| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SmartyPants" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 12:13:22 PM |
| Object: |
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
21 Sep 2006 07:11:06 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2006 20:06:12 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158807972.078988.27980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 19:03:52 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158804232.571596.317780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 08:00:34 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158764434.745370.156630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
cactus wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
cactus wrote:
...
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
As I have made perfectly clear, it does not matter. I don't think that
scientists are particularly honest or particularly dishonest.
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
Che Guevara was a revolutionary. He was also a bad man. He was not a
hero, even though there were and still are serious problems in the
countries that he was acting in. Your question, as you know, has nothing
to do with the discussion at hand. Why don't you stick to one of your
misunderstandings at a time?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
Hatred of science seems to be strongly correlated with religious
zealotry.
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Scientists are human.
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
Wrong.
2) The Party = The People
Wrong.
3) Fidel = The Party
I'm sure you meant Bush = The Party.
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
Your ignorance is vast.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
You aren't an atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 08:20:36 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 01:04:41 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
24 Sep 2006 02:43:04 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
........ but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
....... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
...... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:40:29 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:43:58 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:45:56 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:49:32 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 02:02:07 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 02:04:28 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 02:08:44 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 02:46:19 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:32:24 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in scientists and The
Party as a substitute for another religion.
Let me guess, you think Che Guevara was a great hero, don't you?
Once again, you defame science and refuse to address the problems with
your accusation. Nothing you stated after this did anything but repeat
your defamatory implication that all scientists are liars. Since we can
tell from the technological applications of scientific breakthroughs
that your implication is false, there's no point in going on with it.
Good answer! Do you want to try to address what I wrote, or if that is
too complicated, how about the very simple question?
You will lie about science as long as the relgious doctrines you preach
cannot be shown to be true.
What religious doctrines have I been preaching?
You are not only ignorant about science,
What about scientists? Am I ignorant about them too?
Oh, I forgot:
1) Science = Scientists.
2) The Party = The People
3) Fidel = The Party
At least there is a certain consistency about your system of beliefs.
Consistently wrong, but consistent.
but make a mockery of Christianity.
Isn't this suppossed to be a complement aroun here? If so, thanks.
Lets see if I have this straight ........ you don't hate science .......
just the people who conduct it .... ?
So .... science would be great if no one actually did any ..........
you remind me of Basil Fawlty ... " this hotel would me much easier to
run with out the bloody guests ... "
who do you propose we get to do the science then ? ......
Can you pinpoint where I stated that I hated Science?
I didn't say you did ..... in fact I said :"you don't hate science"
....... but you seem to distrust the people who carry it out ......
If you equate "distrust" with "to not blindly trust", then you can say
I distrust them. Are you the type who believes everything you read?
Hey, if it is in the news, it MUST be true.
And I don't mean a quote where I "implied" that I hated Science or
which you "interpreted" to mean just that.
Nope ... never implied or said anything of the sort ..... do you have a
comprehension problem ?
And I never implied or said that you ever implied or said anything of
the sort! Do YOU have a comprehension problem? (how convenient to
separate the above statement with the paragraph following it! Either
you are dishonest or you really didn't understand.)
I have noticed that you fundie-atheists like to interpret a lot, and
see implications where there are none; Where I have seen that kind of
"thought" process before?
In the mirror ?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes people say what they mean, and
mean what they say?
Just trying to clear up where you stand ........ you seem a bit
'slippery' on this .......
Your quote :
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
So I gather you have some method for discerning just what 'usable'
science is ...... many scientific discoveries remain unused for ages
until someone figures out a way to use them ...... Teflon comes to mind
...... first accidentally discovered in 1938, it took 7 years and a
World War induced scientific leap before a 'use' could be found for it
..... are you suggesting the method for producing Teflon should have
been thrown away as useless when it was first discovered ....
Science deals with the pusuit of knowledge, and that's the variable I
use to measure its usefulness. If you are practical and incapable of
seeing beyond the here and now, that's your problem.
Since you like WWII examples:
Before WWII, Kurt Godel and Alan Turing advanced the theory of Logic,
which provides a foundation to Computer Science. Had I been living in
1938, I would have considered them useful; you on the other hand,
having no concept of what their work meant, would have thought them to
be the ramblings of a lunatic.
During WWII, Turing went on to do cryptographic work which probably
saved the Brits' asses, and yours. Even though he didn't use a weapon,
he certainly did more with his brains than thousands of grunts like
yourself did in the field.
Sure, we may never know everything, but we can reasonably assume that we
do know some things fairly certainly ....... do you believe the Earth is
flat ? Is at the centre of the Universe ? It's not just one or two
scientists say so ...... it is well established 'science' produced by
multiple scientists that make us believe otherwise ..... at least with a
very strong amount of certainty ...... it may be shown that the world IS
indeed flat and IS indeed the centre of the Universe some day ..... but
I don't reasonably think so ....... so I reasonably believe the World is
spherical ( sort of ) and no where near the centre of the Universe .....
I don't believe in 'cold fusion'...... reputed to be a fact by some
scientists ....... because the vast majority of scientists who know
something about it have shown it be 'bunkum' .....
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water .....
Wrong.
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 01:34:41 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
As soon as they get out, and confirmed, they do. Show me an example of
dishonest scientists not losing their careers once found out.
I don't keep a log of the cases I have become aware of, which of course
are not all the cases.
So, since you cannot name one, you dishonestly imply that there are a
large number who have done so. Your entire argument is by innuendo, you
have no evidence whatsoever to support your implication.
So you think ALL scientists are honest?
As you have repeatedly ignored, all scientists don't have to be honest
for the system to work. Your accusations imply that all scientists are
dishonest.
And your answer to the question is?
Do you think that all self-regulating bodies are honest? Or maybe only
self-regulating scientists are honest? If so, how did you reach such a
conclussion?
It's not about honesty.
If you really believe that, and I think you actually do, you are a
fool. If I remember correctly from a previous exchange, you are a
commie. It all fits very well. Blind faith in sc | | | | |
