Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Wow, just wow! Why science is bullshit...

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I did know that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Certainly? Really? You're certain, without evidence, that God not only exists (presumably a particular god you have in mind, since you capitalise his name and give him a gender) but that he designed the universe?

    As for science holding no comfort? So what? It's not particularly comfortable to wake up knowing that there are millions starving in the world, but I'm not going to start believing something else because it's more comfortable. Those are the facts, and when we get beyond the facts, I'm entirely comfortable saying that I don't know, rather than making up certainties that I couldn't possibly know to be true.

    No, I don't have any evidence. But then nobody has any evidence for WHY things have happened the way they have.

    I'm afraid the way I feel is something I'm not going to argue with you about.
    I feel that there is a God. I don't worship that God in any particular way, but I can't and won't change how I feel just because there isn't any evidence.

    I refuse to believe that my life and the lives of 6 billion other people on Earth are the result of a random accident or a lucky coincidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I refuse to believe that my life and the lives of 6 billion other people on Earth are the result of a random accident or a lucky coincidence.

    But that's exactly my point. Why do you feel the need to believe anything? What's wrong with "I don't know?"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I refuse to believe that my life and the lives of 6 billion other people on Earth are the result of a random accident or a lucky coincidence.

    You'd prefer to believe that it was at the whim of a deity?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I refuse to believe that my life and the lives of 6 billion other people on Earth are the result of a random accident or a lucky coincidence.

    I refuse to believe I didn't win the lottery this week, but it doesn't mean that my cheques won't bounce.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that's exactly my point. Why do you feel the need to believe anything? What's wrong with "I don't know?"

    I never said that I knew there was a God, just that I believe there is one. In the same why I and others can say how a star is born but are unable to explain the reason for it.

    It might also be worth pointing out that Science hasn't proven how the universe came into existence, at least not beyond all doubt and so far it has been totally unable to explain what caused the universe to suddenly spring into life or what there was before it.
    And whilst we're at it, the universe is 13billion light years in diameter and continually expanding....into what? It can't be empty space, because empty space is still something tangible, and science has also been unable to explain that as well.


    MOK, I prefer to believe that life holds some sort of purpose and that there is a reason for our existence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Life doesn't have to have a reason or path. I don't believe it does. I'm happy believing that it was chance. Albeit a very high chance, but that it still happened that once. That to me is enough to say I'm happy believing it, because it still happened that once. I don't have to add a god to that hypothesis to enjoy life.
    It might also be worth pointing out that Science hasn't proven how the universe came into existence

    point is it doesn't have to. It doesn't dwell on the ifs and buts, it deals with what we observe and theorize, and seek to find, until it becomes illogical and the unfindable - probably because it doesn't exist so we must change our outlook. The second you start adding the why, it will fall apart. Science doesn't answer the why, that is religions job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The beauty of this system, is that as long as you have the evidence, you can prove anyone else's claims wrong, which is why it makes up for the failings of any individual scientist who may be incompetent or dishonest (or both, in the case of that MMR/autism fella). An experiment actually starts with an assumption, but the experiment itself is the process of trying to prove that assumption wrong.

    This system to which you refer is an abstract ideal. (An omnipotent deity, if you like :D ). I think you are removing the human factor that is present in much the same way as it is in organised religion.

    Science in reality is an industry where the shekel comes into play whether you like it or not. (Organised religion ringing any bells ?).

    The example you gave as science overcoming individual failings is more akin to a soap opera if you have followed it closely. Wakefield may or may not be dishonest and incompetent (he still protests his innocence on both counts) but the treatment he has received suggests to me that the industry is working to protect the industry much like any other. It is all about the bottom line. (Organised religion ringing any bells ?).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NB You know that Viagra's usage now was actually just a side effect discovered during clinical trials, don't you?

    One of numerous side effects.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This system to which you refer is an abstract ideal. (An omnipotent deity, if you like :D ). I think you are removing the human factor that is present in much the same way as it is in organised religion.

    Science in reality is an industry where the shekel comes into play whether you like it or not. (Organised religion ringing any bells ?).

