Surely the whole purpose of science to start with
is to prove or disprove a theory, whereas all you appear to be doing is dismissing completely without foundation or proof the non existence of something. If it really is a load of bollocks, scientific research is one way to investigate further and perhaps find out for sure. Hence it's not a waste of time. Waste of funding maybe, but not time.
You appear to be both anti science and anti religion. And a bit angry/bonkers on top of that.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:04, Share, Reply)
is to prove or disprove a theory, whereas all you appear to be doing is dismissing completely without foundation or proof the non existence of something. If it really is a load of bollocks, scientific research is one way to investigate further and perhaps find out for sure. Hence it's not a waste of time. Waste of funding maybe, but not time.
You appear to be both anti science and anti religion. And a bit angry/bonkers on top of that.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:04, Share, Reply)
Anti religion, yes, definitely
Anti science though? How did you arrive there?
Real-world science is not about trying to test everything; that's just impossible. The whole point of my posting was to highlight the wasting of scientific endeavours on trivial pursuits like this one. The vaguest critical analysis of the experiment itself shows that it will not --and can not-- produce a positive result. If that is the case, why bother doing it? Therefore, my whole point is that it's a complete waste of time.
There's a famous philosophical experiment which seeks to prove that there *isn't* a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The experiment is a fool's errand, it will prove nothing, apart from that which is already within the realm of reasonable assumption.
Is it wrong to assume that there is no teapot? Most scientists would say no. If not, why is it wrong to assume that this experiment will be a total waste of time too? It has about as much chance of success, given our exisitng knowledge of real vs make-believe.
If I seem angry, it's because a lot of people don't seem to have the capability to make rational decisions any more. Too much credibility is given to wasting money and effort on rubbish like this poxy experiment.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:25, Share, Reply)
Anti science though? How did you arrive there?
Real-world science is not about trying to test everything; that's just impossible. The whole point of my posting was to highlight the wasting of scientific endeavours on trivial pursuits like this one. The vaguest critical analysis of the experiment itself shows that it will not --and can not-- produce a positive result. If that is the case, why bother doing it? Therefore, my whole point is that it's a complete waste of time.
There's a famous philosophical experiment which seeks to prove that there *isn't* a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The experiment is a fool's errand, it will prove nothing, apart from that which is already within the realm of reasonable assumption.
Is it wrong to assume that there is no teapot? Most scientists would say no. If not, why is it wrong to assume that this experiment will be a total waste of time too? It has about as much chance of success, given our exisitng knowledge of real vs make-believe.
If I seem angry, it's because a lot of people don't seem to have the capability to make rational decisions any more. Too much credibility is given to wasting money and effort on rubbish like this poxy experiment.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:25, Share, Reply)
MODERN CHEMISTRY WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE TRYING TO TURN LEAD INTO GOLD USING THEIR PISS.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:28, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:28, Share, Reply)
Well I think you have shown the problem here.
You consider it all Real vs. Make Believe but it isn't.
It is known versus unknown.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:29, Share, Reply)
You consider it all Real vs. Make Believe but it isn't.
It is known versus unknown.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:29, Share, Reply)
My definition of make-believe
Anything which cannot be explained or theorised by application of scientific rigour.
This stuff about departing souls isn't theoretical science you know, it's just an idea with no basis in fact whatsoever. Show me a scientist with a working theory of the existence of a soul, and I'll show you faith in disguise.
Known vs Unknown is quite a different matter. Should we pursue knowledge? Absolutely. Should it be based on testable theories? Absolutely. Should we test every theory which otherwise explains away the unknown? Perhaps not... a pale bloke down the road from me claims to be a vampire. I'm pretty sure he isn't one, but I don't think I need to prove it conclusively by experiment.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
Anything which cannot be explained or theorised by application of scientific rigour.
This stuff about departing souls isn't theoretical science you know, it's just an idea with no basis in fact whatsoever. Show me a scientist with a working theory of the existence of a soul, and I'll show you faith in disguise.
