Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

First things first - nuclear waste, oil spills, CO2 emissions are not technologies but biproducts of technologies so let's throw those out immediately as you seem to struggle with reading comprehension skills or basic application of words. Take your pick on which of those afflicts you. Fertilizer is the entirety of your case? Is this a joke?

Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it...

 

EDIT: Start reading

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/4/logical-reasoning.pdf

lmao gunshot wounds are a byproduct of guns and that doesn't change that fact that guns result in them 

what kind of silly deflection is that?

 

"Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it..."

i did formulate an argument, i gave examples  of technology having a harmful impact on the environment

 

btw "biproduct" isn't a word... you'd do well to spell words properly before you start critiquing others

Gun wounds are a product of someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. Religion X says it should kill everyone who believes in religion Y, so they need guns to do it. 

o_O.Q said:
Hedra42 said:

Ah.

True colours revealed.

what do you mean? i think we had a pretty good conversation and i've come to like you

Awww... How sweet. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
o_O.Q said:

 

that's an improvement... you spent the last few replies posting evidence that you claimed showed scientists have modeled a singularity


I think you are a little bit "simple".
Scientists have a model. It's called the "Big Bang Theory" - Which is a model that dates back to the earliest known periods, right up to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

It has supporting evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of the universe from a single point.

o_O.Q said:

 

lol this is ironic given the context

It really is considering all the empirical evidence I provided prior. 

If you are happy living in ignorance, who am I to argue?

 

o_O.Q said:

 

you claimed initially that atheists countries have a record of advancing human rights and claimed that you have examples...

And I provided Japan as an example.

o_O.Q said:

 

your previous reply claimed that i am anti science for saying that some aspects of evolution can be debated... wtf lmao

I asked if you agree with the theory of Evolution and Natural selection. - You replied that some aspects can be debated.
Ergo, one can assume you disagree with some aspects. (Although, you didn't really get into any intricate details, but that is fine.)

I came to the conclusion that you are anti-science for all your rhetoric in this entire thread in general... The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake.


o_O.Q said:

 

so here you are again claiming that you have links that verify that scientists have modeled singularities again

 Before you reply with things... Please go read the evidence I presented and educate yourself.

 

o_O.Q said:

 

can you name the aspects of science that i do not believe in?

Sure. Certain aspects of Evolution and Natural selection for starters? :)

Or hows about the fact you believe all our knowledge regarding the natural world should be scrapped and remade?

 

o_O.Q said:

 

 

i do believe in the scientific process and have already posted in this thread that i think its the best tool we have for evaluating the universe

And yet... You want to ruin it all.

o_O.Q said:

 

lmao singularities break the laws of physics

 

Prove it. Provide evidence.
Don't just assert some bullshit and run.

 

"It has supporting evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of the universe from a single point."

so i'm just going to conclude that you do not have evidence that scientists have modeled a singularity despite claiming so

 

"It really is considering all the empirical evidence I provided prior. "

for what? so far you have not backed any of the claims you made to me

 

"And I provided Japan as an example."

japan despite the problems they have is not an atheist country, its a secular country... 

 

"I asked if you agree with the theory of Evolution and Natural selection. - You replied that some aspects can be debated.

Ergo, one can assume you disagree with some aspects."

i made the reply i made not because i disagree with any particular aspect of evolution but because i understand that science is about constant refinement and enquiry

apparently you disagree with that

the attitude you showed btw is why people burned witches in the dark ages ( people refusing to remain open minded and assuming the knowledge in a particular area is perfect and needs no discussion )

 

"The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake."

i said singularities break the laws of physics... wtf

 

"Sure. Certain aspects of Evolution and Natural selection for starters? :)


Or hows about the fact you believe all our knowledge regarding the natural world should be scrapped and remade?"

 

which aspects? and when did i say the our knowledge needs to be scrapped and remade?

 

"Prove it. Provide evidence. "

 

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

 

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.



bdbdbd said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao gunshot wounds are a byproduct of guns and that doesn't change that fact that guns result in them 

what kind of silly deflection is that?

 

"Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it..."

i did formulate an argument, i gave examples  of technology having a harmful impact on the environment

 

btw "biproduct" isn't a word... you'd do well to spell words properly before you start critiquing others

Gun wounds are a product of someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. Religion X says it should kill everyone who believes in religion Y, so they need guns to do it. 

o_O.Q said:

what do you mean? i think we had a pretty good conversation and i've come to like you

Awww... How sweet. 

do you believe in gun control? if you do please tell me why



The question is not which is better or what has given us more. The question is which is a bigger threat to humanity? I take humanity in that sense to mean the human race. If you take humanity as compassion, brotherly love ect... then the question changes. So I take the question to mean which is most likely lead to the death of the human race.

