ydoaPs

.

At least this guy made predictions (although lacking precision, they are predictions nonetheless) which provides falsifiability.

Don't get your advertising from the USA either.

Would you build it with a sonic screwdriver?

obligatory xkcd:

I thought that was a joke, but Google translate confirmed it.

It seems as though you're attempting to max out the index.

As short as that post was, it scored a 125 on the Baez index.

I think we've seen this crackpottery before.

Science and religion are two entirely distinct entities with no real connection. Some people say that they're just different methods of finding truth-each suited to its own set of questions (called Non-Overlapping Magestra). That is simply false. One is a method of finding truth while the other only claims to be. All of our knowledge of the universe is via the senses. That is the foundational principle of all modern philosophy (It is what was called Empiricism to distinguish it from the Rationalist tradition it opposed when it began). This means we map the universe from how the universe appears to us via our senses; We use these observations to build our models of reality. As Kant pointed out, since we can only know things as they appear to us via our senses (rather than the things in and of themselves), anything beyond that is forever beyond the capability of human reason. Simply put, we can only know how things interact with other things; if it doesn't interact, we can't know anything about it or if it even exists at all. In philosophy, your arguments are based on premises that are derived from other arguments, observed, induced from observations, or assumed. Bad philosophy uses assumed premises. In good philosophy, you can trace it all back to that which comes to us from our senses. When an area of philosophy gets sufficiently good, we call it "science". Science is the perfection of philosophy. If we can have knowledge of it (remember that all knowledge traces back to observation), then it is within the scope of science. Some people claim there are valid questions that science cannot answer; I disagree. For the above reasons, if there is a knowable answer, science can answer it. Said questions are usually of "why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?" and the like. As why is a question of intent of a causal agent, "why" is a silly question to ask if there's no causal agent. You have said several times that physics does not show that there must be a causal agent. Purpose is similar, though it is not quite the same. With purpose, you can divide into the intended purpose (which is roughly synonymous with the "why") and actualized purpose (which is how it is used). There are two main ways of answering these questions and both are scientific. One way phenomenologically and the other is behaviourally; We either ask the intentional agent and/or we observe it and it's interactions with the byproducts of the causal event. If there is no overall intended purpose due to a lack of a causal agent, that does not mean there is no actualized purpose. If there is no purpose from gods, then there is still purpose from humanity; your purpose is up to you. Science is grounded in reality and it gives us a method of knowing. Science is checking your answers. Science is the best philosophy. Religion gives us no such method. If you think science cannot answer a question, then what possible reason is there to think religion could do any better? Science and religion are two completely antithetical modes of thought.

That's probably because that's what the word means.

There isn't one.

"Premise" and "conclusion" are not synonyms.

Thank you for ignoring the entirety of my post.

Do bonobos have a fused chromosome 2? If such a union did produce viable offspring, they most probably would be sterile offspring.

Religion doesn't give answers either. It has no mechanism by which to come by the answers! Giving a response and giving an answer are not the same thing. Science saying "I don't know" is intellectually honest. Religion pretending like it has an answer when it doesn't know either is not. It's perfectly fine to say "I have no idea and there's currently no way to find out, so I'll believe x, y, and z", but to pretend "x, y, and z" are actual answers is not. To say that religion (which is no better suited to answer the questions than science) is the answer to the question because it doesn't have to check its answers with reality is not ok. So, science has to check its answers. It goes to its axioms and justifies them. Like you said, it is dependent on facts. Science gives us a method of finding truth. Religion gives us no such method. How is religion a better answer than just making stuff up yourself? Science might not be able to answer a question, but that doesn't mean religion can despite it pretending to.

Whenever you send a message, it gives you a popup confirming that the message was sent. However, the popup looks like an error message (it's got a red circle). Every time I send a PM, I think for half a second that I've broken the site. I'd change that about the new sfn.

It's not about atheism at all, actually. It's about intellectually honesty in the search for truth. When you say that you just want an answer and you don't care whether or not it's true, that is the exact opposite of the sentiment that makes science great. There's a quote from Sagan that I like which displays just about the opposite attitude: "I don't want to believe; I want to know." It's one thing to have faith. That's one of the things that I like about your discussion of religion. You lay your cards on the table and flat out say you believe on faith. But the elevation of faith as a virtue-to say it's good because it doesn't care about verification-is almost the very definition of anti-science.

God is perfect, so He would not appoint an evil man to rule. Hence Hitler was not evil according to Christianity. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."-Romans 1: 1-5

I showed a few of these in my Philosophy of Mind class today. Some of them are pretty amazing (and more or less accurate). Fair warning, they contain profanity.

Useful in what sense?

Are you sure it was your teacher rather than the Doctor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw

So, you don't care whether or not the answer is true, you just want one regardless of whether the question is even valid? Why not just leave the answer at 42 and be done with it then? This quote actually displays a quite disgusting attitude and I'm surprised to see it coming from you.