South Park joke won't air in Sweden

[Life_Is_Short]

The Swedish affiliate of broadcaster Comedy Central has said it will not show two controversial episodes of US satirical cartoon show South Park depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume, Aftonbladet reports.

• Two men arrested over fire at Vilks' house (16 May 10)
• Arson attack on Muhammad artist’s home (15 May 10)
• Vilks website hacked as cyber hate grows (13 May 10)

"Comedy Central has decided not to air these two episodes of South Park. It is a decision we've made with great reluctance. Comedy Central believes strongly in creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit.

"However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number one priority, and therefore we have decided to take these precautionary measures," the broadcaster explained in a statement released to Aftonbladet.

Spokesman Peter von Satzgerl told the Svenska Dagbladet daily that the decision came as a result of "international directives" from the channel's parent network in the United States.

The Muhammad joke formed part of a 200th anniversary episode screened in the US on April 14th, prompting threats of retribution from an Islamist group directed towards the notoriously irreverent show's creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

The warning, posted on the website revolutionmuslim.com and interpreted as a direct threat in much of the US media, cautioned Stone and Parker that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh", a Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 after making a film critical of Islamic society.

The pair appeared to heed the warning last week when the second part of the centenary show was aired, with the word Censored appearing after the Muslim prophet's name was mentioned, and with the bear-suited Muhammad replaced by Santa Claus.

The first episode contained typically mocking depictions of several religious figures and assorted celebrities, with Buddha at one point being chastised by Jesus for snorting cocaine. It is not the first time that Muhammad and other religious figures have featured on the show, having previously put in an appearance in the fifth season episode Super Best Friends.

The 200th episode tells the story of a class action suit filed by all the celebrities who have been mocked on the show. Tom Cruise promises to end the law suit if the town can produce the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The South Park townsfolk in the end decide to hand Muhammad over to a group calling itself the Ginger Separatist Movement, to avert a threatened bombing of the town.

The original broadcast of the show was watched by 3.33 million US viewers but, following the Comedy Central decision, Swedish viewers will now have to find other ways to access the controversial episode of the smash hit show.

http://www.thelocal.se/26366/20100429/

[Al-Indunisiy]

You should see the commentaries under the article: http://www.thelocal.se/26366/20100429/

[Pygoscelis]

This is only going to encourage the makers of Southpark to do more jokes about Mohammed. I think the best course of action for muslims would have been to ignore this. All the attention showered on it only encourages more of it.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Disgusting anti-religious propaganda where the abuser presents himself as the abused.

The most easy way to deliver evil is to present it as innocent and there is nothing more innocent
than laughter.

And the most evil thing is ignorant that presents itself as truth. The creators of south park are so
dangerous not because they are evil in the classical sense of the word but rather because they
are so horribly ignorant.

It is however the task of western society to ask itself why the voices of ignorant people are so
highly appreciated.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Pygoscelis, this is true. However, sadly I think that these line of action has things from
both sides.

That is, actually the Muslims around the world do ignore this nonsense as is indeed the
appropriate comment. However, the media is very much looking for other comments on
the subject - and, if I may say, might artificially generate them in order to further destroy
Muslim image in the non-Muslim world.

I think that the right course of action would be to feed them with their own medicine and
for Muslim's to make humorous comments on the secular way of living (which is actually
indeed really funny and satirical when one thinks about it - I wonder if when a mirror
would be put in front of their eyes in an intelligent way they would find themselves so
smart and funny :) ) - Now this is one TV show I would love to see :)

[Pygoscelis]

The problem with "giving them a taste of their own medicine" is that they don't share the same mindset or values of hings holy that muslims do. You can make fun of secular things and you can lambaste atheism all you want and I'll never get offended (so long as you stick to the ideas that is). I actually find evolution a fertile ground for jokes for example. Its hard to get the same level of offense on people who don't hold anything holy. I think this TV show you suggest, where you put the mirror in front of them, may actually turn out to be a big hit with them (the opposite of what I think you're looking for)

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Well. It is indeed hard but not entirely impossible.