That would most likely be science. The threat of super-intelligent AI, in my opinion, is the biggest threat. Though
Science might be what saves us from other things that could cause us mass extinction like an asteroid. For this question in the way, I took it, definitely science. Unless you believe the rapture is coming.

I



 

My Real Redneck friends


o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

First things first - nuclear waste, oil spills, CO2 emissions are not technologies but biproducts of technologies so let's throw those out immediately as you seem to struggle with reading comprehension skills or basic application of words. Take your pick on which of those afflicts you. Fertilizer is the entirety of your case? Is this a joke?

Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it...

 

EDIT: Start reading

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/4/logical-reasoning.pdf

lmao gunshot wounds are a byproduct of guns and that doesn't change that fact that guns result in them 

what kind of silly deflection is that?

 

"Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it..."

i did formulate an argument, i gave examples  of technology having a harmful impact on the environment

 

btw "biproduct" isn't a word... you'd do well to spell words properly before you start critiquing others

It seems the Dunning-Kruger effect has claimed another victim...

Your claim (verbatim) was that "technology is intrinsically harmful"

ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is. Claiming that pencils are intrinsically harmful to humanity is beyond false, it's stupid and that is your argument at this point. That someone can use any random piece of technology to cause harm to others. That not only fails to support your claim at all, since we're speaking INTRINSICALLY, but is hilariously inept.

PS: Start reading (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproduct

Stop embarrassing yourself.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

"The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief.  "

i'm not trying to make this a general thing i believe of researchers but i do think that in terms of topics like the supporting evidence for singularities there is some degree of faith involved

faith in the idea that they eventually will come up with evidence that does not exist yet

 

Faith, specifically in Christianity, is rooted in the understanding that God has a plan that absolutely defines the past, present, and future.  Fundamentally, science attempts to put the control in human hands.  Even negative results from a study can positively contribute to the progression of science because future researchers will have one less option to consider.  Faith need not apply when both negative and positive results are beneficial.  

o_O.Q said: 

"I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities.  They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model."

the evidence required to update the model doesn't exist yet though

furthermore from what i gather they don't even know if they will be able to manifest the evidence... maybe its possible that the model they have has problems they are unaware of? maybe it needs to be reworked in a way that excludes their current theory for singularities? that's possible also

 

No, the evidence already exists.  A mathematical or physical inconsistency, such as infinite density at some point in time, warrants the search for a better model.  Every model that we use across physics and other sciences can, at most, be considered the best model we currently have and not the final, complete solution.    

o_O.Q said: 

"in the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.  The model itself works well for what we can currently observe.  "

but aren't we only able to see 3% of the universe around us anyway? don't they just call the rest dark matter? doesn't that imply that there's still a lot of work to be done?... i might be out of my depth here, i'll concede that

 

Cosmology is still a relatively new field and there are so many advancements every year that textbooks quickly become insufficient.  It's crazy because so many other fields have been (essentially) untouched for hundred of years.  

o_O.Q said: 

"A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations."

singularities represent areas with infinite energy don't they? since mass is infinite... does that not break the law of conservation of energy?

again i'm not an astrophysicist so i'm just pitching a question as a layman in this field

It's an infinite density.  In a nutshell, the density of an object is equal to the mass of the object divided by the volume of the object.  When the mass of an object or system is constant, we can see that the density will decrease as the volume increases.  The mass of the universe is constant and the volume is increasing (the expanding universe), therefore the density must be decreasing with time.  As you can imagine, if we go backward in time the density will increase indefinitely because the volume will keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.....

In the off chance that a model violating the conservation of energy passes peer review, it will swiftly be retracted in the next cycle.  Noether's theorem shows that the conservation of energy is not dependent on time or space; it will remain valid anytime anywhere.  If at some point we find an exception to the conservation of energy (which is possible, but not plausible) then we would need to entirely rewrite physics.  

And just to comment on one of your points with Pemalite:

o_O.Q said: 

"Prove it. Provide evidence. "

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.


In a subsequent paragraph of the same link, it states:

"The existence of a singularity is often taken as proof that the theory of general relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. It is conceivable that some future combined theory of quantum gravity (such as current research into superstrings) may be able to describe black holeswithout the need for singularities, but such a theory is still many years away."

