Nice Letter
-
I am willing to bet that if you asked one of them if faith had anything to do with it they'd say no (unless, of course, they believe in a god). Their theories are usually (and I'm happy to be corrected here) supported by the math. So, whilst they may not be able to see n dimensions they can postulate that they exist and provide a mathematical framework to support that hypothesis. Read this; you might find it interesting: Calabi–Yau manifold[^]. It is wrong to assert that science is predicated on faith in the religious sense: the whole notion of science is reason and observation and experimentation; almost anti-faith.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
What I think the problem is you cannot detach the notion of faith from religion. I'm by no means an expert in string theory, but what I do know of it, it seems to be far from fully accepted due to a lack of evidence. My statements are merely that they have faith (not to be confused with faith in God), but a faith regardless. Either way, I'll just let this discuss end here. We're not heading towards a conclusion any time soon and only spamming CP. So, agree to disagree. You can reply if you like, but I shall leave it as such.
-
What I think the problem is you cannot detach the notion of faith from religion. I'm by no means an expert in string theory, but what I do know of it, it seems to be far from fully accepted due to a lack of evidence. My statements are merely that they have faith (not to be confused with faith in God), but a faith regardless. Either way, I'll just let this discuss end here. We're not heading towards a conclusion any time soon and only spamming CP. So, agree to disagree. You can reply if you like, but I shall leave it as such.
Ah, ye of little faith.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
So provide a proof.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
The original comment was in regards to God being provable/disprovable via Science. As seen by the current ongoing debates, Science has been used on both sides of the debate. As in my other thread, you may continue, but I see no point in continuing forward.
-
The original comment was in regards to God being provable/disprovable via Science. As seen by the current ongoing debates, Science has been used on both sides of the debate. As in my other thread, you may continue, but I see no point in continuing forward.
So you can't answer. :)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Dear Religion, This week I safely dropped a human being from space; you shot a 14 year old girl in the head for wanting an education. Yours, Science.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Yours,
Science.I think its interesting that people think that "Science" is free from dogmas or ulterior motives. :) http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/17/scientific-research-retractions.aspx?e_cid=20121017_DNL_art_2[^]
-
My statement is purely that the Pope determined this 'rule'. Based on what is found in the Bible, you cannot state that God is for or against condoms.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
My statement is purely that the Pope determined this 'rule'
And my statement is that that Catholicism is based on Papal proclimations. It isn't just an opinion of one individual but a statement about what all Catholics are required to follow to be considered acceptable in the eyes of god. That is how Catholicism works.
-
ict558 wrote:
Illness thus became a matter for the Church
Actually, it was important to the Church, since the Christian faith is built upon compassion for others - especially those who normally wouldn't receive care.
-
Quote:
It doesn't mean you helping your neighbor because they broke their leg.
Sure it does. Read the dictionary definition, not some post some fulano de tal put on wiki. having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.[^]
Quote:
larger scale effort
That is often how it is referred to, but it does not have to be large scale.
Quote:
And without science. 1. There would be no way to provide such aid.
Not true. Yes, science has helped, but people were helping people long before science was a part of it.
Quote:
Desire to do good is simply not enough.
Ironic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Read the dictionary definition,
www.webster.com does not recognize "humanitarian aid" as a word. And since that is the phrased that was used that is the definition that is under discussion.
ryanb31 wrote:
That is often how it is referred to, but it does not have to be large scale.
And I can use 'potato' to describe what is often "referred" to as a tomato but that doesn't alter the discussion that is about a tomato.
ryanb31 wrote:
but people were helping people long before science was a part of it.
Which has nothing to do with "humanitarian aid". That was the exact phrase that was used. It wasn't 'helping people'. You attempted to expand the definition. But no one uses that phrase to mean all forms of people "helping" other people.
ryanb31 wrote:
Ironic.
Nope. It is a fact.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Read the dictionary definition,
www.webster.com does not recognize "humanitarian aid" as a word. And since that is the phrased that was used that is the definition that is under discussion.
ryanb31 wrote:
That is often how it is referred to, but it does not have to be large scale.
And I can use 'potato' to describe what is often "referred" to as a tomato but that doesn't alter the discussion that is about a tomato.
ryanb31 wrote:
but people were helping people long before science was a part of it.
