And I'm not right all the time. What are you going on about? Annoyed that I'm defending my stance?

The end is the result and purpose of the means. How else am I supposed to take your comment? Killing in the name of religion doesn't make religion an 'end' to murder.

The end might be to have an entire nation converted to your religion and war might be the means. In that case, then you're right. But normally the end is more land, resources and power. Not converted souls.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

I'm using the terms 'end' and 'means' as they are taken in the phrase "The end justifies the means."  So, yes, killing in the name of religion does make religion an 'end' to murder.  'End' doesn't refer to the result, but the goal or the motivation.

I'm also not saying that religion is the only end, just that it's never a means.  Returning to the original point, Science and Religion are technically never what you "kill with," only Science.  Religion is just occasionally what you kill for.

Italics are often handy when trying to emphasize certain words in your sentences!

---

Do me a favor. Click this every once in a while.

I personally think you don't understand that phrase, but nevermind.

I'd actually pay money to watch someone kill someone with a science. Or maybe we'll see that in the future. They'll resurrect Einstein and Newton and have them battle to the death through their knowledge and scientific method alone. Maybe people will collect brilliant scientists like pokemon.

The point is, you can't actually kill anybody with science any more than you can kill someone with art or learning a foreign language. You kill people with the products of science. A gun isn't a science.
This bizarre distinction you're making becomes meaningless at this point.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

Oh, c'mon, now.  I know you didn't think that I meant Science the idea.  You're just trying to pick apart my words instead of picking apart my argument.  I used to know the word for that fallacy.  Maybe it was Red Herring.  But that's not the point.

Anyone killed by anything other than natural causes, a freak accident, or another person's bare hands was killed by some form of technology.  Someone being stricken down by a religion because of another man's will would be ridiculous.  Someone being shot by a man with a gun is every 5 minutes in New York.

But if you want to drop the argument, that's fine.  I won't keep going.

---

Do me a favor. Click this every once in a while.

Shisou:

Anyone killed by anything other than natural causes, a freak accident, or another person's bare hands was killed by some form of technology.  Someone being stricken down by a religion because of another man's will would be ridiculous.  Someone being shot by a man with a gun is every 5 minutes in New York.

Ridiculous to you maybe but not necessarily to someone of faith - never heard the phrase "may god strike me down if..." ? Every one of those men shot in new york may be a sinner who is reaping what they sowed, a vengeful god using man and man's technology to work his will. Which would I suppose make science the method by which the sub-means of the over-arching religious means - ie god working through man, you know, in one of his mysterious ways - was created in order for the guy to be shot.

Or it might have been voodoo - I've seen the D's Advocate, I know what goes on in the basement of haitian-fested tenements in the big apple!

The point, if for once I have one, is that it's easy for a man of science to dismiss religious means as nonsense because they cannot be quantified and by their very nature cannot be (at least fully) understood. However, dismissing a potential cause because you don't understand it is the antithesis of science. Paradox! Stop kissing your mum and punch Biff!

 

---

Smeog:

The question that is raised by the topic starter is NOT a valid question.

Religion is a conviction or belief about the presence of supernatural deities. By defenition it has no real evidence, mostly just ancient text claiming their validity. (No disrespect meant)

Science on the otherhand, is not a set of beliefs or convictions, it is just a method that is used to distill the truth about uncertanties, and has fixed methods of validation of claims and proposed hypothosi. (Sorry I might have the plural wrong.)

The question is like comparing apples to cannons, there is no connection there whatsoever.

The problem that sience gives for most religious people is that the things concluded and validated by the scientific method don't fit within their fixed views of the world.Science is indiffrent and cold, it does not give prefferance to one outcome or the other, which is something most people fail to understand about it.

Nah. That's scientific method (or experimental science if you want) you're thinking of. Applied science, on the other hand is really at believing all kinds of stuff it's told from various texts and making all kinds of murderous stuff with it. Like inventing carnivorous aftershave, for example. Atlantis was never the same after it did that, you know...

Which is probably not that different to applied religion, really.


