Einstein or Newton

[maskedmelon]

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

[Ravager]

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

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

For example, with the Theory of Evolution there have been thousands of predictions made about the kinds of fossils we'd expect find in the ground without explicitly knowing about them first that proved to be true. Intelligent Design could not have made those predictions, nor can anyone make any predictions about what they can expect to find given Intelligent Design as a premise. It's a useless theory.

With Science, you're not doing anything more than making a guess about what you are observing. Then, using that guess you make predictions about what you can and cannot expect to observe if your guess is true. For instance, if you guess that hail is caused by ice makers in the sky, you would predict that if you were to go up to the sky in a hail storm you'd see some ice makers plugged into a cloud. If you go up there and see no ice makers, you would predict that there is no hail. If you do go up in the sky during a hail storm to test your theory, and you find no ice-makers, but it's still hailing, you know your theory is wrong and it's time to make another guess.

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

[maskedmelon]

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

This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

.....

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

Intelligence is the ability to reliably predict outcomes ^^Science is a method of learning. The fundamental distinction between faith based claims and scientific claims is that is that scientific claims can be tested while their supernatural counterparts cannot be tested. Both can make predictions, but neither matters if you are unable to test the predictive capacity.

For example, Christianity teaches Christ will return, people who accept Christ will go to heaven and those who do not will go to hell.

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^

[mgellan]

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

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^

Absolutely, good point, if there's no way to prove something wrong it's outside the realms of science into faith (hence my definition of faith) -- Mg

[Ravager]

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

Intelligence is the ability to reliably predict outcomes ^^Science is a method of learning. The fundamental distinction between faith based claims and scientific claims is that is that scientific claims can be tested while their supernatural counterparts cannot be tested. Both can make predictions, but neither matters if you are unable to test the predictive capacity.

For example, Christianity teaches Christ will return, people who accept Christ will go to heaven and those who do not will go to hell.

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^

When I said religion predicts nothing, I meant it predicts nothing about the phenomenon that it purports to explain.

They guess that when you die that you go to an afterlife (this is the theory), but there are no predictions about that guess that they can make. That is, they cannot make a distinction between what the world would look like if there is an afterlife vs what the world would look like if there isn't an afterlife, so the theory makes no predictions about what you can expect to see if the theory is either true or false [unless you die of course, but without your brain, you're not going to have any expectations, unless you modify the theory to say that when you die, an exact neuron for neuron copy of your brain is sent to wherever this afterlife might be, (and yes I assume that our brains are the seat of our person-hood because every observation mankind has ever made of the human brain supports this idea, as well as watching my grandmother lose her mind over the course of a decade to LBD), but if your theory keeps getting more and more complicated by details, the probability of its accuracy goes down so much that it may as well be impossible. (and when I mean complicated by details, the theory expects me to take as a premise that there is both a mechanism that copies a person's brain in a metaphysical fashion AND that it sends it to somewhere else to be with other metaphysically copied brains AND that these brains can communicate and interact with each other AND that there's not one place, but two places AND that one of the places makes metaphysically copied brains suffer AND that one of the places gives the metaphysically copied brains eternal bliss AND that this is all determined solely on whatever neurological configuration the brains happened to have at the time they were deprived of oxygen. This is a lot to accept even on faith)].

Contrast that to guesses you can make about death with scientific observation: Deprive a brain of oxygen and it stops functioning. Restore oxygen to a brain that has stopped functioning, and if the cells didn't get damaged or degrade for too long, the brain will start functioning again. The brain is where we think and get personality. Cut away one part of a persons brain and you can change their personality. Prod one part of their brain and you can make them smell pickles. From this kind of information we can reasonably guess that the entirety of a person as a sentient being is in their brain, when the brain is gone, they are gone.

I suspect that if technology ever got to the point of recreating a person's brain, neuron for neuron, for all practical purposes, they could be resurrected. As far as what this means in terms of self and person-hood is all just philosophy until we can figure out a way to observe those concepts in an empirical way.

I think fundamentally though, we both agree that Science is not faith.

[mgellan]

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

we already determined the ferocity of science claims when hitler used it to justify exterminating 6 million innocent people to make a "master race". not sure what is left to determine.

Hitler was a Catholic who believed the Jews killed Christ and deserved to be destroyed because of it. At best he was a Deist:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation."

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

Regards,
Mg

[maskedmelon]

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

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

And to add, calling it the product of religion is equally ridiculous. It was the product of great cunning and ambition.

ALL ideology is open to exploitation by the exceptional.

[Nihilist_santa]

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

Hitler was a Catholic who believed the Jews killed Christ and deserved to be destroyed because of it. At best he was a Deist:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation."

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

Regards,
Mg

So you are saying (((they))) didnt kill Christ? How can you say he was a deist and then in the next few paragraphs give quotes clearly outlining his christian faith? His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The above is exactly what Baler was talking about. Love how you come in here all "SCIENCE" and then go into a bunch of hyperbole based on repeated information.

[mgellan]

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

His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The point being refuted was Hitler genocided Jews because of science, which is clearly not true given his religiously motivated statements.

Regards,
Mg

[bdastomper58]

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

This is insane, you fool. I'm a fool because I have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible? Yeah, because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met, and you just take it on faith that everything they wrote was true. Hm. And what makes you think what your scientists are writing is any more truer than my saints? Because there are volumes of proven data. Numbers. You know, figures. Th-There are fossil records. Oh, fossil records. Ah! I didn't even think about the fossil records. I guess I'll concede. Oh, wait, uh, one more thing before I do, Mr. Reynolds. Have you seen these fossil records? (bell tolls) Have I... huh? Have you pored through the data yourself? The numbers? The figures? Well, no. I'm-- no. Oh. Interesting. So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of... of, dare I say it? (laughs) Faith? (bell tolls) Come on, come on. Look, I mean-- I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that. (bell tolls) Like... oh, come on. That is a... that's a false equivalency. (bell tolls) Just answer the question, Mr. Reynolds. Sure. Yeah, okay. I rest my case.

Science is a religion. (I'm not talking about Scientology)

you get your opinions from a television comedy

moron