I agree. Evolution is indeed a funny thing.

I think it falls under the category of apes imitating man.

The whole idea of the evolution theory grew out of an attempt of secular
man to explain their existence. The blueprint for that was interpretations
secular people gave to religious ideas.

For instance we believe in something that happened a long time ago - that
is - in the prophethood of Muhammad. However, we do not know that it happened.
We believe in it (which is something much stronger than knowing). And this
is where the confusion began.

A Muslim doesn't know anything about the past (just as nobody else does) - he
believes.

This is the one of the differences between secular people and religious people.
Religious people believe in things about the past and aspire to strengthen their
belief in every going day.

Secular people think they really know things about the past (and they stretch this
thought or rather belief) very very far - hence the theory of evolution. I find
it hilarious that somebody can be completely convinced in the validity of this theory
yet not even know the name of his grand grand father. Now isn't that comical? :)

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Clarification : By saying that we do not know I mean that it is impossible to know anything
about the past as it has already happened. Even about my own life I do not really know things
but rather believe that my memory does not deceive me.

In fact, the things we can really know (and when I say know I mean in the sense secular people
give to the word) are very limited. When one thinks about it - human existence is much much more
about believing things than knowing them.

[DataPacRat]

Clarification : By saying that we do not know I mean that it is impossible to know anything
about the past as it has already happened. Even about my own life I do not really know things
but rather believe that my memory does not deceive me.

In fact, the things we can really know (and when I say know I mean in the sense secular people
give to the word) are very limited. When one thinks about it - human existence is much much more
about believing things than knowing them.

I disagree.

While 100% certainty in anything may be impossible - after all, there /might/ be a ninja hiding behind my chair - it /is/ possible to achieve 99.9999999% certainty in some things, based on previous evidence, and that level of certainty is good enough to make predictions about the future, and to make decisions about what to do to adjust the future into a form more to one's liking. For example, I can predict that if I shove my glass of juice off my table, that it will fall to the floor and spill, possibly crack, and possibly shatter; and that since I don't want to clean up sticky juice and broken glass, that it would be a good idea to avoid that initial shove, and just finish drinking my juice already.

A few years ago, I came into physical contact with a bat, and so my doctors decided that I should go through rabies vaccinations. There was no way of knowing whether or not the bat had infected me with rabies; but if it had, then there was an extremely high probability that without vaccinations I would die, and even if it hadn't, the vaccinations themselves would cause little harm beyond the pain of the injections, and so it was possible to make a decision based on evidence and knowledge, rather than "belief".

This isn't a matter of philosophy, or even of science, but the purely practical matters of engineering; of getting things /done/.

As food for thought, I give you one of Rudyard Kipling's works on a closely related subject:

The Sons of Martha

The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary's Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.

It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.


They say to mountains, 'Be ye removed'. They say to the lesser floods, 'Be dry'.
Under their rods are the rocks reproved - they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit - then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.


They finger death at their gloves' end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,
And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.


To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
They are concerned with matter hidden - under the earthline their altars are;
The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,
And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city drouth.


They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their work when they ****-well choose.
As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand.
Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren's days may be long in the land.


Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat:
Lo, it is black already with blood some Son of Martha spilled for that:
Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.


And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessed - they know the angels are on their side.
They know in them is the Grace confessed, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
They sit at the Feet - they hear the Word - they see how truly the Promise Runs:
They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and - the Lord He lays it on Martha's Sons.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

and this 0.00000001% is the remarkable place where belief kicks in. And if you think of it - that what makes the whole difference.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that the solar system would look like it looks.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that our eyes would function like they do.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that we would be able to read and write.

Yet all these things, and actually, everything around us - happens. It is unpredictable.
And it is this 0.000000000001 X Infinity percent of miracle (in fact, if you sum all these
miracles together you get to 100% of miracle) which makes life what it is.

