Religion vs science

[commonsense]

You haven't been keeping up with the news.
PhilX

Post some links please.

[QuantumT]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

Most religious people are raised in it. It has become a natural concept in their minds. Some break out of it when they mature, but not all. Especially those who are raised in aggressive religions, like Islam, fear breaking free, because of the threats from both the divine and the community.

An elephant in captivity is raised to know it can not escape the pole it is tied to, because it tried to do it, when is was a calf, and failed. So when it is an adult, it still thinks the pole is more powerful than itself.

The major cause for adults being religious is habbit. Comfort of community.

[Philosophy Explorer]

You haven't been keeping up with the news.
PhilX

Post some links please.

I normally don't post links due to copyright concerns. Also you could claim I'm artificially stacking the deck in my favor. For starters, google curing diseases. You'll see stories about scientists trying to make permanent human life through vaccines and other means. Also google human longevity.

PhilX

[-1-]

Philosophy Explorer, are you talking about Transhumanism, when you say scientists are working on extending life spans of humans to infinity? At this point that is more of a theory, not even, more like a wishful fiction.

[-1-]

According to your latest news on Internet copyright rules, it is not against any copyright laws to post links on the Internet. In fact, it is expressly stated that once any content is published on public sites, it becomes public access property. Anyone can copy and paste any portion of it, and / or store the images, text, or other information on his or her hard drive. No copyright is infringed.

What is copyright infringement is to copy outside text or images or other media, and post it on the Internet without prior permission given by the copyright owner.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Philosophy Explorer, are you talking about Transhumanism, when you say scientists are working on extending life spans of humans to infinity? At this point that is more of a theory, not even, more like a wishful fiction.

Yes. However has it ever been proven that those limitations exist? I know the numbers are extremely high against living beyond 115 years, but human longevity has steadily improved through vaccination, antibiotics and other means. Many stories are coming out about reverse aging, etc.

From personal experience, I can tell you that selling is NOT a natural talent to give you an area where science is fluid. You should expect the same with human longevity.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

According to your latest news on Internet copyright rules, it is not against any copyright laws to post links on the Internet. In fact, it is expressly stated that once any content is published on public sites, it becomes public access property. Anyone can copy and paste any portion of it, and / or store the images, text, or other information on his or her hard drive. No copyright is infringed.

What is copyright infringement is to copy outside text or images or other media, and post it on the Internet without prior permission given by the copyright owner.

There are wrinkles to this.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In case you didn't notice, those people who most often debate that God tells them not to believe in global warming are also those that get huge kickbacks for doing so.

I don't believe in Global Warming either, but I don't get ANY kickbacks for it. True enough, it is not God that tells me to be his spokesperson in this matter.

Granted, I do get a lot of kicks in my backside for saying I don't believe that global warming is man caused. Sure man may or may not have contributed to it, but the scales and speed are unbelievably speedy and high to be merely man's doing.

You don't 'believe' in global warming? What a ridiculous statement. Even those with a vested interest no longer claim it's not happening--they realised a while ago that it was futile since even the biggest moron could see it was happening. What they claim now is that it has nothing to do with humans therefore it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuels and being as indulgent and wasteful as you like.

[-1-]

In case you didn't notice, those people who most often debate that God tells them not to believe in global warming are also those that get huge kickbacks for doing so.

I don't believe in Global Warming either, but I don't get ANY kickbacks for it. True enough, it is not God that tells me to be his spokesperson in this matter.

Granted, I do get a lot of kicks in my backside for saying I don't believe that global warming is man caused. Sure man may or may not have contributed to it, but the scales and speed are unbelievably speedy and high to be merely man's doing.

You don't 'believe' in global warming? What a ridiculous statement. Even those with a vested interest no longer claim it's not happening--they realised a while ago that it was futile since even the biggest moron could see it was happening. What they claim now is that it has nothing to do with humans therefore it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuels and being as indulgent and wasteful as you like.

It's not a matter of "belief". It's knowledge. So I don't believe in Global Warming.

I believe some part of it is man-made, such as burning coal and coal derivatives, but I don't believe the entire warming is due to that. It's on such a huge scale, the warming is, that there has got to be some other reason for it: some astronomical influences, or the Earth's Magma is heating up due to increased nuclear activity.