Incidentally, am I the only one that thinks it's a bit presumptuous that science gets to set it's own methods of deciding what is and bad practice? Did anyone else get a say in the matter? Talk about a closed shop! Science has been hiding in shadows like some old-boys club for far too long I say - it's time to throw open it's doors to an independent panel of adjudicators on a Saturday evening TV show! I vote for John Sargent, Jeremy Kyle and a giggly woman of the chesty persuasion as used in TVs 'I'm A Celebrity - get Me Out Of Here!".

---

matneee:

I vote for John Sargent, Jeremy Kyle and a giggly woman of the chesty persuasion as used in TVs 'I'm A Celebrity - get Me Out Of Here!".

Could the woman be the one that John Sargent danced with instead. Actually, keep the one you say, scrap Sargent and have the dancer instead.

EDIT

NUNBERRY:

The point, if for once I have one, is that it's easy for a man of science to dismiss religious means as nonsense because they cannot be quantified and by their very nature cannot be (at least fully) understood. However, dismissing a potential cause because you don't understand it is the antithesis of science. Paradox! Stop kissing your mum and punch Biff!

QFT. This is as far as I've seen the root cause of all science vs religion debates, but it works both ways. And is also why they're irresolvable, and usually descend into a festering pit of semantic-critiquing pointlessness.

---

Large Hadron Collider - because fleshlites are for wusses

suzanne536:

Interesting debate. I prefer both. But, here is something for the athiests to figure out for all of their science. This is from Storm Stories on TWC. A woman drives in to a flooded underpass. Her car starts to float, and then start to sink in approximatly 10 feet of water. Several passersby swim out to rescue this now panicked woman. They desperatly try to break the windows in the back of the vehicle to free the woman, nothing budges. As the car slips under the water one of the resucuers dives under and notices the windshield wipers still going. ( A flooded car with power?) He tries to get the panicked woman to roll the windows down. Somehow a window comes down enough to pull her out to saftey. Later, when they pull the drowned car out of the water and on to a tow truck it is discovered that all of the windows are tightly rolled up. Ok, lets see if the athiest can use science to figure that one out.

Which of these is more plausible?

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR: God must have rolled the windows down in order for her to be rescued, then rolled them back up again for neatness.

or

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR: It is possible that the electrics short circuited causing the window to come up again, or maybe water pressure inside the door forced the window back up.

---

jazzx:

suzanne536:

Interesting debate. I prefer both. But, here is something for the athiests to figure out for all of their science. This is from Storm Stories on TWC. A woman drives in to a flooded underpass. Her car starts to float, and then start to sink in approximatly 10 feet of water. Several passersby swim out to rescue this now panicked woman. They desperatly try to break the windows in the back of the vehicle to free the woman, nothing budges. As the car slips under the water one of the resucuers dives under and notices the windshield wipers still going. ( A flooded car with power?) He tries to get the panicked woman to roll the windows down. Somehow a window comes down enough to pull her out to saftey. Later, when they pull the drowned car out of the water and on to a tow truck it is discovered that all of the windows are tightly rolled up. Ok, lets see if the athiest can use science to figure that one out.

Which of these is more plausible?

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR: God must have rolled the windows down in order for her to be rescued, then rolled them back up again for neatness.

or

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR: It is possible that the electrics short circuited causing the window to come up again, or maybe water pressure inside the door forced the window back up.

OOH OOH! Pick me! Pick me!

I chooose... option B!!!

---

satansmunchkin:

hey man, just wanted to let you know going to dinner with your wife and plan on boning her until she screams, you'll then get the sloppy seconds

Neither. They're both the same anyway.

---

I only wrote this because I hate you.

I actually find this to be the least controversial debate for some reason.

I'm choosing none, it would be a life mistake to hold to just one.

---

I AM WOODSTOCK and LION'S HEAD
GT---> mu5t ki11 u 411
--
the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie

There is no comparison between religion and science, I don't "believe" in science, I see it every day, it doesn't require a leap of faith, it just is. It's the way the world works, sure there are some far fetched "scientific theory" but they are not what we would consider science fact ...