    The example you gave as science overcoming individual failings is more akin to a soap opera if you have followed it closely. Wakefield may or may not be dishonest and incompetent (he still protests his innocence on both counts) but the treatment he has received suggests to me that the industry is working to protect the industry much like any other. It is all about the bottom line. (Organised religion ringing any bells ?).
    Sorry, but you're talking utter bullshit of the worst kind. Oh, and how did I know you'd end up being an apologist of Wakefield? The system does work, because you can stand to become extremely high profile by proving a well-regarded theory wrong. Do you not think that if someone proved evolution wrong, they wouldn't be the biggest thing in science since, well Darwin himself? Wakefield is wrong because of the evidence, not because big Pharma has an interest in him being wrong. He was wrong because of flawed methodology and wilfully misleading conclusions, because he had a financial interest. And the system found him out, because that's how the system works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I never said that I knew there was a God, just that I believe there is one. In the same why I and others can say how a star is born but are unable to explain the reason for it.
    Apologies for assuming your use of the word "certainly" implied a level of certainty on your part.
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It might also be worth pointing out that Science hasn't proven how the universe came into existence, at least not beyond all doubt and so far it has been totally unable to explain what caused the universe to suddenly spring into life or what there was before it.
    And whilst we're at it, the universe is 13billion light years in diameter and continually expanding....into what? It can't be empty space, because empty space is still something tangible, and science has also been unable to explain that as well.

    Which is exactly my point. Your entire logic is "science hasn't proven this, therefore that is evidence for X," which I assume I don't have to explain is flawed at best. The questions you pose are all very interesting. Unfortunately, the existence of such questions are not evidence for the existence of any god. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if and when these questions are eventually answered, they'll only replaced with new questions.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    That'd be why scientists with investment from drug companies always find against the new miracle drugs, wouldn't it :rolleyes:

    Like SSRI's. ;)
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, but you're talking utter bullshit of the worst kind.

    I am ? Would not be the first time.
    Oh, and how did I know you'd end up being an apologist of Wakefield?.

    You are a prophet perchance ?

    Your assumption has been falsified. He is after all (or was until last year) a fully licensed medical practitioner. I try my very best to avoid those kind of folk. (Qui medice vivit misere vivit)
    The system does work, because you can stand to become extremely high profile by proving a well-regarded theory wrong. Do you not think that if someone proved evolution wrong, they wouldn't be the biggest thing in science since, well Darwin himself? Wakefield is wrong because of the evidence, not because big Pharma has an interest in him being wrong. He was wrong because of flawed methodology and wilfully misleading conclusions, because he had a financial interest. And the system found him out, because that's how the system works.

    Your scientific conclusion for the collated data is that Wakefield should be run out of town,vaccines do no harm and are essentially the elixir of life.The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 needs to be repealed forewith.

    How do you think those scientists hugging and cuddling their grants, subsidies and tenures would feel about some upstart turning the system upside down and threatening to take away their cash cows ? How would you feel if you were one of them ? Would you take one in the name of science ? Tell me again how the system works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Like SSRI's. ;)

    Among other drugs, yeah.

    I use SSRIs and they work for me, which backs up the science IMHO. But it's only my opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Religion and the science of pyschoanalysis can mix together quite nicely. Do a search: The First Scandal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Religion and the science of pyschoanalysis can mix together quite nicely. Do a search: The First Scandal.

    I bought the pitch and came to browse.

    A question arises about your interpretation (and differentiation) of body and soul. (Entry : Wednesday, January 20, 2010)

    My understanding is that the Hebrew here is nephesh hhayah, and consequently any differentiation is in error. Thoughts ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bill O'Reilly is good for debating people who are just as ignorant as he is (Michael Moore, for example.) He is, however, a knucklehead. He kind of reminds me of my grandmother.

    Science is a lovely thing and I never quite understood the animosity science and religion have toward one another for some people. For me, science has done more to strengthen my faith than any other tangible means.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm all into science, I think it's really fascinating, but I too have a slight feeling that there might be some sort of 'mastermind' but it isn't neccessarily a man called God, nor a woman called God, it could be something that doesn't exactly live. Scientific theories, discoveries, etc. are made on what humans can not only physically sense, but on what humanity can comprehend. How do we know that we're interpreting and comprehending everything correctly? Humans aren't infinitely intelligent, we do have our limits, but obviously we don't realise them. It's a bit like not every colour is visible to the human eye.. for example, we cannot see infrared light and other sorts of light that are on the electromagnetic spectrum.

    I am not at all religious/theistic, but I'm not atheist either. I am in the 'safe' boat of agnosticism. We don't know, and we don't pretend we do, either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd suggest watching the Adjustment Bureau. The theory about life e.t.c. is a fascinating one.
Sign In or Register to comment.