Stem Cells cure Blind Man

[S O F I]

Well, but most of us would pretty much believe in that. There are probably more things that were faked and we don't even know.
In the media that provide us with information about experiments and results I bet that a lot of them were faked. To really be sure that something is true we'd have to perform experiments by ourselves but since it's usually impossible we have to trust other people - rely on books, tv, the internet that often lie to us or twist facts they don't understand. Also, in science usually things aren't as easy the more you get into them.

With this specific report someone was lucky enough to hack and retrieve it.

Well, as Jokerman said, there's peer review and experiment replication. Another problem with this research and these reports is that sometimes the scientists believe in global warming too much and when the data isn't what they like to see, they will "adjust" it based on the belief that the monitoring of the data wasn't good enough, etc.

But I see what you're saying. Rukas' point is that we take most scientific fact as is even though we haven't seen it with our own eyes or done the research ourselves so he says that's "blind faith" which it is because we're believing what we are told. But I think you can't make the comparison between believing in something like the IPCC report and believing that God exists. The comparison just fails.

 

[Sebastian]

At the end of the day everyone believes in something based on blind faith because no one knows everything for sure. You "know" these things because that is what you have been told, by science, Islam, or your parents, whatever, you're taking someone else's word for it.

Duke and I talked about this last night. He was wondering why I was playing the "devil's advocate" role since he never knew me to be religious. And I told him that I'm really not religious, and if you look at my life, I live the life of an atheist. The difference between me and an atheist is that I don't feel the need to make up my mind and choose a side between being a believer and an atheist. I just simply keep an open mind. I don't view the world differently and I don't deny science at all. Simply, I don't exclude the possibility of a higher power while an atheist does. I guess I'm agnostic. Aside from the time we take to engage in religious debates, our lives aren't any different at all in terms of religion. What boggles my mind at times, is the atheist NEED to assert with CERTAINTY the absence of deities. Then, when I think about it, it's probably because they get angry with believers, bla bla. Point being, I don't see the need to assert with certainty (because, there is no certainty in this case), the absence of deities.

Im curious, do you apply the same view to any other question regarding stuff like that, for example, the possible existence of elves?

 

[S O F I]

Dude, elves exist.

 

[Flipmo]

I went in '06.

The nightlife is pretty good because it has something for every one and every kind of genre of music. Also, a lot of good acts come often. The downside is that last call for alcohol is at 1:30am lol but there are a couple of clubs open till the morning (but they don't serve alcohol after 2am).

Why is last call at 1:30am? and don't serve after 2am?

Here it's at 3am, and that's when the clubs close, 3 am. lol. After that people either head to coffee shops to sober-up, or we head to Afterhours' which is from 3am to 6 or 9am

 

[S. Fourteen]

The real problem with this climate data scandal is that now all global-warming scientists and their data are being tarred with the same brush. Meanwhile the ice sheets are melting before our very eyes and big industry is as happy as they can be. So let’s not play it safe and let’s take the side of the big polluters and Fox News and the Ann Coulters and Sean Hannitys of this world.

I'm preparing for the worst. That means digging a hole in my basement, lining it with 15 feet of concrete, supplying it with enough energy and water to sustain my hydroponic system for 25 years and stashing enough weapons to arm a small army.

 

[Duke]

Joker and Sofi thanked for shooting down the stupid religion/science comparison.

Rukas, the big big difference is that when a scientist tells me something, I can actually go and CHECK if he's right.

That possibility is not there with the existance of God.

 

[masta247]

Rukas, the big big difference is that when a scientist tells me something, I can actually go and CHECK if he's right.

Sure if your skills are good enough, you have the equipment needed and you're absolutely sure that the theoretical knowledge you need to prove something is based on absolutely true presumptions. In many cases physics and mathematics on more advanced levels (even some more basic math too) are based on rational assumptions more than facts. Actually they are not perfect on many fields.

 

[Da_Funk]

Sure if your skills are good enough, you have the equipment needed and you're absolutely sure that the theoretical knowledge you need to prove something is based on absolutely true presumptions. In many cases physics and mathematics on more advanced levels (even some more basic math too) are based on rational assumptions more than facts. Actually they are not perfect on many fields.

If you want to do the experiment first hand, yes. However chances are that if it is good science, it will corroborated by others around the world. Generally speaking, if multiple people, independant of each other, are getting the same results, that result is true.

You are right, physics and advanced math are based on rational assumptions, but the computer your typing on, it works because of that math and physics. That tv you watch works because of that math and science. Therefore, we are obviously getting something right in our assumptions. Nothing is improved, made to work more efficiently, etc. because of the irrational belief in a higher power. That is the difference in people who believe (for lack of a better word) in science vs those who believe in religion.

In regards to global warming, it is happening. That is something that is not debateable. What is debateable is whether global warming is being accelerated by humanity. It is interesting to note that throughout the history of our planet global temperatures are generally higher than todays average, so is global warming really just a return to the normal? Another thing that is also interesting is that we are still in an ice age, albeit at the end of one, therefore, should we not expect global warming to occur?

 

[masta247]

^ Sure, again, I know that religion and science are different things.

I was just pointing out that even in that case you have to trust someone who might be either not right or biased. There are many results coming from small groups of scientists that get official and we subconsciously trust them.
Even a few groups might not be right or biased. Chances are smaller but still, they can make us believe that something is not what it really is.
And again, I'm not saying that this and religion are equally reliable sources of assumption.