Known vs Unknown is quite a different matter. Should we pursue knowledge? Absolutely. Should it be based on testable theories? Absolutely. Should we test every theory which otherwise explains away the unknown? Perhaps not... a pale bloke down the road from me claims to be a vampire. I'm pretty sure he isn't one, but I don't think I need to prove it conclusively by experiment.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
Can I just make sure I understand you correctly here then?
By your reasoning, up until whenever it was, anything smaller than the atom was make believe? But at the moment it was seen that an atom is made up of even smaller parts, it travelled from the ethereal into the real world? Or do you believe that we have perfected Science?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:55, Share, Reply)
By your reasoning, up until whenever it was, anything smaller than the atom was make believe? But at the moment it was seen that an atom is made up of even smaller parts, it travelled from the ethereal into the real world? Or do you believe that we have perfected Science?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:55, Share, Reply)
No, you misunderstood
Theorising that atoms are made of smaller components was not only possible, but documented long before it could be proven. There was a good basis for a theory and it received the proper attention.
What basis is there to theorise the existence of a soul via the medium of 'near-death experience'? Individual testimony? Talk about an unreliable witness... you must be kidding me.
Why bother trying to prove the soul exists, or not? It's just faith. It has no basis in science at all.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:07, Share, Reply)
Theorising that atoms are made of smaller components was not only possible, but documented long before it could be proven. There was a good basis for a theory and it received the proper attention.
What basis is there to theorise the existence of a soul via the medium of 'near-death experience'? Individual testimony? Talk about an unreliable witness... you must be kidding me.
Why bother trying to prove the soul exists, or not? It's just faith. It has no basis in science at all.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:07, Share, Reply)
I myself do not know what benefit could be gained
from discovering there is a soul.
However, I am not Stephen Hawking, or Richard Dawkins or whoever.
At the same time, I don't know why we need to know whether or not the Higgs Boson exists to be honest. However, just because I do not understand as well as more educated people, doesn't mean that I am against them searching. To be honest, my life would not change one way or the other if it were proven or disproved that people have souls. But I will not tell people what to search for and what not to!
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:15, Share, Reply)
from discovering there is a soul.
However, I am not Stephen Hawking, or Richard Dawkins or whoever.
At the same time, I don't know why we need to know whether or not the Higgs Boson exists to be honest. However, just because I do not understand as well as more educated people, doesn't mean that I am against them searching. To be honest, my life would not change one way or the other if it were proven or disproved that people have souls. But I will not tell people what to search for and what not to!
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:15, Share, Reply)
mate dont worry
there only saying this crap becusae "spriat worlds" and monothestic relgions are such cultraly ecceptable ideas. relgion vs scince is only seen as a valdid debate becasue people have beilved in god for so long. there is as much eveidnce for harry potter as there is for any relgious idea. yet if you suggested to theses guys an exsperment at a train station to see if harry pottor was going to come out the wall they would think you were crasy
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:39, Share, Reply)
there only saying this crap becusae "spriat worlds" and monothestic relgions are such cultraly ecceptable ideas. relgion vs scince is only seen as a valdid debate becasue people have beilved in god for so long. there is as much eveidnce for harry potter as there is for any relgious idea. yet if you suggested to theses guys an exsperment at a train station to see if harry pottor was going to come out the wall they would think you were crasy
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:39, Share, Reply)
I think you'll find that we're all pro-science on this side of the argument.
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT TRYING TO TURN LEAD INTO GOLD USING DISTILLED PISS?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:43, Share, Reply)
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT TRYING TO TURN LEAD INTO GOLD USING DISTILLED PISS?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:43, Share, Reply)
It was done because they believed
it was possible.
Who are we to argue against ancient beliefs? It is not their fault that they hadn't discovered as much as us yet.
And as you say, it lead to modern chemistry ;)
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
it was possible.
Who are we to argue against ancient beliefs? It is not their fault that they hadn't discovered as much as us yet.
