http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

Wait: did our shiny friend actually offer up the pile of pathetically inane failure that is 180 in support of his argument? A 'movie' that has been ripped to shreds to extract every scintilla of hilarious wrongness, not just once or twice but pretty much constantly since it was released (or more likely, escaped), to the sheer ecstatic delight of schadenfreude fans all over the internet? Please tell me you were joking - a genuine Argumentum Ad Comfortloonium?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ay3w2ijwws

Quote:Crossing country borders with a WMD in a truck is not exactly cake.

Mexican farm workers cross our border at will....and we are looking for them.

(October 29, 2011 at 4:34 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Just one overarching one -- considering that I joined your ridicu-fucking-lous premise together so people can obviously see the disconnect --

I think you'd have to be pretty unobservant not to see that technology is getting exponentially cheaper to produce, more powerful/advanced, and more widely available year by year. Just look at computers. They used to fill up buildings, now something you carry in your pocket is many times more powerful.

I guess you've never heard of the law of accelerating returns?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-acc...ng-returns

(October 29, 2011 at 4:34 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Just one overarching one -- considering that I joined your ridicu-fucking-lous premise together so people can obviously see the disconnect --

What the hell is this garbage doing here and how long did it take you to ball it up?

The entire point of how you named this thread and wrote the content is to serve as a 'loaded' question showing that 'science' is somehow not as pure or is as bad as something else (noting you're a self declared cosmic jewish zombie death cultist, that 'something' is probably your cocksucking sand god).

This is not only a waste of space, but I'm surprised you could even draw in a breath properly without inhaling your own shit, as I can only figure you got this far by sticking your head where the sun don't shine.

I, personally, hope you don't stay around long at all. There are more where the likes of you came from (despite all reason to the contrary telling people to smother said likes in the cradle).

I created the thread to show that the march of technology will eventually empower anyone on the planet to create a weapon which could potentially destroy it. You've offered no coherent argument as to why this isn't true, but rather are railing against me because I took a shot at your sacred cow.

---

(October 29, 2011 at 10:11 am)aleialoura Wrote:

(October 29, 2011 at 8:55 am)lucent Wrote: but our bodies are not our own.

Speak for your own body!! My body is my own. Who do you suggest owns my body?

As for this ridiculous theory that technology is going to kill us all-

What do you think will motivate this?



My money is on religion.

I mean that we belong to God, therefore this right to choose idea is merely a free will choice to do right or wrong.

I'm sure you and I would agree on the topic of religious extremism in the world. This clearly isn't the only problem, however, that threatens humanity. Look at the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. If Hitler got the nuke first, likely we'd all be speaking german today. Crazies will always find a reason to do something nuts, and if they can't find one, they'll invent one.

---

(October 29, 2011 at 4:44 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Science, to me, is everything. It answers questions. It gives hope through medicine, technology, space exploration. It gave us answers on how we got here (yes Darwin). It makes life easier, i can talk to you lot who are mostly 4000 miles away because of the internet, which is also science. I can get to work by car, thank you science. If i feel a bit depressed i can call my girlfriend from anywhere, thank you science. It gives people hope of better things in their lifetimes. Religion gives a feeble promise of immortality in a future unproven life, through obedience .

Science doesn't fly planes into buildings or start crusades.

I agree, science has done some great things. I don't hate science. In fact I grew up with a love for science, and wanted to be an astronomer when I grew up. One of my favorite books as a child was "Cosmos". So, it's not that I have a grudge against science. I just happen to see its limitations, and I can clearly see that the power it is putting into our hands is not to be trifled with. Further, that human beings cannot be trusted with that kind of power.

The idea that science can explain everything, which for many is a way of life, is called scientism. This is the faith that science is the only method of obtaining truth. Yet, this is clearly false..It certainly doesn't tell us anything about God, or moral values, or why science is even possible. It has nothing to say about logic, or mathematics, which are immaterial concepts..these it must presuppose. As hume said, you can't get an ought from an is. Chemicals can't tell you why you ought to do anything. There are many things which cannot be investigated by science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTZulFzY1mI

I won't speak for religion, just for my faith. It is not just a promise of an eternal future, it is to have life, and that abundently. I am not waiting to die, I am trying to live life to its fullest, and maximize the impact for good that I can have in this world before I do leave. I receive the benefits in the here and now, through Christ, and what is after this is a pearl of price, but the joy is ever present, and love is always near.

(October 29, 2011 at 3:00 am)lucent Wrote: Science doomsday scenerio:

With technology becoming

1. Exponentially more powerful
2. Exponentially cheaper to produce
3. Exponentially more widely available and attainable

It is inevitable that at some point it will be possible for anyone to construct a weapon of mass destruction in the privacy of their own homes and use it to set off a chain reaction which will start world war 3.
Comments?

You mean technology and the application of scientific discoveries I assume rather than science. We all already have the technology at our disposal to create carnage. What level of mass destruction were you thinking of? Destruction of whole countries from the kitchen sink of some madman? I think the answer to that is probably no. Most things which are very deadly require specialist facilities to produce them and that trend just deepens with each discovery. Nature on the other hand often finds a way of reminding us of how fragile our existence really is and insignificant we really are.

