Quote :

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. "

Quote :

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

Quote :

"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."

Quote :

"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"

Quote :

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:48 AM. Reason : oh theres more]

11/7/2006 12:36:02 AM

^^ The quotation is actually as follows: "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (Bill Gates, 1981). The point is that so-called experts can be wrong--in science and religion.

Many of you that cling to science so desperately have done nothing but accept science as your religion and the scientists as your clergy. Zealotry is zealotry, whether one's god lives "in the clouds," in a beaker, or in cyberspace.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:45 AM. Reason : ^]

11/7/2006 12:44:48 AM

^^ Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933. One would hope that you have sense enough to recognize Nazism and steer clear of it--but I have my doubts. You seem quite impressionable--I think the academic environs have scrambled your brains already.

Once again, for the ill-informed, I am NOT a Christian! Unfortunately, it appears as if that is the only argument that some of you are prepared for.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 12:47:47 AM

Quote :

" " 640K ought to be enough for anybody." o Often attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates has repeatedly denied ever saying this: ' I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time... I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again.'"

^^you cling to dumbass email forwards.

and critical thinkers can take scientific findings and see if they're complete bullshit.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 12:48:58 AM

science is all about messing up

someone already said this.

if science didnt challange and take chances then we would still think the earth was at the center of the universe.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:51 AM. Reason : @@@@@@]

11/7/2006 12:50:19 AM

Fuck you, sarijoul. You are WRONG about my source, just as you are wrong about most things. My source for all the quotations posted here is as follows: quoted in Management, 7th ed., by Ricky Griffin. Original source: USA Today, Tuesday, November 23, 1999, p. 5D.

Oh, and here's another one:

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom" (Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Milliken, 1923).

11/7/2006 1:03:09 AM

my source is Bloomberg Business News (19 January 1996); also WIRED (16 January 1997).

and why would a source for a quote from 1981 be in a newspaper eighteen years later?!

11/7/2006 1:08:44 AM

^^^Exactly

This is really getting down to the heart of the matter. Many of those that criticize scientist forget that scientist theorize first then work out the problems. They dont simply say that something is so, and then do a meaningless experiment to reaffirm that. It's all about exploring the unkown, sort of a dicipline or art if I may say so. Not every pupil is going to shine constantly, like those that hooksaw quotes, or the very scientist who claims it is possible to falsify god as in the subject of this thread.


[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:26 AM. Reason : s]

11/7/2006 1:12:46 AM

^^ Why don't you e-mail Dr. Ricky Griffin at Texas A&M or USA Today and ask them? Man, you're fucking dense sometimes.

ALL the quotations were from a textbook page taken from a single article concerning poorly chosen words from the past. Why don't you take your face out of the computer once in a while and use your imagination. Jesus! (Pun intended.)

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ^]

11/7/2006 1:16:18 AM

well your bill gates quote is bullshit. if you can find a source of him saying that this, then by all means. as far as it goes now you have at BEST a thirdhand source.

and for the record, i have TWO firsthand sources of him denying it.


[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 1:20:48 AM

Did you even read some of the quotations? A lot of these were not about trying SHIT! They were about stagnation and being stuck in the past.

For fuck's sake, even Einstein was being left behind in his day partly due to his refusal to accept and investigate quantum mechanics. Furthermore, even Einstein claimed that harnessing the power of the atom would be like, and I'm paraphrasing, trying to shoot birds in the dark in a country with very few birds.

And I still say that--for some of you--science has become your religion. And you are too mesmerized by the rapture to even notice.

11/7/2006 1:24:09 AM

^^ Great job. You have a firm grasp of the obvious: I used a tertiary source. Wow. Brilliant.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE GODDAMNED POINT AND YOU FUCKING KNOW IT! Many of you worship in the temple of science, but you won't admit it. Admit it, at long last. One form of zealotry replaces another--and I didn't like the fucking first one, either.

11/7/2006 1:29:36 AM

^When you see past your own nose we'll talk.

