[hyteckit]

There is no Santa Claus. There, I said it. I'm an arrogant bastard.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

To be fair, the Pope (and Purgatory, for that matter) is only relevant to Catholics, not all of Christendom.

But Catholicism is the One True Faith™.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

There is no Santa Claus. There, I said it. I'm an arrogant bastard.

Phew! I thought you were gonna say there's no Easter Bunny.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The science is incomplete, as is our understanding of this existence. Claiming with certainty that there is a god is just as foolish as claiming with certainty that there is no god.

Certainty as pertains to the proportion of evidence. Since there's zero evidence a god or gods exist, we can say with almost certainty that they don't.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Certainty as pertains to the proportion of evidence. Since there's zero evidence a god or gods exist, we can say with almost certainty that they don't.

This needed to be presented a bit bigger.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You didn't address my second point: Should we be agnostic about everything? If not, why is a deity getting a special status?

I think (note that this is a personal belief) that all adults should behave in their everyday lives as if what happens is due to logically described, physical and interpersonal phenomena. Unfortunately, from the evidence of how people behave on the roads around here, people seem to ignore the basic Newtonian physics that they can see demonstrated if they just look.

I think that we should look for evidence for or logical, science-based explanations for, everything in our worlds. There are not "spirits" in the walls that make the toaster work, it's electricity and that can be explained pretty easily. Attributing every little occurrence to demonstrable phenomena rather than some divine intervention is not "agnostic," but rather simply being pragmatic. I don't care what people believe causes these phenomena, just so long as those beliefs don't intrude on my own pragmatism. In a way, deity is special, but only because so many people put so much stock in their own idea of deity individually looking out for their own sorry butts and use that as an excuse to do whatever they want to.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In a way, deity is special, but only because so many people put so much stock in their own idea of deity individually looking out for their own sorry butts and use that as an excuse to do whatever they want to.

Argumentum ad populum, no?

I'm being pragmatic about a deity/deities me the same way that I'm being pragmatic about the toaster spirit. I really don't see the arrogance in that.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The science is incomplete, as is our understanding of this existence. Claiming with certainty that there is a god is just as foolish as claiming with certainty that there is no god.

Scientists don't claim there is no god. They claim there is no reason to believe in god.

It is possible there are green aliens out there with legs on their shoulders and arms at their hips. Do I believe that they exist? No. But it certainly is possible.

One of the fundamental beliefs of science is that nothing is ever 100% known. But at a certain point, once we reach a certain scientific basis, it's best to assume something is likely true in order to advance science.

Science doesn't say that god doesn't exist, it says that as he is yet to be observed his existence is not proven, and therefore he has no basis on science, or the physical world. If god did have power over the physical world, science would observe it. As there has been no observation of god, a scientist cannot claim with absolute certainty that god does or does not exist. And scientists don't belief in things that aren't proven to exist.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Phew! I thought you were gonna say there's no Easter Bunny.

Don't be absurd! There HAS to be one of those.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Scientists don't claim there is no god. They claim there is no reason to believe in god.

It is possible there are green aliens out there with legs on their shoulders and arms at their hips. Do I believe that they exist? No. But it certainly is possible.

One of the fundamental beliefs of science is that nothing is ever 100% known. But at a certain point, once we reach a certain scientific basis, it's best to assume something is likely true in order to advance science.

Science doesn't say that god doesn't exist, it says that as he is yet to be observed his existence is not proven, and therefore he has no basis on science, or the physical world. If god did have power over the physical world, science would observe it. As there has been no observation of god, a scientist cannot claim with absolute certainty that god does or does not exist. And scientists don't belief in things that aren't proven to exist.

To be fair, "scientists" do no such thing. The majority of scientists are, like the rest of the human race, theists.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

To be fair, "scientists" do no such thing. The majority of scientists are, like the rest of the human race, theists.

I've heard that the majority of scientists (where we're talking about real science and not, say, library science) are atheists. Supposedly the National Academy of Sciences is 85 percent atheist.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.

That would lead me to conclude that "the majority of scientists are, unlike the rest of the human race, atheist, or at least agnostic".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And it can be much worse with a complete absence of religion.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Chongo, is that you?