If you think of it - one of the most unpredictable things is that life would even have laws
to begin with!

[Cyph0n]

You know, if they aired an episode depicting the Holocaust and claiming that it really took place, I bet you that the US Government would lynch Matt Stone and Trey Parker - in public.

[DataPacRat]

and this 0.00000001% is the remarkable place where belief kicks in. And if you think of it - that what makes the whole difference.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that the solar system would look like it looks.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that our eyes would function like they do.

Its 0.0000000000001% X Infinity probable that we would be able to read and write.

Yet all these things, and actually, everything around us - happens. It is unpredictable.
And it is this 0.000000000001 X Infinity percent of miracle (in fact, if you sum all these
miracles together you get to 100% of miracle) which makes life what it is.

If you think of it - one of the most unpredictable things is that life would even have laws
to begin with!

Er... no. Just... no. I don't want to derail this thread into the whole evolution vs creationism debate, but you are repeating some oft-debunked creationist canards, and you are doing your cause no good by trying to use such nonsense to back it up. If you wish to educate yourself on /why/ the points you just described are false, then you should check the Index to Creationist Claims' entries about probability or odds, such as CB010. If you wish to continue this aspect of the conversation, then I would suggest that it be moved to a thread of its own, so that this thread can continue to be about the South Park issue.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[DataPacRat]

You know, if they aired an episode depicting the Holocaust and claiming that it really took place, I bet you that the US Government would lynch Matt Stone and Trey Parker - in public.

Do you /really/ want a list of the references to, and jokes about, the Holocaust which South Park has already made?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

DataPac I do not understand what your agenda is.

Personally I do not care about evolution because it is just a stupid theory.

If you want we can speak about more interesting things like Newton's physics, Theory of
relativity and secular economical systems - that I can show you are downright wrong or at
best imperfect.

In short - secular people just drive themselves into believing in nonsense. The formula is very
simple - turn your back into believing in the universal truth and you would get a fragmented
picture in everything else you do

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

p.s I do not understand why you say it is not related to the South Park issue. We started a discussion about the South Park joke and naturally got to this issue. Discussions are much like life - they naturally evolve and shouldn't follow artificial formulas which limit them.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Also, I do not understand the issue with the Holocaust. Many people died and its sad. That's the end
of it. I really do not understand why we care so much if at this office or the other they were written
as Jews. Hitler didn't seem to like Jews for what ever random reason he was and this Psychopati seemed
to really sink in into Europe at that time for reasons which are quite clear (they where spiritually empty people
at that time - we still have people like that in many places around the world today). The only conclusion I can draw
from that is that history is sad and painful as it still is today.

[DataPacRat]

DataPac I do not understand what your agenda is.

Personally I do not care about evolution because it is just a stupid theory.

If you want we can speak about more interesting things like Newton's physics, Theory of
relativity and secular economical systems - that I can show you are downright wrong or at
best imperfect.

In short - secular people just drive themselves into believing in nonsense. The formula is very
simple - turn your back into believing in the universal truth and you would get a fragmented
picture in everything else you do

My agenda is simple: I want to know what the truth is, and to believe the truth, whatever that truth may be. As simple as it sounds, in order to accomplish that goal, I've had to teach myself about philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology and more just to get to the point where I can even have a decent understanding of what 'truth' is in general, let alone what any specific truths are.

As for the 'stupid theories' you mention, you seem to mistake their purpose. They do not claim to be the absolute truth in any way, shape, or form; the only claim they have to any sort of truth is that, according to the evidence which is available, they are able to make better and more accurate predictions than any other theory. The theory of evolution allows us to understand how multi-drug resistant diseases arise, and how to combat them; Newton's physics are a special case of the theory of relativity, and, within their domain, make predictions that are about as accurate; the theory of relativity allows us to predict the adjustments we have to make to the clocks of GPS satellites in order to allow your car's GPS to know where you are.

