Discussion: The Scientific Method is useless
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
K
keith1
Guest
Science investigation continues after scientists die. Therefore the afterlife condition is not a major interest of Science, and makes it's mention in a debate about the uselessness of Science a bit dubious in its assertion/insertion.
The only human endeavor, regiment, or discipline making head-roads into discovery of any natural, or physical realities, or unknowns--is Science.
This would imply that the debate here is a bit premature, as it needs to be preceded by the discussion of, "Can a god be discovered without Science?", which should instead, give Science the most important aspect of uses, to those looking for a god.
The only human endeavor, regiment, or discipline making head-roads into discovery of any natural, or physical realities, or unknowns--is Science.
This would imply that the debate here is a bit premature, as it needs to be preceded by the discussion of, "Can a god be discovered without Science?", which should instead, give Science the most important aspect of uses, to those looking for a god.
Last edited by a moderator:
O ye of little faith.
Science is the new god, all hail the god of science!
Actually, science is only peripheral to the true nature of god, since the true nature is not an idea or intellectual discourse.
Therefore the existence or nonexistence of god (with a capital g) is unprovable by any argument since all arguments are ideas. Therefore choosing an atheistic or theistic standpoint (as if you "need" to) is altogether irrelevant.
It's just one of those things which is true (or false) for no reason.
Science is the new god, all hail the god of science!
Actually, science is only peripheral to the true nature of god, since the true nature is not an idea or intellectual discourse.
Therefore the existence or nonexistence of god (with a capital g) is unprovable by any argument since all arguments are ideas. Therefore choosing an atheistic or theistic standpoint (as if you "need" to) is altogether irrelevant.
It's just one of those things which is true (or false) for no reason.
a)
i can't see how you're saying a life in a godless universe isn't pointless.
can't you grasp the simple notion that although the pyramids are still standing for us now, they are nonexistent for their builders because they are dead?
if you raise the best kid in the world, he will cease to exist when you die, along with your whole world.
everything realized by science, will cease to exist upon death, and so, for the dead person, it is pointless.
can't you grasp that?
i can't see how you're saying a life in a godless universe isn't pointless.
can't you grasp the simple notion that although the pyramids are still standing for us now, they are nonexistent for their builders because they are dead?
if you raise the best kid in the world, he will cease to exist when you die, along with your whole world.
everything realized by science, will cease to exist upon death, and so, for the dead person, it is pointless.
can't you grasp that?
Thankfully, no. It's rare we still throw children onto funeral pyres any more.
- Now listen, you. The formal debate has done. I'm not abusing you on my spare time.
Can't fool me!
So your stance basically is: what's in in for me?
And if the answer is "nothing particularly, but think of your family and everyone else and generations from now" then you aren't interested?
Sheesh.
I'm glad I'm a self-absorbed self-serving atheist.
Stop your rationalism, you dirty Trotskyite.
Humanity lives on, doesn't it?
The debate has ended and the debate thread has been closed.
As per the rules of the debate (specifically rule #3 and the absence of an agreement to continue), scifes forfeits and GeoffP wins.
Just as well, it was already a slam dunk for GP.
As per the rules of the debate (specifically rule #3 and the absence of an agreement to continue), scifes forfeits and GeoffP wins.
Just as well, it was already a slam dunk for GP.
Damn! And here I was, rooting for the underdog.Just as well, it was already a slam dunk for GP.
Just goes to show.
Fix!
I demand a recount!
Oh, is it time for my tablets already? Okay.
That's at least two losses for scifes.
There should be a penalty for losing a formal debate, otherwise there’s no disincentive to waste everyone’s time. If, say, a 7-day ban was the penalty for losing (with multiples of that for multiple losses), then this would probably weed out the specious debate challenges.
I don’t see it happening, however.
Reading this read was a revelation. I had no idea that excessive doses of stupid could actually burn.