No I would have chosesn a pic like this

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No I would have chosesn a pic like this

Ok, now, come on. These people were hardly victims of atheism. Stalin was a thug, and while he did persecute the Catholic church maliciously, most of his victims were murdered to maintain his strangle hold on power.

Mao starved his people through incompetence.

And names can be deceiving, Hitler wasn't even socialist, any more than Mao's China belonged to the people or Stalin's Russia was a republic.

[- - e r i k - -]

Neither was Hitler an atheist.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Here's a simple explanation of a mathematical concept that Shaddim fails to understand.

infinite possibilities != all possibilities

If there are infinite levels of infinite possibilities, and they are represented by an infinite sequence of odd positive integers.

level 1: [1,3,5,7,...,infinity]
level 2: [3,5,7,9,....,infinity]
level 3: [5,7,9,11,...,infinity]
...
....
level infinity

Let say the above infinite levels of infinite possibilities represents reality.

If Santa Claus, God, Easter Bunny, FSM are even numbers, do they exist in reality, even if there are infinite levels of infinite possibilities of reality? No.

Because even numbers are not part of the infinite levels of infinite possibilities sequence, which represents reality.

infinite possibilities != all possibilities

As usual, you lack creativity. Some probabilities and dimensions there is only a singularity, 1. No primes, no variable values, just 1. Yeah, all possibilities exist.

Need further help?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As usual, you lack creativity. Some probabilities and dimensions there is only a singularity, 1. No primes, no variable values, just 1. Yeah, all possibilities exist.

Need further help?

I'd like more help if that help will come in the form of clearly stated logic and argumentation rather than trippy mumbo-jumbo. What you just said makes little sense to me and doesn't appear to contain any argument for whatever claims it might be making.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As usual, you lack creativity. Some probabilities and dimensions there is only a singularity, 1. No primes, no variable values, just 1. Yeah, all possibilities exist.

Need further help?

Why are you doing this?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Greed, corruption, malice....these are not ideas born from religious doctrine.

True, but some have certainly *used* and modified religions as a means to persist greed, corruption and malice.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Misusing science to prove your point doesn't help. Let us constrain our discussion to the current universe that we are all inhabiting, shall we?

Basing your philosophy on Terry Pratchett will prove anything right:



It's fun to dabble, but it's not really valid to the debate at hand.

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

True, but some have certainly *used* and modified religions as a means to persist greed, corruption and malice.

... just as others acting in opposition to religion have certainly used it to vilify a collective. IMO, people too often mistake human nature for ideology.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No I would have chosesn a pic like this

Tyrants and mass-murderers misappropriate words to justify their tyrannical, murderous regimes. MacNN Posters misappropriate same words to stuff up strawmen.

Socialism is an economic system, that, when mixed with democratic political systems and constitutional protections of human rights, has yielded a few pretty spectacular successes in Western Europe. Any govornment tied to a tyrannical, murderous regime that violently represses political dissent should be abhorred first and foremost for that, no matter what economic system they profess (and mostly lie -- Hitler was a Corporatist, really -- see Krupps) to espouse.

[nonhuman]

Not really entirely relevant, but I just watched this awesome documentary on Martin Luther. Amazing guy.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/44148/empi...en-to-defiance
http://www.hulu.com/watch/44154/empi...-revolutionary

[thechidz]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not really entirely relevant, but I just watched this awesome documentary on Maring Luther. Amazing guy.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/44148/empi...en-to-defiance
http://www.hulu.com/watch/44154/empi...-revolutionary

oh you mean Martin Luther, thanks for the link I just subscribed

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As usual, you lack creativity. Some probabilities and dimensions there is only a singularity, 1. No primes, no variable values, just 1. Yeah, all possibilities exist.

Need further help?

You're not understanding what is being said at all. Take a basic discrete math class.

An infinite set does not equal the universal set.

Even though there are infinite dimensions that does not mean every dimension you think of exists.

[thechidz]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're not understanding what is being said at all. Take a basic discrete math class.

An infinite set does not equal the universal set.