Just because you don't understand such theories doesn't mean they don't save lives.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[DataPacRat]

p.s I do not understand why you say it is not related to the South Park issue. We started a discussion about the South Park joke and naturally got to this issue. Discussions are much like life - they naturally evolve and shouldn't follow artificial formulas which limit them.

I have read a number of forums, and a near-constant is that any thread in which a discussion about evolution-vs-creationism is allowed to proceed ends up becoming entirely about e-vs-c, with anything else that thread may have been talking about completely drowned out. Thus my suggestion that such discussion be moved to a thread of its own.

Also, I do not understand the issue with the Holocaust. Many people died and its sad. That's the end
of it. I really do not understand why we care so much if at this office or the other they were written
as Jews. Hitler didn't seem to like Jews for what ever random reason he was and this Psychopati seemed
to really sink in into Europe at that time for reasons which are quite clear (they where spiritually empty people
at that time - we still have people like that in many places around the world today). The only conclusion I can draw
from that is that history is sad and painful as it still is today.

... but I'm too /young/ to mutter about "kids these days".

If you /really/ don't understand why the Holocaust is such a big deal: It involved the killing of, according to the best estimates, millions of people who had not caused anyone else any harm. This is considered to be a Bad Thing to have done, and is generally reviled these days. But the /important/ lesson is that the Germans of the time weren't some evil separate species, or mind-controlled, or the like... they were, pretty much, just ordinary people, just like you and me... which means that countries full of ordinary people, like yours and mine, are just as capable of doing massive evil as Nazi Germany ever was: as the saying goes, "It /can/ happen here." Your country might become the next Nazi Germany; or mine; or someone else's. As another saying goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Saving lives is important. Saving souls is more important.

I appreciate your purpose very much - the blend of seeking knowledge and wanting
it to be beneficial for society is the way to go.

Once a person is opened to the idea that he has a soul a new "science" is being
opened to him and we refer to this science as "religion" or "Islam" (if you wish
to connect yourself to other religions you are of course welcome, however, since
Islam is the only religion which is open to receive the correct things from the other
religions while the other religions are currently not Islam is perfect and hence is
the right place to go to).

Once one extends his point of view from an attempt to predict physical things
to an attempt to understand, to the best of his ability, spiritual things the benefits
are quite uplifting.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I did not say that the holocaust itself is not a big deal - and this is not what is implemented from what I say.

I say that the question of wether the people who died in the holocaust were Jews or not is, at best, meaningless.

They were people. That's the end of it.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

As far as I know the Nazis just packed people in those trains. On what basis did they decide if they are Jews or not?

[DataPacRat]

Saving lives is important. Saving souls is more important.

If souls exist, that is true.

Once a person is opened to the idea that he has a soul a new "science" is being
opened to him and we refer to this science as "religion" or "Islam" (if you wish
to connect yourself to other religions you are of course welcome, however, since
Islam is the only religion which is open to receive the correct things from the other
religions while the other religions are currently not Islam is perfect and hence is
the right place to go to).

Once one extends his point of view from an attempt to predict physical things
to an attempt to understand, to the best of his ability, spiritual things the benefits
are quite uplifting.

However, there is a certain distinct lack of evidence, of the sort on which predictions can be based, about the existence and nature of the soul. (Another topic well worth a thread of its own...) Given that lack of evidence, most legal systems are not based on any particular religion's ideas of the soul; and every religion's claim, including Islam's, about being the one and only true religion, is given equal credence, and so laws tend to only be based around matters of the physical, material world, and leave matters of the soul to individual conscience.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[DataPacRat]

I did not say that the holocaust itself is not a big deal - and this is not what is implemented from what I say.

I say that the question of wether the people who died in the holocaust were Jews or not is, at best, meaningless.

They were people. That's the end of it.

As far as I know the Nazis just packed people in those trains. On what basis did they decide if they are Jews or not?

The Nazis didn't kill just Jews.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

You may wish to start by reading the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust , to get an overview.

