If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And, in fact, with our imperfect senses in mind, empirical data isn't really that good after all, is it?

Haha luckily we have developed tools to enhance our senses unless you think we discovered quarks with our eyes?

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

[Lexical]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Kitsy]

I will pay for all of you. May Karana have mercy on your souls.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha luckily we have developed tools to enhance our senses unless you think we discovered quarks with our eyes?

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.

Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.

[Darthmuhh]

I came across this, I found it pretty interesting, if you dont believe in God thats cool, but check out the science part of it and ignore the God parts. It raises some good questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyu...eature=related

I would like to see a debate between Michio Kaku and Dr. Kindell. If anyone knows of such a debate between differing views please link it.

[theaetatus]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OMFG you're dense.

For the last time.

I AM USING THE SAME DEFINITION FOR FAITH AS IT APPLIES TO RELIGION AS I AM FOR SCIENCE. The DIFFERENCE is the amount of validity in each.

Go back to the Oxford dictionary definition you linked. Faith in science is definition 1, Faith in religion is definition 2. This should be obvious.

[Reiker000]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

Hasbinbad is like those Rick Ross songs where he yell-raps a phrase over and over and it slowly becomes unintelligible monkey speak.

THESE *****S WONT HOLD ME BACK!

DESE *****S ONT HOLD M'BACK!

ESE NIGAZWA OLD MBAK!

EZE NIGAYOMA BAK!

EZENIGOAMABK!

EUAHYNABOMAK!

[Reiker000]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go back to the Oxford dictionary definition you linked. Faith in science is definition 1, Faith in religion is definition 2. This should be obvious.

headdesk.jpg