The laws of physics are not broken.  We just do not have any physics that describes what's happening in that very small scale.  There's a big difference between being broken and not being the best tool.  I wouldn't call a phillips-head screwdriver broken just because it can't turn a slot screw drive.  We can either chisel away parts of the screwdriver to make it work or find another tool.  But the phillips-head screwdriver is not broken.  

Last edited by pleaserecycle - on 14 January 2018

OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao gunshot wounds are a byproduct of guns and that doesn't change that fact that guns result in them 

what kind of silly deflection is that?

 

"Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it..."

i did formulate an argument, i gave examples  of technology having a harmful impact on the environment

 

btw "biproduct" isn't a word... you'd do well to spell words properly before you start critiquing others

It seems the Dunning-Kruger effect has claimed another victim...

"Your claim (verbatim) was that "technology is intrinsically harmful"

ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is. Claiming that pencils are intrinsically harmful to humanity is beyond false, it's stupid and that is your argument at this point. That someone can use any random piece of technology to cause harm to others. That not only fails to support your claim at all, since we're speaking INTRINSICALLY, but is hilariously inept.

PS: Start reading (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproduct

Stop embarrassing yourself.

"ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is"

the definition of extrinsic is as follows

"not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside"

" not forming part of or belonging to a thing"

 

if you can't see how hilariously stupid your argument was now... we might as well put a stop to it here

to put a finer point on it, pollution for example does not come from a source outside of technology, it is a derivation of technology

 

intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing."

anyone who understand what technology is understands that an ever present part of technology is waste

that's where the concept of "efficiency" comes from and no machine is 100% efficient there is always some percentage of the input that comes out as waste and that waste almost always is harmful to people and the environment

 

"Stop embarrassing yourself."

lmao right back at you

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 14 January 2018

bdbdbd said:

Actually, that's not entirely true. Medication in general is considered safe when the side-effects are generally known and benefits for using it beats the risks involved.

I am talking about Anti-Vaxxers being Anti-Science by propagating false information like Vaccines causing Autism.

o_O.Q said:

so i'm just going to conclude that you do not have evidence that scientists have modeled a singularity despite claiming so

How can you make that statement when I have provided the evidence to the contrary?
If ignorance is Bliss... Your life must be a bloody paradise that no one has ever experienced before.

o_O.Q said:

for what? so far you have not backed any of the claims you made to me

Liar. Liar. Liar.

o_O.Q said:

japan despite the problems they have is not an atheist country, its a secular country... 

And again, Atheism and Secularism has components that overlap.

o_O.Q said:

i made the reply i made not because i disagree with any particular aspect of evolution but because i understand that science is about constant refinement and enquiry

apparently you disagree with that

the attitude you showed btw is why people burned witches in the dark ages ( people refusing to remain open minded and assuming the knowledge in a particular area is perfect and needs no discussion )

Do you even read? I never once said that knowledge in any particular area is perfect and needs no discussion.
And I quote myself:

Pemalite said:

What doctors believed in the past is ultimately irrelevant, we have already established that science, including medical science will change as new information comes available, science is flexible that way, religion is not.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687703


o_O.Q said:

"The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake."

i said singularities break the laws of physics... wtf

"Laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten"
And I quote:

o_O.Q said:

i'm not saying that's the case all the time but clearly when the laws of physics are broken and need to be rewritten for something to be verified ( as is the case with singularities ) then there is some degree of faith involved

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8691461


o_O.Q said:

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

"Physics as we know them cease to operate" Which is NOT - "The Laws of physics are broken" which you claimed.
You are conflating two different issues which is ignorant.

If you wish to truly have an understanding of Physics (I.E. You don't currently.) then you should study the field in intimate detail.

What is actually being suggested is that part of our model needs to be updated, not scrap everything... And people like Stephen Hawking are working on that very issue.








--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

o_O.Q said:
bdbdbd said:

Gun wounds are a product of someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. Religion X says it should kill everyone who believes in religion Y, so they need guns to do it. 

Awww... How sweet. 

do you believe in gun control? if you do please tell me why

I do. It is because not all people are responsible enough to carry a gun.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Religion's time as a driving aspect of the world I think has pretty much come and gone. It's not the massive factor from where humanity goes from here.

Technology very obviously is though, and things like A.I., gene editing are going to be probably change humanity in massive ways over the next 200 years or so I would say.