I don't know why we are rapidly heating up. But it's not entirely man's fault.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't believe in Global Warming either, but I don't get ANY kickbacks for it. True enough, it is not God that tells me to be his spokesperson in this matter.

Granted, I do get a lot of kicks in my backside for saying I don't believe that global warming is man caused. Sure man may or may not have contributed to it, but the scales and speed are unbelievably speedy and high to be merely man's doing.

You don't 'believe' in global warming? What a ridiculous statement. Even those with a vested interest no longer claim it's not happening--they realised a while ago that it was futile since even the biggest moron could see it was happening. What they claim now is that it has nothing to do with humans therefore it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuels and being as indulgent and wasteful as you like.

It's not a matter of "belief". It's knowledge. So I don't believe in Global Warming.

I believe some part of it is man-made, such as burning coal and coal derivatives, but I don't believe the entire warming is due to that. It's on such a huge scale, the warming is, that there has got to be some other reason for it: some astronomical influences, or the Earth's Magma is heating up due to increased nuclear activity.

I don't know why we are rapidly heating up. But it's not entirely man's fault.

You obviously know nothing about it then. You 'believing' in it or not makes squat difference to anything. We are all fucked anyway.

[-1-]

According to your latest news on Internet copyright rules, it is not against any copyright laws to post links on the Internet. In fact, it is expressly stated that once any content is published on public sites, it becomes public access property. Anyone can copy and paste any portion of it, and / or store the images, text, or other information on his or her hard drive. No copyright is infringed.

What is copyright infringement is to copy outside text or images or other media, and post it on the Internet without prior permission given by the copyright owner.

There are wrinkles to this.

PhilX

Yes, there are wrinkles, you're right, Phil. But there are wrinkles to the original copyright rules and laws, that made a mess of it. The crux of copyright is, "you can't copy the essential part of a works". What is an essential part? This has to be argued in court, at worst, and it seldom is, because of 1. lack of precedence case law and 2. it's sticky.

There is a famous Lemma posed by one of the Ancient Greek philosophers: You have a haystack. But you can have just some stray hay on the floor. If I start with a haystack, and take out one string of hay, it still is a haystack. If I take out two strings of hay, it is still a haystack. I continue taking away strings one at a time. At what point does the haystack become just some strewn about hay on the ground?

Same with "essential part". A word is not an essential part of a works. A sentence is not either. But the entire works is. If you start with the entire works, and copy it, it is a copyright infringement. If you take out one sentence, and copy the rest, it is still an essential part. But if you take enough sentences out before you copy the rest of the work at what point does it not become essential?

That's one part of the "essential" problem. The other part is that people assume each work has one essential part. But that may not be necessarily true. Maybe some works have more than one essential parts.

So you were absolutely right, copyright law is sticky.

You are generally safe if you copy and paste links. They are not copyright protected.

But other than Woody Allen, nobody I know of has initiated copyright action with punitive intentions in the written/ spoken context.

I know copying movies is fiercely punished in some countries, while in other countries it is let go past. Copying music is the most damaging type of copyright infringement, in terms of the suffering of the creative creator of the copyright holder, but it's now on such a wide and huge scale, that law can't defend the musicians and composers.

[-1-]

You don't 'believe' in global warming? What a ridiculous statement. Even those with a vested interest no longer claim it's not happening--they realised a while ago that it was futile since even the biggest moron could see it was happening. What they claim now is that it has nothing to do with humans therefore it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuels and being as indulgent and wasteful as you like.

It's not a matter of "belief". It's knowledge. So I don't believe in Global Warming.

I believe some part of it is man-made, such as burning coal and coal derivatives, but I don't believe the entire warming is due to that. It's on such a huge scale, the warming is, that there has got to be some other reason for it: some astronomical influences, or the Earth's Magma is heating up due to increased nuclear activity.

I don't know why we are rapidly heating up. But it's not entirely man's fault.

You obviously know nothing about it then. You 'believing' in it or not makes squat difference to anything. We are all fucked anyway.