And as you say, it lead to modern chemistry ;)
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
No you didn't
I pointed out where chemistry came from and you described how it evolved.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:51, Share, Reply)
I pointed out where chemistry came from and you described how it evolved.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:51, Share, Reply)
yeah but my point was that now we have scintific reasoning we dont need to rely on just doing random shit
so i dont see how your point is valid
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:55, Share, Reply)
so i dont see how your point is valid
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:55, Share, Reply)
Chemistry came from alchemy.
If some nutter hadn't tried to turn lead into gold using their piss, we wouldn't be where we are today.
But still they shouldn't have bothered, it's all a load of bollocks.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:58, Share, Reply)
If some nutter hadn't tried to turn lead into gold using their piss, we wouldn't be where we are today.
But still they shouldn't have bothered, it's all a load of bollocks.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:58, Share, Reply)
omg im not saying they shouldnt ahve bothered
im saying theres a better method now so yets use that
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:03, Share, Reply)
im saying theres a better method now so yets use that
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:03, Share, Reply)
Superglue was invented by accident
So were twisties, they're nice.
Sure, we don't have to go around sucking on cow's tits to see what comes out anymore, but we're naturally inquisitive. That's how we move forward as a species.
Why would you try and discourage this?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:21, Share, Reply)
So were twisties, they're nice.
Sure, we don't have to go around sucking on cow's tits to see what comes out anymore, but we're naturally inquisitive. That's how we move forward as a species.
Why would you try and discourage this?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:21, Share, Reply)
Now you're just being a fucking idiot!
You quite clearly have not read a single word anyone has written.
Either that or you are horrendously arrogant and think that your opinion, and those who agree unerringly with you, is the only one that is worthy and valid, and refuse to accept nayone elses!
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:44, Share, Reply)
You quite clearly have not read a single word anyone has written.
Either that or you are horrendously arrogant and think that your opinion, and those who agree unerringly with you, is the only one that is worthy and valid, and refuse to accept nayone elses!
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:44, Share, Reply)
NO NO SOMEBODY CONSIDERED RELIGION
THAT MEANS THEIR OPINION IS INVALID, LIKE GALILEO'S.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
THAT MEANS THEIR OPINION IS INVALID, LIKE GALILEO'S.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:47, Share, Reply)
jesus christ im only trying to point out the logical result of regarding all rando shit you make up as valid
if you think there might be spriat worlds why no middle earth, why not faires down the garden, why not wizards hiding in the malyan jungle. why dont we test all these things based on your veiw on scince we should.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:51, Share, Reply)
if you think there might be spriat worlds why no middle earth, why not faires down the garden, why not wizards hiding in the malyan jungle. why dont we test all these things based on your veiw on scince we should.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:51, Share, Reply)
im not telling you what you beilve ibn
im saying that if we as a soceity are to accept teh testing of relgious beilfs as a valid use of resorcses why limit to relgious beilfs and not allthings with as much grounding as relgious beilfs, like all the other stuff which is made up
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:02, Share, Reply)
im saying that if we as a soceity are to accept teh testing of relgious beilfs as a valid use of resorcses why limit to relgious beilfs and not allthings with as much grounding as relgious beilfs, like all the other stuff which is made up
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:02, Share, Reply)
Atheists can have out of body experiences too!
Some might refuse to admit it, but we can put that down to cognitive dissonance.
Does this mean there is an afterlife? maybe. I don't think that's what the study is trying to prove.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:25, Share, Reply)
Some might refuse to admit it, but we can put that down to cognitive dissonance.
Does this mean there is an afterlife? maybe. I don't think that's what the study is trying to prove.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:25, Share, Reply)
im arrogant becuase i think my opinion is worthy invalid?
so to stop being arrogant i ahve to think my opinion is unworthy and invlaid? i you sure you dont think arrgogant because i disaghree with you?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:00, Share, Reply)
so to stop being arrogant i ahve to think my opinion is unworthy and invlaid? i you sure you dont think arrgogant because i disaghree with you?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:00, Share, Reply)
My apologies,
now edited to say what I actually meant to say.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:08, Share, Reply)
now edited to say what I actually meant to say.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:08, Share, Reply)