4000 years ago religion was as as science and could be compared to it because we had no idea how the world worked, science and religion were completely entwined ... but now we have science as a seperate entity from religion. To ignore science or to pit it against religion is futile, religion requires you to "accept" or "believe" or "have faith" where as science doesn't, it just is. I know that because of science my GPS system will be accurate to within 1m because there are precise calculations to compensate for the time drift caused by the difference between the satellites orbiting the earth and my own movement. It would drift by something like 20 feet every day, and that's a lot ... There is no faith in that, I can see it from calculations, and from observing it every day, I have the mathmatical tools to see that it is proved, where as with religion I have a lot of "faith" to learn before I could accept it ...

Perhaps one would say that the bible is no different to a maths book and that my "knowing" is like that of a religious persons, but I refute that and put forth my own opinion - Religion doesn't explain anything solidly, it is the rose tinted glasses with which most choose the view the world, because the harsh reality of life it truely too scary for most the deal with - We are after all created out of trillions of tiny little particles, the embers of a dead star, our consciousness is a side effect of our chemical reactions drive to continue, and all that we are is this microscopic spec of dust in this desert that is the universe. I know that religion, the sense that there is something more, the sense that someone made us and that we have a purpose is comforting to most, but to me it is just bottling out of the real ideal, the real truth, which is that we have nothing to fear but our own mind, we have nothing to "live up to" because our actions, no matter how grand on earth, will mean nothing to the universe on the whole. I'll be damned if I live my life to some moral code, trying to get into heaven, when I might as well enjoy this amazing fluke of life that I have.

The question you must really ask yourself is would an artifical intelligence have religion, would a purely logical, conscious being consider that religion was necessary, or would they simply think that because they didn't know how something happened or worked that they simply didn't know it and should further themselves.

Religion has had its place, and its time is running out on the grand scheme of things, science is replacing religion, not because it is comparable, but because it offers the answers that religion can't. How does that work? (aimed at a nuclear bomb detonation) "act of god" and who could blame them for thinking it? or is it simply the fission of atoms releasing vast amounts of energy ....

Don't get me wrong, I will never argue that someone shouldn't believe in a god, I think that peopel need religion still, it is to me but a comfort blanket for a juvenille civilization that is humanity. Once we grow up and accept who we are and why we are we will progress far more quickly .... or perhaps commit mass suicide ...

This isn't coming from a staunch athiest, as many of the oldbies will know I spent a year or two really having inner turmoil and questioning the basis of life and how it came about, but the very idea of a "god" in the way the bible tells it doesn't fit with the way I could possibly see what we think of as a "god" having interacted with our world... aliens? higher intelligence? sure ... all powerful being in control of everything ... less so ... I've seen nothing that can convince me that there is a god, or even anything supernatural ...

These are my views, my opinion at its most abrupt, don't try and argue with me or convince me otherwise, this is the culmination of 23 years of thinking about this subject and my views are absolute, to me. I accept that others have different opinions and I wont argue the toss with you about small matters of semantics, and I wont defend my position, it's just what I have concluded from my life on this earth. However if you want to discuss my views, and have questions about it that don't involve starting and argument, I'll happily reply and discuss my views. I have no delusions of trying to convert people to my way of thinking, but know that some people will be interested as to why I think certain things, which I shall be happy to discuss.

ta

Munchie

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

satansmunchkin:

To ignore science or to pit it against religion is futile, religion requires you to "accept" or "believe" or "have faith" where as science doesn't, it just is. I know that because of science my GPS system will be accurate to within 1m because there are precise calculations to compensate for the time drift caused by the difference between the satellites orbiting the earth and my own movement. It would drift by something like 20 feet every day, and that's a lot ... There is no faith in that, I can see it from calculations, and from observing it every day, I have the mathmatical tools to see that it is proved, where as with religion I have a lot of "faith" to learn before I could accept it ...

I would quite like you to share with us the calculations you've used to prove relativistic adjustments make the GPS system work, with special reference to it going out by about 20 feet per day, thus negating the need for faith by replacing it with proof, please.