Oh, fuck. Another one who can't conceptualize meaning.

I know there is global warming happening. That's why I don't believe in it, you twit. I know it.

Belief is weak knowledge. Knowledge is strong knowledge. Why would I employ weak knowledge when I already possess strong knowledge?

That's the way you ought to have seen what I wrote.

Why, oh why, do I get bombarded with weak understanders of the English language? You guys: Averroes, PhilEx, and now you, VT. Why can't you spread yourselves out on some other hapless blokes, why do you all descend on me? You strike up incredibly pointed discussions on the basis of your poor language comprehension.

Et tu, Brut.

But why ME always? Three so far, this week.

Well, there is a new week next week starting tomorrow. Maybe my luck will improve.

[-1-]

Philosophy Explorer, are you talking about Transhumanism, when you say scientists are working on extending life spans of humans to infinity? At this point that is more of a theory, not even, more like a wishful fiction.

Yes. However has it ever been proven that those limitations exist? I know the numbers are extremely high against living beyond 115 years, but human longevity has steadily improved through vaccination, antibiotics and other means. Many stories are coming out about reverse aging, etc.

From personal experience, I can tell you that You should expect the same with human longevity.

PhilX

"selling is NOT a natural talent to give you an area where science is fluid."

Selling science by the pound.

I actually have no idea what you meant with the quoted sentence.

What's the meaning of "where science in fluid"?

Who gives me an area? An area where science is fluid?

Why is selling a natural talent?

How would selling give me an area?

I know some of your expressions are meant to be figurative, not literal, but even still their compilation doesn't make sense to me.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Philosophy Explorer, are you talking about Transhumanism, when you say scientists are working on extending life spans of humans to infinity? At this point that is more of a theory, not even, more like a wishful fiction.

Yes. However has it ever been proven that those limitations exist? I know the numbers are extremely high against living beyond 115 years, but human longevity has steadily improved through vaccination, antibiotics and other means. Many stories are coming out about reverse aging, etc.

From personal experience, I can tell you that You should expect the same with human longevity.

PhilX

"selling is NOT a natural talent to give you an area where science is fluid."

Selling science by the pound.

I actually have no idea what you meant with the quoted sentence.

What's the meaning of "where science in fluid"?

Who gives me an area? An area where science is fluid?

Why is selling a natural talent?

How would selling give me an area?

I know some of your expressions are meant to be figurative, not literal, but even still their compilation doesn't make sense to me.

First I don't know how you picked up my comments about sales as I had erased them out. Second the comments about selling being a natural talent is something believed by many, but I know better through years of personal study (it's not a natural talent).

Pool

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not a matter of "belief". It's knowledge. So I don't believe in Global Warming.

I believe some part of it is man-made, such as burning coal and coal derivatives, but I don't believe the entire warming is due to that. It's on such a huge scale, the warming is, that there has got to be some other reason for it: some astronomical influences, or the Earth's Magma is heating up due to increased nuclear activity.

I don't know why we are rapidly heating up. But it's not entirely man's fault.

You obviously know nothing about it then. You 'believing' in it or not makes squat difference to anything. We are all fucked anyway.

Oh, fuck. Another one who can't conceptualize meaning.

I know there is global warming happening. That's why I don't believe in it, you twit. I know it.

Belief is weak knowledge. Knowledge is strong knowledge. Why would I employ weak knowledge when I already possess strong knowledge?

That's the way you ought to have seen what I wrote.

Why, oh why, do I get bombarded with weak understanders of the English language? You guys: Averroes, PhilEx, and now you, VT. Why can't you spread yourselves out on some other hapless blokes, why do you all descend on me? You strike up incredibly pointed discussions on the basis of your poor language comprehension.

Et tu, Brut.

But why ME always? Three so far, this week.

Well, there is a new week next week starting tomorrow. Maybe my luck will improve.

I might have taken it as that, but then you went blithering on about it 'not being entirely man's fault'. That makes no sense btw. Even if you only take into account the 'part' that we are responsible for, that's still global warming. Why does there 'have' to be another reason for it? Squeeze a lot of people into an enclosed space, all farting and breathing, and see what happens.