Even though there are infinite dimensions that does not mean every dimension you think of exists.

but if I can see Russia from my house, that means that all dimensions are near me no?

In what respect Charlie?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'd like more help if that help will come in the form of clearly stated logic and argumentation rather than trippy mumbo-jumbo. What you just said makes little sense to me and doesn't appear to contain any argument for whatever claims it might be making.

Of course it does, you're just being argumentative. I took the line directly from Dr. Kaku, guess he's spouting "trippy mumbo-jumbo".

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're not understanding what is being said at all. Take a basic discrete math class.

An infinite set does not equal the universal set.

Even though there are infinite dimensions that does not mean every dimension you think of exists.

and the "universal" set changes according to the universe, dimension, and probability. I would imagine there are places (very odd ones) where prime numbers are different. What can be imagined exists.

Watch this, maybe it will help.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why are you doing this?

To have a debate? To prove that the multiverse is more complex than many of you can imagine? For the hell of it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course it does, you're just being argumentative. I took the line directly from Dr. Kaku, guess he's spouting "trippy mumbo-jumbo".

Apparently so. I don't know if the quote made more sense in its original context — Google can't seem to find this statement of Dr. Kaku's — but it certainly didn't seem like anything more than a rush of jargon where you used it. I'm not being argumentative; I'm being honest. I would like to have a rational conversation here, but I can't do that if your posts don't even make semantic sense.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Maybe only people who claim that we only use ten percent of our brains use that amount?

I'll refer you to Neuroscience for KIDS.

What an inane response. I clearly was not referring to a localised physical ten per cent of brain area.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Certainty as pertains to the proportion of evidence. Since there's zero evidence a god or gods exist, we can say with almost certainty that they don't.

Or, you can say that everything is evidence of God or gods and we (as a species) haven't yet discovered the Rosetta Stone to translate the information... or perhaps we have, in M-Theory, and are still sifting through the vast amounts of information that have been discovered.

What I'm saying is, once we take a few steps back and look at the whole picture, we may just be shaken to our foundations. I simply get the (strong) impression that we're very intent on building a structure. However, we're not completely sure what we've built so far, and we don't have a clue as to what the results of our labors will yield. Scientists and mathematicians have always been famed for their attention to detail, but sometimes you need a philosopher to stand back about 100 meters to take a good look at the "big picture".

I don't think anyone can argue that currently we're seeing a, some would say disquieting, convergence of Physics and Metaphysics in new models. This could be considered coincidence (scientists), but, others (philosophers) would say that this supposed synchronicity has meaning. What the result will be is pure conjecture, but from where I'm standing the current patterns make the hairs on my arms stand on end. It's like standing outside as a thunderstorm is rolling in. All kidding and rivalry aside, this is important and will mark a change in just about everything we know, or think we know.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What an inane response. I clearly was not referring to a localised physical ten per cent of brain area.

Yes. Clearly.

Regardless of what you meant, the 10% of the brain capacity is a myth.

Originally Posted by Snopes

Part of the reason for the long life of the myth is that if one variant can be proven incorrect, the person who held the belief can simply shift the reason for his belief to another basis, while the belief itself stays intact. So, for example, if a person is shown that PET scans depict activity throughout the entire brain, he can still claim that, well, the ninety percent figure really referred to the subconscious mind, and therefore the Ten-Percent figure is still basically correct.

[red rocket]

I thought you were smarter than this.

People who make statements to the effect that humans are only using ten per cent or less of their brains have quite obviously never meant a physical ten per cent chunk. Nobody has shifted their reasons, you and those dipshits at Snopes just don’t understand what they have been saying all along.

It’s not a belief in some number. It’s an expression of a philosophy which says there is large potential for raising human intelligence. Damn it, man, you don’t seriously think that mankind has peaked, do you? I mean, I can see why the religionistas would want to believe that, but atheists, scientifically minded people and forward looking humanists really ought not be so negative, in my opinion.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or, you can say that everything is evidence of God or gods and we (as a species) haven't yet discovered the Rosetta Stone to translate the information... or perhaps we have, in M-Theory, and are still sifting through the vast amounts of information that have been discovered.