Which has nothing to do with "humanitarian aid". That was the exact phrase that was used. It wasn't 'helping people'. You attempted to expand the definition. But no one uses that phrase to mean all forms of people "helping" other people.
ryanb31 wrote:
Ironic.
Nope. It is a fact.
Quote:
www.webster.com does not recognize "humanitarian aid" as a word.
And neither would anyone who is literate. It is not a word, but two. "Humanitarian aid" is aid given humanitarianly. So, go back and read your link to wiki. It does not mention it has to be large scale. But why nit pick the definition of the word(s) and totally bypass the actual point? Talk about splitting hairs. You sure do come out of the wood work with some weird ones.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
I'm sorry you do, then.
Please don't: I'm perfectly happy with my non-belief; it is you that I feel sorry for: shackled and enslaved to the cult of religion.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
See our other thread.
Oh boy; can't be asked: you'll just have to have faith that I mean what I say.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
Please don't: I'm perfectly happy with my non-belief; it is you that I feel sorry for: shackled and enslaved to the cult of religion.
Err...this part of the sub-thread referred to "faith" and not "religion". There is a difference. And you might chose to believe that God (of any sort) doesn't exist but that belief in of itself is no different than a belief that God does exist. And that says little about religion or organized religion as well. I also suspect that you would be hard pressed to prove that many people are "shackled and enslaved" to their religion. Certainly isn't true in the US where the vast majority of people ignore edicts of their organised religion willy-nilly as they see fit both for minor and even major parts of the religion. Divorce rate for Catholics is a primary example of that. Even in countries where religion is strictly enforced people often disobey edicts. If that wasn't the case then there wouldn't need to be enforcement. An example of that is that Saudia Arabia has various laws against different types of activities around alcohol.
-
Quote:
www.webster.com does not recognize "humanitarian aid" as a word.
And neither would anyone who is literate. It is not a word, but two. "Humanitarian aid" is aid given humanitarianly. So, go back and read your link to wiki. It does not mention it has to be large scale. But why nit pick the definition of the word(s) and totally bypass the actual point? Talk about splitting hairs. You sure do come out of the wood work with some weird ones.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
And neither would anyone who is literate. It is not a word, but two.
That however is the specific phrased that was used.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, go back and read your link to wiki. It does not mention it has to be large scale.
I read it again. I see nothing to suggest that they are not referring specifically to organized efforts involving many people and helping many people. But do feel free to find a definition for that term where it is used specifically to indicate one single person helping another single person.
ryanb31 wrote:
But why nit pick the definition of the word(s) and totally bypass the actual point?
Because my point was that in terms of "humanitarian aid" as that phrased is used by everyone except you, it would not be possible to do it without science. Pretty sure I made that clear.
ryanb31 wrote:
Talk about splitting hairs.
Specific phrased was used and it lead to a specific conclusion. Attempting to redefine the term to negate the conclusion only works if one agrees with the redefinition. I do not. And that is not "splitting hairs".
-
ryanb31 wrote:
And neither would anyone who is literate. It is not a word, but two.
That however is the specific phrased that was used.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, go back and read your link to wiki. It does not mention it has to be large scale.
I read it again. I see nothing to suggest that they are not referring specifically to organized efforts involving many people and helping many people. But do feel free to find a definition for that term where it is used specifically to indicate one single person helping another single person.
ryanb31 wrote:
But why nit pick the definition of the word(s) and totally bypass the actual point?
Because my point was that in terms of "humanitarian aid" as that phrased is used by everyone except you, it would not be possible to do it without science. Pretty sure I made that clear.
ryanb31 wrote:
Talk about splitting hairs.
Specific phrased was used and it lead to a specific conclusion. Attempting to redefine the term to negate the conclusion only works if one agrees with the redefinition. I do not. And that is not "splitting hairs".
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
since the Christian faith is built upon compassion for others
Odd definition for "compasion" then. Certainly that isn't the word I would use to describe what occurred in the Catholic orphanages in Ireland as one example.
I wouldn't either. It was a gross misuse of trust, but thankfully justice is being served, as much as it can be.
-
ict558 wrote:
Which is none. The scientific method can neither disprove nor prove the existence of gods.