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.[5] By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.[6]

Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Ahhm....If souls exist? :) Lolll this is funny.

Are you alive? Do you dispute the fact that you are alive?
Do you need proof for that?

Also. Why do you dream? Why do you sleep? From a physical
point of view this is a complete waste of time. Isn't it?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

The Nazis did not kill Jews they killed human beings. Jew is just a meaningless bureaucratic title in this case.

[DataPacRat]

Ahhm....If souls exist? :) Lolll this is funny.

Are you alive? Do you dispute the fact that you are alive?
Do you need proof for that?

The idea that living things are made of some essentially different 'stuff' from non-living things started vanishing some time ago, the first time a chemist was able to synthesize urea, a biological chemical.

Also. Why do you dream? Why do you sleep? From a physical
point of view this is a complete waste of time. Isn't it?

Not at all. I suggest you look up 'anabolic' and 'catabolic' states, and perhaps 'sleep-dependent memory consolidation'.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Long words which means nothing. I can read a lot of academic babble all day long.

The real question is if I can verify it. I cannot and so do most people I know. Therefore
we believe these types of things. Thus, I will believe that I have a soul, use this soul
to help other people with theirs and any person who wishes to believe he does not
because he takes the word of some scientists which for some reason want to convince you
otherwise - it is each persons individual choice.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

That is - believe contrary to knowing (like sometimes people think).

If you tell me that technology is an evidence for this. Well, for me technology
is pure magic. I do not know how this computer works and have not seen a reasonable
explanation so far.

[DataPacRat]

Long words which means nothing. I can read a lot of academic babble all day long.

The real question is if I can verify it. I cannot and so do most people I know. Therefore
we believe these types of things. Thus, I will believe that I have a soul, use this soul
to help other people with theirs and any person who wishes to believe he does not
because he takes the word of some scientists which for some reason want to convince you
otherwise - it is each persons individual choice.

That is - believe contrary to knowing (like sometimes people think).

If you tell me that technology is an evidence for this. Well, for me technology
is pure magic. I do not know how this computer works and have not seen a reasonable
explanation so far.

Well, I /do/ know how this computer works, to a sufficient degree that, if I wanted to put the time into it, I could build a computer from scratch; or reprogram this one to do anything I care for it.

As long as you think that the things I'm saying are "babble", then you will be among the intellectually disadvantaged - that is, those who don't /want/ to learn, and thus don't acquire the knowledge that lets them accomplish their goals.

Here's a short essay, "Twelve Virtues of Rationality"; each virtue the authour praises is only a paragraph or so, and while he does use some complicated words, I think that he expresses his ideas well enough that you can figure out the overall idea of each... and thus why it is in your own self-interest to figure out how to figure things out.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

My criticism is hardly about what you are saying. My criticism was against the quotation you made. I actually respect you. However, what you said is a quotation.

You quoted a research. Quoting is an action of belief.

It was not you who made the research. If it was you - I could ask you questions about it and then we can verify if what you say is true or not.

You quoted a group of scientists which also quote a bunch of others which quote others...and
so on and on...and you believe that all through this long chain of quotation they did not do
any one mistake.

Ahhm...my knowledge of human nature teaches me that this is a very weird belief.

In fact - I think that science is filled with a lot of cover ups and people which say "well,
I do not know what I am talking about however my colleague also has no idea what
he is talking about - so it's ok".

On the other hand - when a believer quotes the Quran he quotes the source .
It is perfect - there is no endless chain of human intervention in this, contrary to science.

Personally, I think that as good our technology is today - it could be much better in the future
if science would not be so stuck up on issues like ego and would really want to
improve the condition of humanity - not just justifying receiving a noble prize at the age of 90.

[DataPacRat]

It is not you are saying. I actually respect you. However, what you said is a quotation.

You quoted a research. Quoting is an action of belief.

You quoted a group of scientists which also quote a bunch of others which quote others...and
so on and on...and you believe that all through this long chain of quotation they did not do
any one mistake.

