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

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. Hasbinbad, you really need to read 'Unskilled and Unaware of it'. You just don't understand what you are talking about, which is fine, but you are also unaware of it, which is poor.

I would like to see you provide examples of that.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure I understand this. If you don't have faith in science and you don't operate on belief, how do you make decisions?

Are you serious? Science doesn't require faith or belief. It requires evidence.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001

I don't have faith in science. Its a reasoned decision due to evidence that is presented and also the application of the scientific method.

This sentence seems simply contradictory to me. Science is nothing but the repeated application of the scientific method. But maybe what you are trying to say is that you don't consider choosing the empirical answer an act of faith but instead reason.

In that case I submit that science clearly requires faith. Remember Popper: science is the set of theories that 1) are testable and 2) have not yet been proven false. So even when you make the 'logical' decision you are to some extent making a leap of faith, and those theories are falsified all the time: think grue/bleen or Newton's laws of motion or a turkey's estimate of a farmer's concern for his well-being. Even worse, you have to believe in the predictability of the universe - something you cannot by definition prove inductively.

[Hasbinlulz]

science is a belief system lmao, anyone who doesn't understand that is really silly.

[Hasbinlulz]

especially if that person purports to understand science!

[Alawen]

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

The sad part is that I think you actually believe the above. Alawen, I have no interest in stalking you. No interest in continually proving you to be on the wrong side of every serious scholarly discussion of the things you profess so assuredly.

I just think you're a buffoon. I think you condescendingly dismiss anything you don't agree with. I think you're a frustrated child that believes his way is the right way, and all other ways are absurd. And I think your pseudo intellect needs to be exposed for what it is. When you attack Hasbinbad for being, well, reasonable -- he deserves a defense.

Your new argument is that believing intelligent extraterrestrial life exists is based on wishful thinking, not evidence. You mock those who disagree with accusations of illogic and magical thinking, equating such a belief with the belief that Satan implanted the fossil record. And yet, many disagree. It appeared HBB disagreed. I disagree. Stephen Hawking disagrees. Hawking says that a belief in extraterrestrials can be based on mathematics and reason. Not surprisingly, you think Stephen Hawking is ludicrous. Please: set him straight, Alawen.

For the record, the evidence is this: there are (estimated) sextillions of habitable planets comparable to Earth throughout the universe. We don't understand exactly how life began on Earth -- we have no idea whether or not the same process could have occurred elsewhere. We have no reason to believe that Earth is (or isn't) atypical in this regard. But if you believe that there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life, it requires a belief that Earth is unique. That within a solar system of 1 star, within a galaxy of 200-400 billion stars, within a universe of 100 billion galaxies, over the course of 13 billion years, Earth is the only planet that has ever sustained intelligent life.

Is that possible? Yes, certainly. Is it ludicrous to believe? Of course not. Is the converse possible? Yes, certainly. Is the converse ludicrous to believe? Of course not.

For some reason, you struggle with this. You like to create a false dichotomy, where something is either definitely true or there's absolutely no reason to believe it to be true, and if there's no reason to believe it to be true, anyone who does believe it to be true is ludicrous. The problem is nuance. There is reason to believe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life. There is also reason to believe there isn't. You don't seem capable of processing both strains of logic at the same time. I'm not sure I can think of a more damning shortcoming for a supposed intellect.

Gosh, you're right. How could I have been so wrong about everything? Thank you for defending Hasbinbad and the other good people of Project 1999 forums rants and flames and showing me the error of my ways. I'll give this some careful thought and try to correct my shortcomings. Maybe I should just avoid serious scholarly discussion; my education is probably inadequate for responsible participation.

Don't give up on me, Daldolma.

Your friend,
Alawen Everywhere

[Black Jesus]

science is full of shit

[theaetatus]

The pitfall people have fallen into here is using the two words 'faith' and 'belief' interchangeably. Faith is essentially belief without any evidence. What religion requires is faith, faith that a magical man exists somewhere controlling everything, what science requires is belief, belief that the current model is as accurate an attempt as we can currently make.

Science adjusts itself as it comes closer to an accurate model of reality, religion remains where science was 3000 years ago, where the only explanation for phenomena was the aforementioned magical man.

[Hasbinlulz]

science is a faith based system. every scientist doesn't review every study. sometimes scientists take things based on faith, especially from other disciplines. for instance, someone needs not understand gravity to the level that some physicists argue that it's not actually a force, but rather a side effect of other universal properties, in order to conduct an experiment on the rate of a sphere rolling down a ramp. They take it on faith. They assume, based on faith in the scientific method, that other scientists will have reviewed and repeated this or that and come up with similar results, otherwise there would be a hubub. Scientists kind of go around trying to disprove each other, so when that doesn't happen, your faith can be placed with a reasonable level of certainty even tho you have not obtained the data empirically on every given aspect of the science you're doing.

[Hasbinlulz]

faith and belief are absolutely not synonymous, and science is a 100% faith-based system.