I would find that extremely interesting

---

Munchie, if you want to learn faith, then you simply need to hug more Christians. Perhaps even sleep with one.
You'll find that in most modern growing churches that hugs are a plenty, and generally those that stick around are those that are getting involved with the hug action. Intimate contact like this balances feel chemicals in the brain, especially those involving trust. Therefore, if you're intimate with someone, you're more likely to trust them. If you're more likely to trust them, then you're more likely believe what they say... And I think you can see where I'm going with this!

You know, there's a reason why Jesus washed his Disciples feet. He had a foot fetish, and was balancing those trust chemicals!

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

deliriousstudios:

Munchie, if you want to learn faith, then you simply need to hug more Christians. Perhaps even sleep with one.
You'll find that in most modern growing churches that hugs are a plenty, and generally those that stick around are those that are getting involved with the hug action. Intimate contact like this balances feel chemicals in the brain, especially those involving trust. Therefore, if you're intimate with someone, you're more likely to trust them. If you're more likely to trust them, then you're more likely believe what they say... And I think you can see where I'm going with this!

You know, there's a reason why Jesus washed his Disciples feet. He had a foot fetish, and was balancing those trust chemicals!

Yeah coming from a Christian standpoint this post was a little wierd.

Better watch out for those athiests, you never know when they will go around hugging Christians...

---

The Bag:

The day we decide to do an MMO is the day I quit.

Swordbane85:

deliriousstudios:

Munchie, if you want to learn faith, then you simply need to hug more Christians. Perhaps even sleep with one.
You'll find that in most modern growing churches that hugs are a plenty, and generally those that stick around are those that are getting involved with the hug action. Intimate contact like this balances feel chemicals in the brain, especially those involving trust. Therefore, if you're intimate with someone, you're more likely to trust them. If you're more likely to trust them, then you're more likely believe what they say... And I think you can see where I'm going with this!

You know, there's a reason why Jesus washed his Disciples feet. He had a foot fetish, and was balancing those trust chemicals!

Yeah coming from a Christian standpoint this post was a little wierd.

Better watch out for those athiests, you never know when they will go around hugging Christians...

...Now maybe I've had too much to drink, due to the fact I skimmed the last couple of posts, but faith really in my view, is not something you learn but have or do not. I have faith but don't believe in God, but I do believe in a higher power. An I would not hug a random christian( depending on the sect majorily) because I here they're contagious...

---

...Think of something really profound that would blow your mind...

...And assume it is written here...

matneee:

satansmunchkin:

To ignore science or to pit it against religion is futile, religion requires you to "accept" or "believe" or "have faith" where as science doesn't, it just is. I know that because of science my GPS system will be accurate to within 1m because there are precise calculations to compensate for the time drift caused by the difference between the satellites orbiting the earth and my own movement. It would drift by something like 20 feet every day, and that's a lot ... There is no faith in that, I can see it from calculations, and from observing it every day, I have the mathmatical tools to see that it is proved, where as with religion I have a lot of "faith" to learn before I could accept it ...

I would quite like you to share with us the calculations you've used to prove relativistic adjustments make the GPS system work, with special reference to it going out by about 20 feet per day, thus negating the need for faith by replacing it with proof, please. I would find that extremely interesting

relativity in action http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-87010.html
...

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

No, you misunderstand - I meant your specific calculations that you used. I assume you did and then arrived at your 20 feet figure, to prove it to yourself. Rather than, for example, just reading something in a text somewhere and not bothering with the proof part, relying on instead Faith. As I previously may have mentioned quite a lot of science graduates seem to do when they're waxing lyrical on the subject of Science vs Religion.

Unless, of course, you didn't bother with the proof part and what you said was all just Hyperbole...

---

NUNBERRY:

The evidence for evolution is mainly circumstancial, a collection of suppositions based on observation. There's no hard fact there.

*Throws fossils at Nun*

Don't worry, they are all soft and cuddly.

LEORA:

Now, the thing about science, is it usually doesn't claim things are facts, just the most likely theory. Such as... the theory of evolution. Then people don't look quite so foolish when it's discovered that the theory was wrong, and this other theory is more likely. (Yeah, so I'm feeling like pointing out useless little things. Unless evolution has been proven beyond a doubt recently and nobody told me...)
Anyway...

