Thrown out of an FBO...

In article ,
"gatt" wrote:


You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is like
eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/166...e091204cj6.jpg

I'm already enlightened.

Nothings open to debate in this.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I'm glad to hear that you are willing to debate your religion. That is
the first step to enlightenment.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Judah,


But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:



Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
not possible.

Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

Sure it is. They believe in their instruments. They believe in their
data. They believed that light consisted of waves for many years. Lots
of things that scientists deal with are based on beliefs.

Matt

Jose wrote:

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."



Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp
collecting.


Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

Yes, but the analogy was weak to begin with. Having a hobby isn't like
having beliefs. I don't think it is possible to have no beliefs and
more than it is possible to "stop thinking." It is just a question of
which system of beliefs you choose.

To me the analogy is more akin to a computer CPU. As long as it has
power, it is processing. The process my be excuting NOP instructions,
but the point is that the CPU is ALWAYS executing as long as it has
power. I believe the same is true of the human brain. It is always
processing and always believing in something. So, I reject the idea
that it is possible to either believe in nothing or have no beliefs at all.


Matt

mike regish wrote:

I'm already enlightened.

Nothings open to debate in this.

If you aren't open to debate, you are operating pretty low on the
intellectual hierarchy.


Matt

"Beavis" wrote in message
...

You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is
like
eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/166...e091204cj6.jpg


Aw, man. If I laugh at that I'll probably get hit by a bus or something as
soon as I step outside!

-c
(Booked marked it, though.)

"Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.
Sure it is. They believe in their instruments. They believe in their data.

I believe (sic) that the word is being used in two different senses
here. Scientists don't "believe" their instruments with the same faith
as religious devotees. They in fact are suspicious of their
instruments, and of everyone else's results... so suspicious that they
do experiments in different ways to confirm (or refute) results. They
challenge each other's findings by experiment, often repeating an
experiment several times that other people have already done. If
science were faith based, this would be unnecessary. It would be seen
as a redundant waste of money. But it is not. Lots of effort goes to
attempting to reproduce results. This is =because= science does not
operate on faith.

They believed that light consisted of waves for many years...

That was not an "act of faith". That was a "best guess so far", as is
everything else that science has discovered.

There is of course a kernel one is reduced to when pressed. For me it
comes down to:

1: Logic works, and I have a command of it.
(despite the opinions of some posters here
2: There exists an objective reality.
(QM puts that one into doubt)
3: Within their limits, my senses reflect reality.
(i.e. I'm not just dreaming this whole thing up
as a disembodied brain like on some SF TV show)
4: I can't remember this fourth one right now.
(I know... shades of Monty Python)
5: It is possible to be wrong, and not know it.
(It's amazing how many people "know" they are right about religion.)

These are not so much "acts of faith" as they are admissions to myself
that if =any= =one= of these were false, I would not have a handle on
reality anyway.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
"gatt" wrote:

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/166...e091204cj6.jpg


Aw, man. If I laugh at that I'll probably get hit by a bus or something as
soon as I step outside!

-c
(Booked marked it, though.)

Heh... one of my favorites that I see time and time again on
http://www.fark.com/ ... It never gets old!

Awww...Now I'm hurt.

mike
P.S. Try reality. You'll be truly impressed.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I'm already enlightened.

Nothings open to debate in this.

If you aren't open to debate, you are operating pretty low on the
intellectual hierarchy.


Matt

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Judah,

But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:


Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
not possible.

You may want to read that again. He said "But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability".
PROBABILITY, not POSSIBILITY.
Big difference. For example. It's POSSIBLE this thread will end with
everyone in agreeance, but it's not PROBABLE!
Oz/Crash Lander