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
ict558 wrote:
The debate as to the existence of god certainly predates the scientific method.
Agreed. But the point was just that if a concrete proof existed, it wouldn't be a debatable subject.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Debatable, honestly.
No. It requires an experiment that disproves the hypothesis "Gods Exist", or an experiment that disproves the hypothesis "Gods do not Exist". Had someone come up with either, I would not be keying this.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
mark merrens wrote:
Please don't: I'm perfectly happy with my non-belief; it is you that I feel sorry for: shackled and enslaved to the cult of religion.
Err...this part of the sub-thread referred to "faith" and not "religion". There is a difference. And you might chose to believe that God (of any sort) doesn't exist but that belief in of itself is no different than a belief that God does exist. And that says little about religion or organized religion as well. I also suspect that you would be hard pressed to prove that many people are "shackled and enslaved" to their religion. Certainly isn't true in the US where the vast majority of people ignore edicts of their organised religion willy-nilly as they see fit both for minor and even major parts of the religion. Divorce rate for Catholics is a primary example of that. Even in countries where religion is strictly enforced people often disobey edicts. If that wasn't the case then there wouldn't need to be enforcement. An example of that is that Saudia Arabia has various laws against different types of activities around alcohol.
Would you mind butting out of my piss taking session? It's hard enough getting a rise out of anybody without you pointing put the bleeding obvious. On the other hand I don't not 'believe' in god: for that statement to have any meaning would imply that I am willing to acknowledge the possibility of a god and I do not. Finally, from my perspective anyone that buys into a religion is shackled and enslaved to a set of beliefs founded on the mythical. No different to being a scientologist or a Jedi, really. And, post-finally, I am only doing what Rombama did last night and answering a completely different question to the one that was asked. And that was funny last night, especially the final question which Romney at least tried to answer and Obama just ognored and delivered a poltical speech and wasn't stopped. One sided bullshit.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Debatable, honestly.
No. It requires an experiment that disproves the hypothesis "Gods Exist", or an experiment that disproves the hypothesis "Gods do not Exist". Had someone come up with either, I would not be keying this.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
It hasn't stopped people from trying though, that was my point.
-
It hasn't stopped people from trying though, that was my point.
-
Would you mind butting out of my piss taking session? It's hard enough getting a rise out of anybody without you pointing put the bleeding obvious. On the other hand I don't not 'believe' in god: for that statement to have any meaning would imply that I am willing to acknowledge the possibility of a god and I do not. Finally, from my perspective anyone that buys into a religion is shackled and enslaved to a set of beliefs founded on the mythical. No different to being a scientologist or a Jedi, really. And, post-finally, I am only doing what Rombama did last night and answering a completely different question to the one that was asked. And that was funny last night, especially the final question which Romney at least tried to answer and Obama just ognored and delivered a poltical speech and wasn't stopped. One sided bullshit.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
that I am willing to acknowledge the possibility of a god and I do not.
That is a belief.
mark merrens wrote:
One sided bullsh*t.
I seriously doubt that there is any significant political rhetoric in any managed campaign (all federal offices and probably most state level ones) which are not anything but marketing buzz natterings. All of them are like that.
-
mark merrens wrote:
that I am willing to acknowledge the possibility of a god and I do not.
That is a belief.
mark merrens wrote:
One sided bullsh*t.
I seriously doubt that there is any significant political rhetoric in any managed campaign (all federal offices and probably most state level ones) which are not anything but marketing buzz natterings. All of them are like that.
jschell wrote:
That is a belief.
I don't believe that.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ict558 wrote:
Which is none. The scientific method can neither disprove nor prove the existence of gods.
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
ict558 wrote:
The debate as to the existence of god certainly predates the scientific method.
Agreed. But the point was just that if a concrete proof existed, it wouldn't be a debatable subject.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
Not so far as I know. Most scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and philosophical theologians accept the premise that there are spiritual aspects that cannot be proven. Matter of fact there are mathematical and scientific principles that directly support that. I would certainly like to see a proof that god doesn't exist.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
But the point was just that if a concrete proof existed, it wouldn't be a debatable subject.
That is obviously false. There are all sorts of subjects for which substantial evidence exists and yet either small or even large groups of people ignore/disregard/refute such evidence.