Ahhm...my knowledge of human nature teaches me that this is a very weird belief.

In fact - I think that science is filled with a lot of cover ups and people which say "well,
I do not know what I am talking about however my colleague also has no idea what
he is talking about - so it's ok".

On the other hand - when a believer quotes the Quran he quotes the source .
It is perfect - there is no endless chain of human intervention in this, contrary to science.

Personally, I think that as good our technology is today - it could be much better in the future
if science would not be so stuck up on issues like ego and would really want to
improve the condition of humanity - not just justifying receiving a noble prize at the age of 90.

It seems that you have some very basic and profound misunderstandings of what science involves.

Scientists don't just rely on what someone says, who relies on what someone else said, and so on. The core idea about science, the thing that makes it so astonishingly useful, is that once someone makes a scientific claim, /anyone/ can test it. The person who made the claim. Another scientist. Me. You.

You can do quantum physics experiments in your own kitchen or basement, and collect data, and prove or disprove ideas. You can do psychology experiments with your friend, your family, or even just yourself. You can do biology experiments in your backyard.

Whether you know it or not, you're /already/ a scientist. At most, you just need a bit of training so that you can write down your results in a formal way, and to learn what some of the common mistakes of setting up an experiment, which can limit the usefulness of the results, are.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Experiments do not validate a claim - they just strengthen our belief in it.

When it comes to human claims my belief is always limited as it should be - because human beings, by their nature, make a lot of mistakes!

As far as I understand scientific experiments they are utterly useless for any
other purpose than validating a prediction - and this is something you said
by yourself.

However - You said that we dream because of some scientific physical idea.
This idea is only an experiment which for me has not given a reasonable explenation
to why we sleep - at best you can give me some insight about the physical
procedure of sleeping - which personally I am not interested in at this point.

My interest is with people who are spiritually sleeping - while they are physically awake.

As for my understanding of science - how many scientists really check what other scientists say? Frankly, did you check the experiment you quoted?

[Cyph0n]

Do you /really/ want a list of the references to, and jokes about, the Holocaust which South Park has already made?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

Great news then, they ridiculed the Jews already - so what? As long as they keep censoring episodes depicting our Prophet, let them do whatever they please.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Good point CyphOn.

[DataPacRat]

Experiments do not validate a claim - they just strengthen our belief in it.

When it comes to human claims my belief is always limited as it should be - because human beings, by their nature, make a lot of mistakes!

As far as I understand scientific experiments they are utterly useless for any
other purpose than validating a prediction - and this is something you said
by yourself.

Experiments have another purpose - and some say it's actually the most important purpose: /falsifying/ an idea, rather than validating it. To prove an idea wrong. To prove /lots/ of ideas wrong. To prove as many ideas wrong as possible... so that we can find what few ideas remain which /might/ be true.

Aristotle said that when you drop something, it falls at a constant speed. Galileo did an experiment, and proved him wrong - falling objects accelerate. People used to believe that light was a wave in a "luminiferous aether", and the Michaelson-Morley experiment falsified that. People used to believe that the shape of your head was correlated with your personality; when they actually did experiments, they disproved that.

Even Einstein is quoted as having said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

However - You said that we dream because of some scientific physical idea.
This idea is only an experiment which for me has not given a reasonable explenation
to why we sleep - at best you can give me some insight about the physical
procedure of sleeping - which personally I am not interested in at this point.

My interest is with people who are spiritually sleeping - while they are physically awake.

As you might guess, my interest is with that which can be tested to be true or false. :)

As for my understanding of science - how many scientists really check what other scientists say?

Lots. Quite likely all of 'em. In the social world of modern scientists, you gain enormous status from proving an existing theory wrong; but in order to do that, the one who tries to prove the existing theory wrong has to understand it well enough to design a good experiment, so they have to keep checking what the other scientists are writing in the journals.

Frankly, did you check the experiment you quoted?

