RE: A challenge to Statler Waldorf
May 12, 2011 at 2:10 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2011 at 2:14 am by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 12, 2011 at 2:04 am)SleepingDemon Wrote: Limitations in regards to what? Will science make you happy? Will science console you as you bury your grandma? Will science make you less afraid of dying? No, no, and no. But will science eventually answer the questions in regards to how we got here? Most likely. Can science fix the social issues that threaten our species? No. But can science increase the survivability of our species? Yes. Science serves a purpose. It is a tool. In regards to technology it is limited only by the intellect of its user. But science will not feel the void that faith fills, nor is it designed to.
This could be the best post I have read on here in the six months I have been on here. I get so sick of people like Peter Atkins who claim science is "omnipotent". I completely agree with you, it's a tool that helps us to obtain knowledge, not all knowledge but a lot. Thanks for that post, that was good.
(May 12, 2011 at 1:50 am)Girlysprite Wrote: I feel like I have answered all the questions that Statler put forward. However, each time someone jumps to some detail in the post, the rest is forgotten and not commented on anymore.
I already made a good description on what religion is, and put in the caveat that some things are always going to be a huge grey zone and we have to accept that. So please feedback on why you think your definition thrumphs mine.
Hey G-sprite,
I don't think that I necessarily feel my definition trumps yours. I was challenged to make a case as to why atheism is a religion. I think that I did that fairly well, as best I could given the task. I mean, you could have someone try and prove Christianity is a religion and you could poke holes in their method. It's a tough task, but I think I at least made some people think and maybe realize that atheism at the very least has a very religious nature to it. Ok?