimstone of religion's preaching of hellfire and brimstone. Just like the Red Sox say regarding the Yankees: "If you can't be them you might as well become them." Watch your step their, Pastor.

Good on you, trying to say atheism is like a religion. That one's always worth a laugh.

At 11/5/11 09:55 PM, Yorik wrote: There's no reason to care how other people live their lives or whether or not they choose to include you in their lives so long as you are able to live comfortably without anyone infringing upon your rights (which you can't do under theocracy because the state forces you to go with the group or be punished, hence the problem with theocracy and the topic of this thread.)

religious life isn't solely social, nor is secular life solely individual. secular people are constantly getting "punished" for doing things outside the society's norms.

The punishment for apostasy in many religions is death. Punishment for being gay in most of those same religions is death.

but now we're generalising both in attitudes towards certain behaviours and accepted punishments for those behaviours; for example, we haven't been burning many witches despite our growing surplus.

At 11/5/11 09:55 PM, Yorik wrote: It is the only thing children can pick up that insists they have no choice for THE REST of their life.

Really? You sure about that? Political opinions, especially more extreme ones aren't like this? Gender roles aren't like this? General social interactions aren't like this? Racism isn't like this? There are numerous things we are programmed to do at a yound age that we are not encouraged to change, or in many cases actively discouraged from changing.

The punishment for apostasy in many religions is death.

Ask Matthew Sheppard about the punishment for being gay. Ask Andrew Goodman about the penalty for supporting the civil rights movement in the South. Ask Jamey Rodenmayer about the penalty for not fitting in.

The penalty for not conforming is harsh in a great of non-religious circumstances.

Good on you, trying to say atheism is like a religion. That one's always worth a laugh.

So long as atheists and those criticising religion use the very things about religion they don't like to criticize religion, I will make this connection. So long as these same people do this, such comparisons by me will be apt.

All in all, the insanity of religion is merely a demonstration of human instability. Even without religion, we would attempt to maul each other.

At 11/6/11 12:56 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote: All in all, the insanity of religion is merely a demonstration of human instability. Even without religion, we would attempt to maul each other.

I agree. What I don't comprehend is why this simple proposition is so hard for so many to understand.

At 11/6/11 12:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/6/11 12:56 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote: All in all, the insanity of religion is merely a demonstration of human instability. Even without religion, we would attempt to maul each other.

I agree. What I don't comprehend is why this simple proposition is so hard for so many to understand.

I support the sterilization of these beasts. We needed use religion to keep mankind in line. We're cleary clever enough to define our own ethics.

Thanks for the defence.

I'm not arguing from a point of ignorance in ym mathmatics. It's just that its very hard to get a extrordinarily controversial point across, given this threads current atmosphere, and being on a forum.

I'm trying to say, that although mathmatics works for everyday things, as such it was invented for, it dosent work on the physical levals, such as quantum mechanics. It's like Einsteins relativity. General realtivity seems to work so far, on a standard level. But it dosent work on a quantum level, so he made Speacial relativity. They don't work together, so either we need to link them somhow (been tried again and again, with theories such as superstring being the current favourite, but not proven yet), or somthing is wrong. Either our physical observations are, or the actual mathmsatical system is at some point. Maybe we need a special mathmatics?

And infinity is impossible. It can only mean a number that groaws at the rate me count at, and so is alwasy jsut as high as we can count. That obviously can;t exist. And i meant numbers as physical values, not in the abstract inparticaulr. And having a negative bank balance emasn you owe them money, not that you have negative money. That's what i mean by physical, not abstract

At 11/7/11 11:29 AM, pupot wrote:

I'm not arguing from a point of ignorance in ym mathmatics.

You're not making a convincing case here.

I'm trying to say, that although mathmatics works for everyday things, as such it was invented for, it dosent work on the physical levals, such as quantum mechanics.

Elaborate. How does mathematics not function properly when applied to quantum mechanics? It makes predictions using probability, which is math.

It's like Einsteins relativity. General realtivity seems to work so far, on a standard level. But it dosent work on a quantum level, so he made Speacial relativity.

If you had even bothered to google the two fields before attempting to discuss them you'd have noticed that special relativity predates quantum mechanics by about two decades. This is not why the theory of special relativity was formed. While Einstein did indeed butt heads with quantum mechanics over the conflicts of special relativity and quantum theory, that really only arose when Einstein took issue with quantum mechanics and attempted to undermine it which only resulted in helping to further some developments quantum study.

They don't work together, so either we need to link them somhow (been tried again and again, with theories such as superstring being the current favourite, but not proven yet), or somthing is wrong.

You seem to get the basic idea here, in that attempting to use quantum theory and special relativity as prediction models simultaneously causes contradictions to arise resulting in calculated probabilities far over 100%. However I don't understand where you are drawing the connection between the lack of a grand unifying theory of physics and mathematics being "incorrect" or "broken". These fields are incredibly young areas of research, how is it any surprise at all that humanity has churned out such a theory? These things take time.

Either our physical observations are, or the actual mathmsatical system is at some point. Maybe we need a special mathmatics?

Fields of mathematics are born out of necessity in describing the natural order ALL the time. Calculus being one of the most prominent examples.

And infinity is impossible. It can only mean a number that groaws at the rate me count at, and so is alwasy jsut as high as we can count.

Yeah this isn't what infinity is. Like, at all. Infinity is infinity. It's a limitless, unbounded figure. What level of education do you have? I ask earnestly because you're demonstrating a lack of understanding on some rather basic and fundamental things here.

That obviously can;t exist. And i meant numbers as physical values, not in the abstract inparticaulr.

Firstly, numbers are abstract concepts, so what on Earth is your point? Second, seeing as there's less than a googol quantity of elementary particles in the entire universe, no shit there can't be an infinite amount of anything physical. This does nothing to show that infinity doesn't exist or isn't a valid expression.

Speaking of the number googol (and googolplex), what do you think of these? These aren't found in physical quantities anywhere in the universe, yet they are rational numbers. You can add and subtract them, divide or multiply etc. They function perfectly well, they're just ungodly large numbers. Your basis for claiming that infinity and negative numbers don't exist seems to be that I can't show you - 45 apples or infinity pennies, so I'm curious.

And having a negative bank balance emasn you owe them money, not that you have negative money. That's what i mean by physical, not abstract

Owing money is negative money.

Owing money is not negative money.

And abstract isn't particaulrly valid in so called scientific methods, as you say. If ti was, then in the abstract God exists, therefore is equivilant to science.