Prev: GetModuleFileNameEx on Win7-64-bit?
Next: Windows 7 Qualification and VB6 (RMTool)
From: Kevin Provance on 4 Jul 2010 12:07

"Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote in message
news:i0q5i2$4gg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
: If you re-read the posts you'll see that I just
: said to you, in satire, what you said to Jim.
: Is it OK to poke holes in his religion but not
: OK to poke holes in yours? Do you think that's
: fair?

I don't have a religion. Duh!

From: Mayayana on 4 Jul 2010 13:14

| : If you re-read the posts you'll see that I just
| : said to you, in satire, what you said to Jim.
| : Is it OK to poke holes in his religion but not
| : OK to poke holes in yours? Do you think that's
| : fair?
|
| I don't have a religion. Duh!
|

No? You just expressed a strong belief that
we're all just chemical processes that end in
nothing. None of us can know what happens
after death, yet you're living your life by
strongly-held beliefs about reality that have no
reasoned or evidentiary basis. Isn't that pretty
much your definition of religion?

In that respect science is a religion
like any other....albeit not a very serviceable one,
insofar as the belief that we're all just random
chemical reactions does nothing to edify.


From: David Kaye on 4 Jul 2010 15:31
"Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote:

> In that respect science is a religion
>like any other....albeit not a very serviceable one,
>insofar as the belief that we're all just random
>chemical reactions does nothing to edify.

A theory becomes science when it has been tested over and over and the results
always come up the same.

Science says that Vitamin C prevents scurvy because it was tested over and
over again with people. Science says that the earth is round because we can
predict with great accuracy how long and in what direction the sun will come
up.

On the other hand, life after death has NEVER been proven, even once. Even
the great believers such as Houdini, didn't come back, and after many years,
his wife stopped holding seances to try to contact his spirit.

Now, I happen to believe that the spirit transcends the body and that our
human "spark" survives death, but this is only speculation and wishful
thinking on my part.

So, be very careful when you call science a religion. Science is proven,
religion is unproven. They are opposites.

From: Mayayana on 4 Jul 2010 16:59

| > In that respect science is a religion
| >like any other....albeit not a very serviceable one,
|
| So, be very careful when you call science a religion. Science is proven,
| religion is unproven. They are opposites.
|

I guess that starts to get into the definition of
science. Can we say that it's a systematic tool
involving tests and observations, in order to learn
information for later practical application? (Saying
it's proven or that it's the opposite of religion is
getting into murky territory. There's no commonly
agreed upon "uber-paradigm" to look at both science
and religion in a single context.)

OK, so science is a tool. We can use science to
figure out how much heat we need to make coffee
and then we'll be able to have our breakfast. That's
very handy.

But you left out the first part of my comment --
science as a belief system. It's fine as a tool. But
by nature we like to think we know what's going on...
or at least that we can find out. We begin to believe.
Then we forget that our beliefs are themselves tools.
Thus Kevin referred to his beliefs as truth, implying
that there's one fundamental truth that defines reality.

Most modern people have a similar outlook. We
apply scientific notions far beyond the realm of
science. *We make value judgements based on
science* without even realizing it. That's not science.
It's dogma...which is what scientific view thinks
religion is.

There's a giant irony there: According to the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (science), there's
really no such thing as objective observation. The
act of observation affects what is observed. Yet
the myth of objectivity is the cornerstone of
science. The *religion* of science *believes* in
objectivity.

When you go to bed tonight you might dream
about discussing insurance rates with a zebra. Is
that "just a dream"? How can you know? Where's
objective observation there? If you say, "Of course
it's just a dream!" then you've made an unscientific
value judgement with no objective data to back it
up.

There's a well known experiment psychologists
have done where they do something like send a man
in a gorilla suit, riding a unicycle, onto a basketball
court. Nobody in the stands notices the man because
that perception is simply too discordant with what
they think is happening. (Some of those people are
no doubt scientists, too. They're the ones who KNOW
what they saw. :)





From: Viken Cerpovna on 4 Jul 2010 21:16
> : If you re-read the posts you'll see that I just
> : said to you, in satire, what you said to Jim.
> : Is it OK to poke holes in his religion but not
> : OK to poke holes in yours? Do you think that's
> : fair?
>
> I don't have a religion. Duh!
>


That would explain a lot.

He's right about the bully part. I don't know much about you but I've read a
number of your posts. You're one caustic individual.

Viken

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: GetModuleFileNameEx on Win7-64-bit?
Next: Windows 7 Qualification and VB6 (RMTool)