... Er, which experiment? Off the top of my head, I've measured acceleration due to gravity, performed the double-slit experiments, done some work with lenses and prisms and the nature of light, created compounds from other compounds, measured acidity, fiddled with artifacts of biological perception, programmed a neural network - mostly the sort of stuff that you can do in high schools or local science centres. I'm currently studying some of the more advanced electronics required to upgrade my ham radio license, and once I have legal permission to build my own radio circuits, that's going to involve a /lot/ of trial-and-error experimentation...


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

"likely all of them" - you see - you are not so rational after all.

You believe in science - that is in a sense your religion. This is ok.

However, in my opinion it is a very partial religion as it pertains only to things
which are provable - as you quoted from Mr. Einstein - in which he himself says that the truth can never be scientifically proved and therefore you believe in a religion which finds the truth, at
best meaningless (for the simple reason that it does not want to deal with it). - and you still believe these people on everything else
they say. I find it hilarious.

Please find me an experiment that proves that you are alive. If you can I
would be glad to see this experiment.

Ok - so you want through all the scientific walkthrough "science museum propaganda
stuff" - but did you verify the experiment about the dreams - the one you quoted
before?

Or do you think that, for you, because you verified some generic scientific experiment about
some fancy issue like "Quantum physics" that anybody else has verified and belongs
to mainstream it also validates any other scientific experiment that any other
person does?

At the end result - you did quote an experiment or a scientific research which you have not verified (the one about the dreams). This is a problem as it means that I can not trust what you say.

I do not want to be harsh - but I do want to make a point.

You can say that there is a limit to what you can personally verify and at some point
you have to believe other people - but I would say that it is completely the point
I am trying to make.

In fact - this is also the importance of religious education - because a truly religious
person tend to be much more honest than a non-religious person because a religious person
sees himself as a part of a community while a non-religious person does not.

[DataPacRat]

"likely all of them" - you see - you are not so rational after all.

You believe in science - that is in a sense your religion. This is ok.

However, in my opinion it is a very partial religion as it pertains only to things
which are provable - as you quoted from Mr. Einstein - in which he himself says that the truth can never be scientifically proved and therefore you believe in a religion which finds the truth, at
best meaningless (for the simple reason that it does not want to deal with it). - and you still believe these people on everything else
they say. I find it hilarious.

Please find me an experiment that proves that you are alive. If you can I
would be glad to see this experiment.

Ok - so you want through all the scientific walkthrough "science museum propaganda
stuff" - but did you verify the experiment about the dreams - the one you quoted
before?

Or do you think that, for you, because you verified some generic scientific experiment about
some fancy issue like "Quantum physics" that anybody else has verified and belongs
to mainstream it also validates any other scientific experiment that any other
person does?

At the end result - you did quote an experiment or a scientific research which you have not verified (the one about the dreams). This is a problem as it means that I can not trust what you say.

I do not want to be harsh - but I do want to make a point.

You can say that there is a limit to what you can personally verify and at some point
you have to believe other people - but I would say that it is completely the point
I am trying to make.

In fact - this is also the importance of religious education - because a truly religious
person tend to be much more honest than a non-religious person because a religious person
sees himself as a part of a community while a non-religious person does not.

Gabriel, the issues you are now raising are those of epistemology - the branch of philosophy dealing with what we can know, and how we know what we know. I think I can answer a lot of your questions by describing the form of epistemology I use, and where it has led me.

Epistemology is based on metaphysics; and metaphysics are based on assumptions, or axioms. These axioms are neither provable nor disprovable - they simply /are/, and at best, lead to a framework which turns out to be better or worse at helping you figure things out. After a good deal of consideration, I've managed to reduce my axioms to just one: "Thinking about the evidence of my senses can lead to useful conclusions". Some of the most basic ideas that come from this axiom are that I exist, that the universe exists, that other people exist, and that logic is useful.