Evolution was proven beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise) some decades ago when some awesome people demonstrated how awesome DNA is.

Before that it was just proven beyond any reasonable doubt, which should be enough for any intelligent being.

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

matneee:

No, you misunderstand - I meant your specific calculations that you used. I assume you did and then arrived at your 20 feet figure, to prove it to yourself. Rather than, for example, just reading something in a text somewhere and not bothering with the proof part, relying on instead Faith. As I previously may have mentioned quite a lot of science graduates seem to do when they're waxing lyrical on the subject of Science vs Religion. Unless, of course, you didn't bother with the proof part and what you said was all just Hyperbole...

Trusting the scientific consensus has nothing to do with faith. The scientific community has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is very reliable. If you disagree with this I suggest that you turn off your computer and go live in a forest. After all, any one of those machines you use every day may suddenly explode in your face (doesn't apply if you've gained complete understanding of the inner workings of all the technology you use, through your own examination and experimentation, from scratch).

kthxbai

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

Ignoring that trust is a direct synonym of faith, may I remind you of, say, Dr Martin Fleishman...?
And that's just one name picked at random from recent times. The body of evidence for the "Oh, look! They were actually talking a load of shite! !" column is pretty overwhelming over the history of science.

Still, I don't deny certain things need to be taken as read for advancement. What I detest is the glib way some proponents of the 'science' side in these largely futile debates spout random scientific theorums they've vaguely heard of without bothering to follow them through with any particular critical thinking. Stan, for example, has sweepingly refered to himself being able to look at GPS corrective to satisfy his need for proof rather than faith. Now, I'm not flat-out saying he didn't bother running through them and just alluded to having proof rather than faith, but I'd like to think he'd remember that he was something in the order of 30,000 feet per day out on his original figure of 20 feet per day when he followed the calculations through.

Of couse, he could, again, just be a science graduate in a science argument, not applying any form of actual scientific thinking as well, and has retrospectively had to go and look that thread up on google after I called his bluff.

That's one of the things about science degrees - to a fair extent what they spend three years doing is teaching you to accept a load of stuff without questioning it particularly. Judging by a lot of science grads I've listened to, it's a tough habit to break. Frankly I think it's ghastly behaviour

Now if you'll excuse me I feel an Imbalance in my Four humours coming on and feel the need for a lie down.

---

matneee:

Ignoring that trust is a direct synonym of faith

If faith is to trust in that which has been proven reliable, then what is the problem?
(Ignoring the usual equivocation)

may I remind you of, say, Dr Martin Fleishman...?

Reading comprehension FTW!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann

Please note who his worst critics were.

And that's just one name picked at random from recent times. The body of evidence for the "Oh, look! They were actually talking a load of shite! !" column is pretty overwhelming over the history of science.

You are showing your ignorance of how science works.

Please continue. If you keep making an *** of yourself, I won't have to do it for you.

kthxbai

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

Jesus. You really walked into that one, didn't you?

If you don't get the irony of what you've done there I'm afraid you may be a completely lost cause already, my dear boy

For the record, Dr Fleishman taught my dad chemistry when Newcatle Uni was still refered to as Kings College Durham way back in the 1950s. I do remember him looking up over Newspaper when the 1st news reports broke on the debacle in question. His exact word were "Oh. It's him. That'll be a load of bollocks then..."

I'm quite willing to bet I've got more BSc's than yourself if you want to get onto scientific method btw - my dispute is with the lack of it's aplication by most proponents of the science side in these things and an apparent trend to just blindly accept what they've heard then regurgitate it thoughtlessly - but I'll let that slide for now. Also you said arse. Tee hee

---

matneee:

If you don't get the irony of what you've done there I'm afraid you may be a completely lost cause already, my dear boy

And I'm afraid you are an arrogant twit who needs to explain himself, lest you be flamed to Hel.

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

Hmmm. No, I don't think so. Still, if you want to get upset after calling me an arse that's your problem not mine. If you're childish enough to resort to name-calling as one of your first ports of call, you deserve to be treated as a child until you learn to behave otherwise.


There is a lesson to be learned there. Sorry *shrug*

---