If it comes to computers and TVs you're right. However when they were created scientists had general knowledge that was heavily altered during the processes of their developments. They had to experiment a lot to make them work and change their presumptions. So science is definitely rather accurate with things where you can apply your theory, where you can actually experiment with things in reality since that's where you can easily correct if you're wrong somewhere. It's especially applicable to computer science where science is backed up by the "hit or miss" method. You try until it works and you alter your thinking really often. Situations where it instantly works "because it should in theory" are pretty rare.
It's not that good with things that are really based on a lot of assumptions and there's no way to compare these results with reality, where we're talking only about theory.
Even if you're wrong with a single small thing the whole theory fails and you don't know for sure since you can't check it or experiment with it. Study of the universe comes to my mind as a good example.

 

[S O F I]

Why is last call at 1:30am? and don't serve after 2am?

Here it's at 3am, and that's when the clubs close, 3 am. lol. After that people either head to coffee shops to sober-up, or we head to Afterhours' which is from 3am to 6 or 9am

It's the law, mayne. Blame the man. I assume because of drunk driving and public disturbances. Last call is usually at 1:30 or 1:45 because by 2:00am, by law, everyone needs to be out of the establishment. There are a couple of after hours spots here too, the best one being a gay nightclub lol.

 

[S O F I]

Im curious, do you apply the same view to any other question regarding stuff like that, for example, the possible existence of elves?

To be serious for a second, the reason I don't exclude the possibility of some higher force out there is because I'm not assured that something came out of nothing. The origin of elves doesn't really belong in that debate because it isn't argued that they "created" the world.

 

[Casey]

But it may as well be. There's no more or less reason to think that elves created the world than a god.

 

[Rukas]

But it may as well be. There's no more or less reason to think that elves created the world than a god.

Try to not be such a dick about everything.

Elves, had they been real, are obviously a product OF the planet and not vice versa. They would not be a higher power any more than little people are.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

"God" is some sort of higher power that created the universe (something Science can not possibly explain), and started life, as life can not randomly form out of anything that isn't life already.

And for the record, Elves, or a small race of people, probably did exist.

 

[Jokerman]

the reason I don't exclude the possibility of some higher force out there is because I'm not assured that something came out of nothing.

But the existence of a higher force just takes the coming-out-of-nothing problem away from the Universe and puts it on the higher force. You still have the problem. All you did was transfer it to something that there's no evidence of, when what there is evidence of, namely, the Universe, serves just fine as a coming-out-of-nothing mystery. Positing a higher force is just not necessary. It solves no problem.

It's like some people have to belief in something human like. As if somehow something with thoughts or consciousness somewhat like ours can come out of nothing easier than something not like that, i.e. the universe. But a higher power that can create the universe would have to be more complicated than the universe and hence, more unlikely to be able to come out of nothing than the universe! If you have a problem with the universe coming out of nothing, this higher power's existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right.

We've only got to the point of consciousness that we are at after 4 billion years of evolution, or 13 billion if you count how long it took the universe to come up with us. Evolution over billions of years is the only thing we know that could eventually come up with something as complex as us. Yet you're willing to believe a higher power infinitely more complex than us or the universe can come out of nothing? You're willing to be agnostic about that.

 

[Sebastian]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

It was about the principle which is apllied to this way of thinking.

In theory, i understand the agnostic point of view regarding the possibility of god existing or not. However, im pretty sure thats more or less the only question where people like SOFI use this answer.

In every other case, where the possibility of something being real is as low (basically non-existent) as in the "god question", they would use the "atheistic way" and say "hell no, of course it doesnt exist. No need to make an exception in this case".

And thumbs up for Jokermans post.

 

[Bender]

forget the whole religion vs science debate thing.

i yearn to see the day when philosophers and artists rule the world!

 

[Duke]

Elves, had they been real, are obviously a product OF the planet and not vice versa. They would not be a higher power any more than little people are.

Oh?


Joker :thumb:

 

[S O F I]

But the existence of a higher force just takes the coming-out-of-nothing problem away from the Universe and puts it on the higher force. You still have the problem. All you did was transfer it to something that there's no evidence of, when what there is evidence of, namely, the Universe, serves just fine as a coming-out-of-nothing mystery. Positing a higher force is just not necessary. It solves no problem.

Correct, I've thought about this.

It's like some people have to belief in something human like. As if somehow something with thoughts or consciousness somewhat like ours can come out of nothing easier than something not like that, i.e. the universe. But a higher power that can create the universe would have to be more complicated than the universe and hence, more unlikely to be able to come out of nothing than the universe! If you have a problem with the universe coming out of nothing, this higher power's existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right.

We've only got to the point of consciousness that we are at after 4 billion years of evolution, or 13 billion if you count how long it took the universe to come up with us. Evolution over billions of years is the only thing we know that could eventually come up with something as complex as us. Yet you're willing to believe a higher power infinitely more complex than us or the universe can come out of nothing? You're willing to be agnostic about that.

I thought we cleared this up. I'm not willing to believe nor am I willing to not believe. I, in pure simple terms, don't know, and see no reason to believe one way or the other. I simply keep an open mind. When it comes to elves with magical powers, I tend not to keep an open mind. I can be selective in this because I choose to. I could care less if an atheist finds that approach hypocritical or illogical. There are some things where, depending on what you believe, directly affect your life. But in this scenario, I don't see how my viewpoint directly affects anything I do and that's important.

 

[Duke]

I try to keep an open mind as well, but for me, the concept of elves or leprechauns hold no more relevance than that of a typical "God".

 

[Casey]

Exactly. What's the difference except for the number of people that believe one over the other and have spent thousands of years making up random fictional stories to justify their beliefs?

Jesus turned water into wine and fed a few thousand people with a few loaves of bread. Yeah, and I'm Marilyn fucking Monroe.