This interpretation is not a good starting point for a good scientific theory, it cannot be proven or disproven. Occam's Razor and all that.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Scientists and mathematicians have always been famed for their attention to detail, but sometimes you need a philosopher to stand back about 100 meters to take a good look at the "big picture".

Philosophers without an education in math or physics cannot (and don't) understand the relevant physical theories of the day. Of course, many philosophers also have an education in physics or math, but those wouldn't subscribe to anything you're saying now. Physicists like Max Tegmark conjecture the universe is (isomorphic to) a mathematical structure. You should not mistake that for mingling philosophy and natural sciences, these people know where science ends and philosophy begins.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't think anyone can argue that currently we're seeing a, some would say disquieting, convergence of Physics and Metaphysics in new models.

Nothing of the sort is going on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I thought you were smarter than this.

Because you agreed with him no doubt. Your tolerance knows no bounds.

I mean, I can see why the religionistas would want to believe that, but atheists, scientifically minded people and forward looking humanists really ought not be so negative, in my opinion.

Wow. This is classic... and clinical. If this is supposed to represent the best of mankind's intellectual prowess, we ought not be so positive. In my opinion.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

those dipshits at Snopes

Someone hit a nerve. Bigtime.

[red rocket]

Don’t get carried away. There are no nerves being hit here. I just don’t think Snopes or neuroscience for kids are such a great source to be getting your information from, that is all.

[- - e r i k - -]

No no... clearly not the greatest myth debunking site on the net or University of Washington are way too biased!

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Journal of Psychology, Scientific American, How Stuff Works and Bill Nye are all in this together!!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Scientists don't claim there is no god. They claim there is no reason to believe in god.

If there are scientists that actually do so, then they are doing so only to gain some attention or just for fun.

Originally Posted by goMac 

It is possible there are green aliens out there with legs on their shoulders and arms at their hips. Do I believe that they exist? No. But it certainly is possible.

Aliens are one thing, the question of God (ie. if everything is created by God or came into existence out of its own) is completely different.

Originally Posted by goMac 

One of the fundamental beliefs of science is that nothing is ever 100% known. But at a certain point, once we reach a certain scientific basis, it's best to assume something is likely true in order to advance science.

One of the first things that science-professors tell their fresh students is that if they seek truth, they should better look elsewhere. Science isn't about truth, ie. it's not about the why and the meaning, it's only and strictly about the how within theory-models that are proposed, refined using certain basic assumptions to explain the current state and predicting either not yet discovered phenomenas or within a controlled environment a development.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Science doesn't say that god doesn't exist, it says that as he is yet to be observed his existence is not proven,

At least in the abrahamitic religions that is a fundamental part of their doctrine: While for the prophets to whom God communicated and their direct witnesses that experienced the wonders, like for example the parting of the sea for Moses and his followers... God was indeed proven, for the following generations though God became a question of faith rather than knowledge, and the final proof will be when God leaves his self-chosen transcendency and becomes manifest to all, ie. the day of reckoning, the day of judgement.

Originally Posted by goMac 

and therefore he has no basis on science, or the physical world. If god did have power over the physical world, science would observe it.

The question if God created everything and the laws and systems observed are just the way God operates His creation is exactly what scientists can't answer, what scientists need in order to acknowledge the existence of a divinity would be something extremely out of the order.
For example the earth travelling in a vaccuum around a sun that gives light and heat, which in combination with water already existing on earth as well as with carbon-dioxide produces energy and food for the plants to grow as well as producing the air we need to breath might seem pretty impressive, but since this is already going on for aeons, it gets taken for granted, ie. assumed to be a normal occurrence, a natural cycle... now the sun suddenly breaking in two and stopping to shine for a while still might not do the trick, but after the earth has pretty much turned into ice, only kept a little warm by the warmth saved inside the earth, and the food-cycle has broken down and the air to breath gets less and less, and when then the sun gets "repaired" and everything restored, then scientists would acknowledge a divine intervention... or just assume that the galactical energy-company sent someone to change the bulb.

Originally Posted by goMac 

As there has been no observation of god, a scientist cannot claim with absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

Moses at least nearly saw Him, he heard and spoke with Him, but lately, yes...