11/7/2006 1:34:03 AM

scientists, i think, are all wrong. every single one of them about everything.

the thing is: they have good guesses about things. and (hopefully) we are getting closer and closer to the truth by weeding out bad ideas. any actual scientists have a grasp of this. those weak of mind might believe things blindly. and, honestly, there has to be a bit of trust in the workings of the scientific method even for the most intelligent, simply because there is no way any single person can know even a sliver of sum of all scientific knowledge.

the point is: scientists know they're wrong and are actively trying to correct their wrongs.

11/7/2006 1:35:51 AM

sarijoul

Quote :

"we are getting closer and closer to the truth by weeding out bad ideas. any actual scientists have a grasp of this."

In your words, the only truth you can relate to and the only truth you will accept will be delivered by science--it is your form of worship. QED.

11/7/2006 1:42:58 AM

no, i'm saying that everything that scientists will say and ever will say is wrong. but we are getting asymptotically closer to the truth (we still may be far away from the truth at this point).

11/7/2006 1:49:48 AM

I don't understand why striving for belief can be such a bad thing. Sure, the scientists that the OP was referencing are reaching outside the realm of science but there's a general attitude of "lolGodloversrdumb" prevailing in this thread. I'm curious about the person that would think something like that because I'd like to know what irrefutable evidence they have this proves the existence of God?

11/7/2006 2:01:25 AM

Its so ridiculous because the scientist is talking about the "concept" of god. How can you refute the existence of a concept? These debates always end in arrogant dribble from both sides.

Why bother

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ^]

11/7/2006 2:13:34 AM

"We are the priests / Of the temples of syrinx / Our great computers / Fill the hollowed halls / We are the priests / Of the temples of syrinx / All the gifts of life / Are held within our walls" (Rush).

11/7/2006 2:18:28 AM

hooksaw you pretty much completely missed the point of this thread.

Scientists are allowed, and expected to be wrong about lots of stuff. About scientific stuff. The whole point of science is that its falsifiable, or refutable. If it isn't (like this conception of God), then it's not a scientific question.

They can't and should not keep on their "scientist" hats and continue to make judgments about things that aren't scientific, and then pass it off as scientific. That is the point of this thread. The point you missed. Also stop using QED when your application of logic is a far cry from valid.

11/7/2006 7:33:04 AM

^ can we end on that?

11/7/2006 8:08:19 AM

Up to you guys.

11/7/2006 8:35:46 AM

Quote :

"1+2 = 3"

~Adolf Hilter


OMG, it must be false then.

___

Not that I think what he said was right in those quotes, but you can't make everything the guy said guilty by association.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 8:50 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 8:49:33 AM

"You ain't going nowhere, son. You ought to go back to driving a truck" (The Grand Ole Opry's Jimmy Dunny to Elvis Presley, 1954).

11/7/2006 10:03:28 AM

I haven't read the Time article or Dawkin's new book but I think I have some idea of what he is arguing.

My general impression is that Dawkin's wants to subject religion to carefull scrutiny. There are two parts to this. The first is that certain things exist and exert a causal influence on the world (such as the world is 6000 years old or magic crystals have healing powers). Claims such as these can be tested like any other claims.
The second part is that many people have faith in God and say because of faith their belief should not be subject to scientific investigation or an attempt at proof. Dawkins, and I, object to this protectionist notion of faith and want beliefs, based on faith, to not be immune to rational or evidentiary criticism.

11/7/2006 12:46:39 PM

^^^

ha I was merely pointing out that posting quotes that were stupid to prove a point is also stupid.

11/7/2006 12:53:25 PM

Quote :

"Dawkins, and I, object to this protectionist notion of faith and want beliefs, based on faith, to not be immune to rational or evidentiary criticism."

Well yeah, naturally. But you're not going to prove or disprove anything about supernatural entities that have no present causal interaction with our world. What you can hope to show is that claiming as much is not a good way to form personal or public policy. And on that, I'd agree -- but as an agnostic.

11/7/2006 1:08:13 PM

Quote :

"how does that make you an atheist?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

Quote :

"^yeah, my thoughts exactly. unseen aliens that do nothing with regards to nature aren't what we're talking about here."

i don't understand what you're talking about here? if your aliens are inside the universe they only remain unseen to us due to lack of ability and technology. if they're not within the universe (and uninterested in what happens in it), why even ponder them, much less worship them.

