Discussion: The Scientific Method is useless

so the scientific method is useful for strengthening one's faith.
i agree.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only if you're not doing it right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah, ironic huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

if you follow the SM strictly then the world's worth nothing and so SM is useless.

if you allow yourself some beliefs(god) outside the SM(like what g does) then the SM is useful for fulfilling that belief.

it's like symbiotes from MIB, they're the strongest creatures with great powers, but they need a host, alone they'd die in two minutes.

so the SM is only good as an accessory, but not your main tool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you work that out?

Why? Accessory to what?

 

ok, i'm not eager to open a new can of worms, is the SM necessarily useless from a theist's POV, specifically, from g's POV?

iow, knowing that g believes god exists, and knowing that all hings unrelated to god will end by death, and g agrees that you can't reach god by the SM, doesn't that make you lose your infinite happy life because you chose to follow the SM, and instead end up with infinite torture?

the formal debate was whether or not g can prove the SM is useful, when he believes those who strictly follow it will face eternal torture. so D, did g win or lose? CAN g win, or not?

 

Evidently not.

So you're suggesting we ignore science (and all the benefits it brings) and simply sit around waiting to die and go to heaven?

There shouldn't have been a debate. It's self-evident that science, and the scientific method, is useful. Even if that use is having largely inane "debates" with someone in another country.

Huh? Where has he said that? I doubt he subscribes to that view.

He did win. He has won.
He won before the "debate" started, as has been said by others...

 

-give me a use of science that isn't rendered useless after one dies.

-also, give me a product of science that is better than eternal heaven.

-also, g's a christian, and he believes hell exists, and that people should worship god.
so what happens to those who don't worship or believe in god? and what is the purpose of hell from his perspective?

i'll make a short work of you D as i did of g, let me hear more of the "it's evident" and "they all said so"..

 

No science is rendered useless after one dies. It is used as a foundation by others who follow.

Right after you show me that eternal heaven actually exists.
At the moment you appear to be contrasting a solid, factual, real-world discipline (with evident benefits) with a non-proven, non-visible, non-apparent claim.

Since G believes in god AND follows science isn't it rather silly to claim that he "believes those who strictly follow it will face eternal torture."

Didn't I give an example of that self-evidence?
And yes, I did use "they all said so" because you seemed to need a second opinion from me.
But, since you took no notice of them, I didn't particularly expect you take any notice of me either.

 

No. And why should it be?

Er, "things unrelated to God will end by death"? People who are more religious will not end by death then? This sounds like the contrast you're making.

So if I use the SM, I'll end up in hell?

I do? I'd always thought God a bit more discerning than that.

 

simple. the cure for humanity's many ills.
another would be the methodical perfection of anything.
to say the scientific method is useless is . . . well you are terribly misinformed or you are a liar.

you don't actually buy into this stuff do you?

this would be interesting to see.

it's evident you don't know much about the scientific method.

seldom is the majority wrong in their second opinions.

 

Excuse me, troll? I won that debate. Hands down. You begged me to continue. Begged. Like a dog.

 

wouldn't you know it?
a ten yard penalty for piling on.

figures.

 

Organ transplantation. PWNED!

Any product, being real, vs a faery tale. PWNED AGAIN!

 

ladies, one at a time. g, i know you're dying to redeem yourself, but don't worry i'll be with you in a second, same for leopold.

is that how the dead person experiences it?

what you're saying:
although one is removed from this world when he dies, his work, scientific or otherwise, stays behind him and affects the world, for good or evil.
what i'm saying:
a dead person from an athiestic/scientific POV, doesn't experience anything, no matter what is happening in the world.
example:
from a scientific POV, hitler's work is to hitler now like nelson mandilla's work is to nelson now, it's both null to them.
conclusion:
even though one's work or effect is experienced by the rest of the world, it is not experienced by the dead, and so, whatever effect they had, it doesn't make a difference.