(October 30, 2011 at 1:32 am)lucent Wrote: I created the thread to show that the march of technology will eventually empower anyone on the planet to create a weapon which could potentially destroy it.

On a different note we have all always had the power to incubate a disease that could wipe out large tracts of the population.

Its science that helps to bolster us against these natural ravages, so technology isnt always the bad guy.

I have little doubt that science can give us the power to wipe the planet clean. But I also have little doubt that, if such an 'armageddon' happens, religion is the one that will pull the trigger.

Specially if you have self important ignorant bigoted religionists.

(October 30, 2011 at 1:28 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Crossing country borders with a WMD in a truck is not exactly cake.

Mexican drug farmers cross our border at will....and we are looking for them.

Fyp.

---

'It certainly doesn't tell us anything about God'

Yes it does, physicist, by a considerable percentage says god doesn't exist and that God was not the first cause and is just a cop out.
Biologists say we were not intelligently designed by god and that we evolved over millions of years. They throw in the bin claims of god making us in his own image.
Chemists will tell you we have no spirit and all emotions are just chemical reactions in our brains.

Morality exists everywhere even in outback tribal areas where they have no idea what a god is. To pin morality on God or religion too is a cop out. It's innate.

The consensus in science is that God, is a fairy tale.

(October 30, 2011 at 1:32 am)lucent Wrote: I think you'd have to be pretty unobservant not to see that technology is getting exponentially cheaper to produce, more powerful/advanced, and more widely available year by year. Just look at computers. They used to fill up buildings, now something you carry in your pocket is many times more powerful.

Once again, you wave around 'powerful' while completely changing the context. I've noticed that, for example, you've managed to redefine the scope of 'powerful' to encompass a variety of orthogonal factors such as size, processing capability and high energy explosives (that is in reference to your earlier use of 'powerful').

Either way, you're spewing out bullshit and making a mess. You've no evidence towards the 'cheaper side', and the only potential real world link I can evince is Moore's Law for processors. However, reaching the limits of Moore's Law is a very real thing among semiconductor circles, so even then, your postulations turn to dust.

Furthermore, you've yet to explain how your original premise is valid. But I'm not holding my breath, you see, because...

(October 30, 2011 at 1:32 am)lucent Wrote: I guess you've never heard of the law of accelerating returns?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-acc...ng-returns

The kook emerges! Ray Kurzweil is a well known futurist (read as bullshit artist) and vitamin huckster (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil). He also likes to promote pseudoscientific understandings of the brain (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/...dersta.php).

Furthermore, his 'futurist' ramblings are about as trustworthy as John Edward's cold reading (http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/softw...futurism/0) and loves to use the word 'exponential' a lot. A bit like you, methinks.

It does stand to reason that you are a Kurzweil looney, considering that your similar use of 'exponential' and lazily defined terms makes it difficult to zero in on what you're saying (if you're saying anything... that is).

(October 30, 2011 at 1:32 am)lucent Wrote: I created the thread to show that the march of technology will eventually empower anyone on the planet to create a weapon which could potentially destroy it. You've offered no coherent argument as to why this isn't true, but rather are railing against me because I took a shot at your sacred cow.

You started this thread with 'Science doomsday scenario', you lying little shit. It is named "Science will surely destroy the planet". That is not 'the march of technology'.

I've not offered a coherent argument? Are you stupid, or just mentally retarded?

The burden of proof is on you to explain why "Science will surely destroy the planet" (your words, not mine, you asshole). And I criticized your premises.


Had you an ounce of integrity, you'd offer evidence and (gasp!) reason. I've not seen the former and the latter seems to have been replaced by an ill-thought out boogeyman in word salad (exponential!) clothing.

Sacred cow?

That's rich coming from the same guy who's posting videos and fallacies on "Things science cannot explain".

You are contemptible.

(October 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Yes it does, physicist, by a considerable percentage says god doesn't exist and that God was not the first cause and is just a cop out.

The opinion of atheist physicists is not science. There is no evidence which can disprove God as a first cause. If there was it would be on the front page of every newspaper and magazine. There is no coherent explanation for how the Universe got here, or a workable theory to explain how it came to be the way it is. "We're working on it" is not an answer.

(October 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Biologists say we were not intelligently designed by god and that we evolved over millions of years. They throw in the bin claims of god making us in his own image.

There is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution. They have a story, and an untestable theory which is purely speculative. Abiogenesis is metaphysics, and dead in the water. There is no way to get life from non-life, and no way to get from soup to DNA. The information in DNA cannot be accounted for by natural selection.

(October 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Chemists will tell you we have no spirit and all emotions are just chemical reactions in our brains.

A spirit is immaterial and by definition is not empirically testable. That is mere conjecture. There is no test for consciousness, let alone a spirit.

(October 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Morality exists everywhere even in outback tribal areas where they have no idea what a god is. To pin morality on God or religion too is a cop out. It's innate.

Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Every society has demonstrated an innate knowledge of morality for this reason.

(October 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)5thHorseman Wrote: The consensus in science is that God, is a fairy tale.

That's the consensus of atheists with an opinion and an agenda. As far as scientific evidence goes, there is none.