Quote :

"well, you've got us there, but I fail to see the point that is made here. you're saying that we cannot prove that an unseen force that does absolutely nothing does not exist, when to even be able to test that hypothesis, there would have to be SOMETHING that this thing could do in order to be detected, whether it be physical or devine."

seems to me you got the point all too well. so what i was wondering was why a Being that is WHOLLY disinterested in the universe is any different than the 10th dimension colliding branes theorized about in New Scientist (or whatever is the latest theory). both created our universe and neither takes an active interest.

if anything that is responsible for the creation of the universe can be called God then i suppose i'm an agnostic, i wasn't there so i don't know. but worshipping any being responsible for this universe would in my opinion be like bart's frog being expected to worship him. my personal situation isn't as bad as bart's frog, but i'm sure there are many tortured and tormented vomiting individuals around the world guilty of no affront to "God" (infants and newborns among them) that welcome death.

11/7/2006 2:02:16 PM

Although this moves out of the realm of the scientific quest for God (or lack of God), I was really enthralled with the logical idea of God we discussed in Early Modern Philosophy when I took the class.

Specifically, the idea of Voluntarism (although it appears different than what wikipedia calls it, perhaps someone can help me out with the correct name, then).

Is God bound by logical principles or could He/She/It (heretofore "He") could have made a world where 1+2 != 3. The specific question posed that was fun to think about was this:

Can God do anything? Yes? Well if God can do anything, can He build a rock that was so big even He couldn't lift it?

Because if the answer is yes, then lifting the created rock is something he cannot do and if the answer is no, then he cannot build a rock big enough that he can't lift it, which is something he cannot do.

Any thoughts on this?

11/7/2006 5:06:10 PM

Well my thoughts are that the Christian definition of God are bad, and inadequate. They don't even amount to a coherent idea, much less a description of anything that has interacted significantly with our universe.

If you're familiar with Descartes through Berkeley (or through Kant, if you'd like), you'll also realize that their logical attempts at proving God's existence are the stuff of comedy.

11/7/2006 6:09:34 PM

Faith isn't about proof, if it was, it wouldn't be faith.

11/7/2006 6:14:15 PM

Well no, but you'd have to admit that a logical proof of God would be a positive thing for believers.

11/7/2006 6:19:22 PM

But it's a moot point. If God could be proven, then the whole concept of belief in God is vanquished.

11/7/2006 6:20:39 PM

I don't see why. I don't see why a leap of faith is necessary for a God. I mean, why would God endow you with a sense of rationality and then require than you go completely against it without any reasonable, credible evidence?

11/7/2006 6:21:52 PM

I don't know the answer to your question, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one waiting for you. I don't pretend to know why, but no one living really knows why.

11/7/2006 6:29:25 PM

Yeah, see, nothing against your total lack of a definitive answer, but I have a hard time considering any of that something I need to know.

11/7/2006 6:31:25 PM

You can't have a definitive answer man. That much should be obvious.

11/7/2006 6:32:08 PM

^^^ Free will.

11/7/2006 6:50:00 PM

PS: The argument about whether or not God exists is a logical fallacy:

Quote :

"Appeal to ignorance: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, 'Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.' Example: 'People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.' Here's an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: 'People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.' In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't exist."

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

11/7/2006 6:56:11 PM

It's not a logical fallacy if you suspend answering the question. That's what logical positivists like myself do, at least.

11/7/2006 6:58:06 PM

I didn't attempt to answer the question. I clearly said it's unanswerable, which is better than saying nothing.

11/7/2006 7:02:22 PM

I wonder if that debate between the two scientists will be on tv.

11/7/2006 7:04:34 PM

how dare those scientists challenge my beliefs!
they must be stopped! It is too threatening and worrysome to consider changing my views on anything. f33r!

11/9/2006 8:23:19 AM

That's not the point of the thread. The point is that science is not a proper tool for making assertions about things that might or might not exist outside of nature. When scientists lose focus of what their boundaries are, it makes them look silly. Who should know science better than scientists? (well, other than philosophers of science I suppose )

11/9/2006 8:30:11 AM