Originally Posted by goMac 

And scientists don't belief in things that aren't proven to exist.

Now that is a bold statement, which is definitely not true. Scientists usually don't believe in things that are disproven to exist, but otherwise they are like other humans, they believe or not according to their own conscience.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.


That would lead me to conclude that "the majority of scientists are, unlike the rest of the human race, atheist, or at least agnostic".

As far as I know that survey was done per mail and only received a 50%-return-rate, so it can or cannot be representative.

But let's assume it were a legitimate and representative survey:

The survey poses a specific question about a personal, communicating god and not a broader concept.
Given that specific question it is rather pretty impressive that 40% of the scientists believe in a personal and communicating god (and that eventhough there is no direct observable proof for that, gomac ), even a higher percentage than in 1933.

I think there is also an interesting psychological-social factor in this survey.

At the beginning of last century, astronomy "believed" that the universe (Steady state theory) was steady and therefore existing eternally, and the thinking back then was that if there was no beginning, there was no creation, and no creation, no god.

Things changed though considerably a few decades later when the astronomers discredited the steady state theory due to new observations and formulated the big bang theory... ie. the universe had a beginning in a very strong explosion that expands the universe since then.

Now it seems like there is a very interesting balance between the forces of gravitation and the forces of the big-bang-expansion, that enabled star-systems and galaxies to form... had the force of the big-bang-explosion been a bit more forceful, stars and galaxies would not have formed, had it been a bit less powerful, the forces of gravity would have led to the collapse of the universe.

The point is, that the accordingly currently approved theories have some influence upon the survey, which could also explain why biologists seem the least to entertain the belief in a personal and communicating god, since the evolution-theory is at odds with the six-day-Genesis-account...

Taliesin

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No I would have chosesn a pic like this

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ok, now, come on. These people were hardly victims of atheism. Stalin was a thug, and while he did persecute the Catholic church maliciously, most of his victims were murdered to maintain his strangle hold on power.

Mao starved his people through incompetence.

And names can be deceiving, Hitler wasn't even socialist, any more than Mao's China belonged to the people or Stalin's Russia was a republic.

Hitler was quite the socialist.
From our Friend at the Peoples Cube The People's Cube - Guess Whose Quote It Is

From Mein Kamp Vol I, Ch VII

I began to study again, and now for the first time really achieved an understanding of the content of the Jew Karl Marx's life effort. Only now did his Capital become really intelligible to me, and also the struggle of the Social Democracy against the national economy, which aims only to prepare the ground for the domination of truly international finance and stock exchange capital.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Neither was Hitler an atheist.

Correct, he was an occultist

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From Mein Kamp Vol I, Ch VII

Actually no... Karl Marx isn't even mentioned in Mein Kampf until Vol I, Ch VIII, page 215 in the edition I have (translated by Ralph Manheim). And just because he says he understands 'the content of the Jew Karl Marx's life effort', does not mean that he agrees with it, or that he's a Marxist. That paragraph is the last in a section on Gottfried Feder, who was Hitler's financial guru, as it were:

Previously I had been unable to recognize with the desired clarity the difference between this pure capital as the end result of productive labor and a capital whose existence and essence rests exclusively on speculation. For this I lacked the initial inspiration, which had simply not come my way.

But now this was provided most amply by one of the various gentlemen lecturing in the above-mentioned course [on 'certain fundamentals of civic thinking' for soldiers]: Gottfried Feder. (209)

Feder's deal was 'the breaking of interest slavery', which so inspired Hitler that he goes on to say that 'right after listening to Feder's first lecture, the thought ran through my head that I had now found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party'. (210)

Remember that the economic conditions of Germany at the time were basically that they were enslaved to the rest of Europe through the crippling financial reparations imposed upon them after WWI. These reparations were such that it was essentially impossible that Germany would ever actually be able to pay them off, which is the source of the 'interest slavery' idea.

As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle. (213)

This is not Marxism. Hitler isn't working towards the state owning the means of production, and he certainly isn't working towards Communism. He's working towards ensuring that the means of German production remain in German hands. He wants to keep Europe and the world out of the German economy.