you'd be correct, if the formal debate was directed at you, i was a bitch and insisted g takes the challenge right? you have to see the debate content from his POV.

what you're saying:
the SM isn't misleading it followers by not proving god for them, since god doesn't exist actually.

what i'm saying:
but from a theist's POV, the SM isn't complete because it doesn't lead to god. proof of that is no scientific proof for god exists. so a theist not only have to see the SM flawed, he has to see it EXTREMELY misleading and damaging to the individual who solely follows it because it will make him miss any reward his religion promises him for subscribing to it, and entitles him to any misfortune his religion threatens him with if he rejects it.

example:
g

conclusion:
since-there is no scientific proof for god.
then-the scientific thing to do is not believe in god.

that's a self contradicting statement.
the best i can say is that it's silly to say it's silly.

what you're saying:
g believes in god AND science. so how can i claim that he believes those who follow science will end up in hell? doesn't that mean that i'm claiming that g believes he himself will go to hell?

what i'm saying:
strictly, D. i said strictly.
as i said before, the SM doesn't lead to god, there is no scientific proof for such entity or phenomenon, so when one believes in god and in science, he has to believe one of them is wrong. either the SM is absolute and god doesn't exist. or god exists and the SM isn't able to detect it when other tools were able to.

conclusion:
either g is a liar, for saying god exists then disagreeing that the SM is useless for not finding him.
or hypocrite, and the SM is indeed useless from g's POV but he's running around in circles to keep up face and protect his reputation.

D, computers being a product of science isn't evidence of it's usefulness.
why?
because we're talking from a THEIST'S point of view people, get that into your thick heads, try to see stuff from other people's prospectives, collect your imagination and try to ROLE PLAY, put yourselves in other people shoes you morons, or is that asking too much?

bedtime story:

g and D are in prison, because they pissed scifes off after he became ruler of the world, so he sentenced them for life in a prison cell together, D finds a painting kit hidden under the bunk, and draws the most beautiful and soothing painting on the cell's walls

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

right after he finished, he discovered he enjoyed painting immensely, and knew that as long as he had the painting kit, he will never feel bored or sad in his cell.
g on the other hand, has bribed the prison warden even before i captured him, and is waiting to escape any day now.

"say buddy g, as long as we have this painting kit, this prison is not going to be so bad after all, actually, i think our stay here is going to be jolly fantastic, eh ol'boy?"said D with a toothy smile that split his face in two..

g turns away from the cell's only barred window, looks at his friend waving the paintbrush around like a preschooler on art class, thinks of all the things he has to do when he's busted out, all the people he has to meet and resources he has to gather to take his revenge from the great king scifes, and instead of muttering a disgruntled "whatever..", he jumps up the bunk face shining with excitement and beaming a grin that almost matched D's, and exclaims;
"man you're sooo right, this prison and that brush are gonna be the best thing that happened in our lives, i'm sooo happy we found it, i don't know how to live without paintings D, i bet i'll die like a fish outta water if i get separated from that brush and it's colors!"​

--------------
hope you guys get the "picture".

i sure hoped for one:shrug:

nope, since i even THOUGHT of writing the proposal thread for this debate i took special note of the starter of the thread "why bother"..

 

Mandella is still alive,....

 

What? He impugned me. I write back.

TO THEM. To everyone else, it may make a difference.

And you begged and pleaded to continue when your time was up.

 

i'll ask again;

 

And I'll be patient and answer it again:

Post #66.

 

I believe some addendum should be added to the debate rules suggesting some punishment for the loser of a debate, for continuing to whine in the discussion level of the debate, after the debate level has concluded. Since this debate is probably the blueprint of worst debates on record, one could suggest the loser of all further debates be given at least a "dunce-cap" venue thread to finish their ranting in a closed environ (for example, call it the "scifes conclusion hole", for instance, in commemoration of this lowly event). In that thread let the egg-throwing commence, and not within the discussion forum level.

 

Seconded. Provided it's a large cap.