This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Claim that the speed of light has been broken
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
That's literally the weakest criticism I've ever heard. It's like saying, "Sure that guy won three Nobel prizes in the same year. But he didn't win the other two."My criticism is closer to "Sure that guy won three Nobel prizes in the same year, but did he show his children love? Which is more important?Bollocks. Has religion devised a reliable way to make people who just lost a loved one feel better? I've never looked into it but I'd bet there's a large and serious body of scholarly inquiry into how best to comfort the bereaved, and that it contains more and better information than what's been assembled haphazardly by religion.I think this is more a matter of opinion than anything. I'll add that my earlier statement was subjective, and also that I don't stand alone in that opinion. Many people need more meaning in their life than collected data and theories.Who are you talking to? Knock off the assaults against views nobody in the world agrees with. If Spock shows up and claims humans don't need love, feel free to lay into him, but until then please address people who are present, or at least who exist.So, you agree with me then? Love is necessary, and not provided by science. That's really my only point. The point of my line of thinking is not to pit science against religion in some sort of meaning match, but to say that they are two very different things, each with their own uses.
Post by
MyTie
I think they have, though. For a lot of people, fairy tale princes, 'the one' and Dr. Phil are a more core part of them than their religion.
YikesI'm not saying that love IS religion, but that love must be based on a tenant of beliefs,
since there is no scientific evidence or definition for it
Erm ... that depends what you're defining. If you're defining the cause behind seemingly illogical decisions and/or rash behaviour that often indicates an emotional response, then that can quite easily be pinned down by serotonin and the like -- the chemical reactions processing in the brain and the effects they cause are definitely known by science.
If you're trying to define what causes someone's body to
start
the production of these chemicals -- then, I agree, you look at the specific cultural and social situations in which that person finds themselves.
But claiming there's no "Scientific evidence for love"? What? That's preposterous. We know the physical changes that occur which can define someone being in love. Does that mean we necessarily know everything there is to know about love? Perhaps not. But claiming there is no way for science to understand emotion is ignorant and lazy.
Minister: Do you, Sinespe, take this person to be yours in marriage?
Sinespe: Yes, I have a measurable chemical reaction in my mind when socially stimulated by this person, and that causes my psyche to determine additional and intimate contact in the foreseeable future.
Ah... science takes love and makes it so much more...
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I didn't want to call you out on it before you openly admitted it, but you are guilty of equating the practices of science with the practitioners of science.
Interesting thought. I don't think so, though. I'm not saying anything negative about either. I'm just saying that they have their limits.
The fact that suggesting that science has its limits has illicited such a strong and negative reaction is demonstration enough that Squish may have had a point.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Zomg MyTie. I was thinking about writing my own vows. I think you just did it for me :)
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But ... you are, though. You're implying heavily that people who practice science only ever see things under laboratory conditions, and cannot act in a manner which is considered "Normal" (God, I hate that word).I don't think this
AT ALL
! What I am saying is that the people who pit science against beliefs, holding them mutually exclusive, are shorting themselves. We need science in our lives, but we also need beliefs. Scientists are not necessarily guilty of this. I know plenty of engineers who hold very deep beliefs.Science
knows
that it is limited. Otherwise, it would stop. I wasn't aware of the apparent dislike scientists have towards philosophers, but Socrates, the Man Who Knew That He Knew Nothing, was perhaps the purest canvas for scientific thought possible.I wasn't aware of that either.
Post by
MyTie
Zomg MyTie. I was thinking about writing my own vows. I think you just did it for me :)
That's brilliant.
Oh, you two! Silly gooses! A brain's chemical composition can change over time, but love, true love, never ends. Don't place too much importance on the physical.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
I didn't want to call you out on it before you openly admitted it, but you are guilty of equating the practices of science with the practitioners of science.
Interesting thought. I don't think so, though. I'm not saying anything negative about either. I'm just saying that they have their limits.
The fact that suggesting that science has its limits has illicited such a strong and negative reaction is demonstration enough that Squish may have had a point.
But ... you are, though. You're implying heavily that people who practice science only ever see things under laboratory conditions, and cannot act in a manner which is considered "Normal" (God, I hate that word).
That's not how I understood his point. His fake vows are what happen when you conflate the practice with the practitioners, and what happens when the practitioners only ever see things under laboratory conditions. It's obviously absurd, so we have to conclude that, at some of the most important moments in a person's life, they are
not
practicing science, and they are
not
seeing things under laboratory conditions. That then begs the question of what are they practicing, and how are they seeing things at those moments?
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I can tell this is getting a little out of my intended context. Let me summarize my point completely by quoting someone I respect:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Post by
ElhonnaDS
But, according to the current theory of this thread, Einstein was kind of clueless, so...
:P
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But, according to the current theory of this thread, Einstein was kind of clueless, so...
:P
Aren't we all?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
I won't pretend to understand everything about the theories of relativity, but before more evidence has been gathered regarding neutrinos and FTL, by other parties, I'm going to admit that I'm doubtful. Nevertheless, this is very exciting.
And I know Wowhead tends to do it, but
why
did the discovery of
possible
FTL have to turn into a religous argument?
Post by
Azazel
Everything can be turned into a religious
thread
nuclearwar on Wowhead.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.