He also happens to be insane, most likely from syphilis.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and the "universal" set changes according to the universe, dimension, and probability. I would imagine there are places (very odd ones) where prime numbers are different. What can be imagined exists.

Watch this, maybe it will help.

No, it doesn't. The universal set is the set of dimensions. I'm telling you that not every dimension you can think of exists. You can't have a different universal set under a dimension that doesn't exist. It's a chicken before the egg problem.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Aliens are one thing, the question of God (ie. if everything is created by God or came into existence out of its own) is completely different.

You're absolutely correct. There's at least some evidence that there could very well be alien life, possibly including a green alien with legs on its shoulders and arms on its hip.

There is zero evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

So, yes, completely different.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Now that is a bold statement, which is definitely not true. Scientists usually don't believe in things that are disproven to exist, but otherwise they are like other humans, they believe or not according to their own conscience.

Well, it's true. I mean, we don't have any concrete evidence of string theory, but we do have evidence to point to it's existence, or at least something like it. String theory is not scientifically accepted fact, but it's something scientists are open to accepting.

Scientists are not closed to accepting god, but honestly, there is less reason to belief in god than there is string theory. Some people confuse not being closed to accepting god with that scientists must have to consider god in everything. It's like scientists having to consider the flying spaghetti monster into everything. It's perfectly possible he exists, but there is no reason to belief so.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're absolutely correct. There's at least some evidence that there could very well be alien life, possibly including a green alien with legs on its shoulders and arms on its hip.

There is zero evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

So, yes, completely different.

Well, I meant that alien specifically. We do have string evidence that there was life on other planets. We don't have any evidence that that exact life form exists.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This thread (and countless others) pretty much proves that people will argue, scrap and fight over *anything*.

Religion, or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I thought you were smarter than this.

People who make statements to the effect that humans are only using ten per cent or less of their brains have quite obviously never meant a physical ten per cent chunk. Nobody has shifted their reasons, you and those dipshits at Snopes just don’t understand what they have been saying all along.

It’s not a belief in some number. It’s an expression of a philosophy which says there is large potential for raising human intelligence. Damn it, man, you don’t seriously think that mankind has peaked, do you? I mean, I can see why the religionistas would want to believe that, but atheists, scientifically minded people and forward looking humanists really ought not be so negative, in my opinion.

It doesn't seem rational to believe we've evolved some massive well of untapped abilities, taking up valuable resources without conferring any benefit. That's not how biology usually works. Sure, we have a lot of room to make better use of our minds — just like we can work out to get our bodies in better shape — but it's no more valid to say we only use 10% of our minds than to say we only use 10% of our muscles.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or, you can say that everything is evidence of God or gods and we (as a species) haven't yet discovered the Rosetta Stone to translate the information...

You can say whatever you want. Maybe all the evidence points towards hyteckit being your god. It's just extremely unlikely, and until you find that "Rosetta Stone," there is still no evidence of a god or gods.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

or perhaps we have, in M-Theory, and are still sifting through the vast amounts of information that have been discovered.

Heh. String Theory is the Intelligent Design of quantum physics. We'd have to wait for the LHC to turn back on in March and actually work before we'll have a reasonable guess regarding String Theory on wether it even constitutes as a theory. As it stands, String Theory isn't even really a theory because you can't test it... it's not even wrong.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't think anyone can argue that currently we're seeing a, some would say disquieting, convergence of Physics and Metaphysics in new models.

No. Physics and metaphysics are completely contradictory and do not mix. Metaphysics contains untestable, completely fabricated factors used to try to explain something (like Intelligent Design.) Theoretical physics will often create possible situations (within the confines of what we understand about the universe) or ideal conditions that can only be created in a lab to test a theory that works on paper, but hasn't necessarily been observed yet. Sometimes computer models are created based on mathematical equations that point to something existing, but we haven't actually observed it. Theoretical physics extends to a lot of Einstein's work on general relativity and special relativity. His equations are sound, they work in theory. However, it was only within the last 30 years that we began to observe and see direct evidence in regards to Einstein's theories. As with most fields of science, a lot of discoveries happen just by accident.