Usually, if someone tries to pull the argument that I can't "prove" they exist, or I exist, or the universe exists I respond with the Stick argument - I start whapping them with a stick. If I don't exist, then nobody's whapping them, so they don't need to duck. Shall I start whapping you to prove I really exist? :)

Once this initial framework is in place, then it's possible to examine various forms of argument and "proof", and decide whether or not they really /do/ prove what they're claimed to prove, or are instead logical fallacies. This is "epistemology". Some forms of evidence turn out to be better than others; some turn out to have nothing to do with anything. The truth is what it is; some aspects of it can be learned more easily than others, some can't be learned at all (as Godel and Heisenberg discovered), but it's out there, just waiting for us to go looking for it.


I have, personally, experimentally verified that putting an electric current into water results in the generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases; and that this H and O can be combined into water. Water is H2O - this is a fact, proven to me by myself, and proven innumerable times and innumerable ways by other people. I have, personally, validated a number of other predictions of the theory that matter is made of atoms, that those atoms fit into the periodic table, and chemistry in general.

I have, personally, verified some of the predictions of the current consensus theories about particles smaller than atoms. For example, I own a thingummy, which contains a certain amount of tritium gas, which decays at a predictable rate, releasing electrons; the inner surface of this thingummy is lined with phosphor, which absorbs electrons of a certain sort, and releases energy in the form of photons, with energy that puts them in the range of visible light. (I call it my "nuclear keychain".) I've done other experiments various parts of this field, as well... hm, let me put it this way: I've played with a Geiger counter.

Taking chemistry in another direction leads to geology; I live in a geologically interesting area, and regularly go hiking, and base my predictions of what I will find based on this science. Companies make billions of dollars based on figuring out where to find mineral resources.

Taking chemistry in another direction, we develop astronomy: the general nature of the solar system, the existence of other stars, the fact that our sun is inside a galaxy called the Milky Way, the existence of other galaxies, Hubble's discovery that other galaxies are receding from us in a certain way, and from that last item, realizing that all the galaxies we can see used to be smooshed together around 13 billion years ago. What happened before then? Insufficient data to be sure. (My own pet theory: Observing any given volume of empty space closely enough reveals 'quantum fluctuations', where particles pop into existence from nothingness, along with their anti-particles, all the time, and usually the particle/anti-particle pair bump right back into each other and disappear... but sometimes, they don't, and enter into a relatively stable existence as 'real' particles. The kicker is, there isn't any theoretical upper limit to how much energy in any such quantum-fluctuation... in other words, it's possible that our whole universe is the result of one such fluctuation, which spontaneously appeared out of the ocean of quantum chaos.)

Taking chemistry in yet another direction, we get into biochemistry, and biology. The existence of cells; the observation that the frequencies of genetic variations change in populations over time; the observation of evolution in progress; the similarities and differences in genetic codes of various organisms suggesting common descent; the whole schmear. (Eugenie Scott recently put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.")

From biology, we can narrow our focus into neurology, neuro-psychology, and psychology: the science of the mind, including the limitations of our senses, our in-built cognitive biases, and so on, thus allowing me to account for these limitations in my thinking and overcome them. (A good self-instruction manual on these in-built mental limitations is "Mind Hacks: Tips & Tools for Using Your Brain" by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb.)

From psychology, the existence of more than one mind leads to the science of sociology: how different minds interact. And, once some sociological data has been collected, it is possible to develop a set of rational ethics for how such individuals can interact with each other. My own baseline ethical standard is that 'good' is 'the preservation and promotion of sapient life', occasionally adding the clause '(particularly my own life)'. Given that we haven't encountered any aliens or uplifted any animals, 'sapient life' is very closely cognate, but not quite identical, to 'human life'. From this core ethical principle can be derived virtues such as self-reliance, productiveness, integrity, honesty, (rational) pride, justice, benevolence, and courage. Once an ethical system is developed, it is possible to apply it to the field of politics, and come up with the idea that initiation of force is bad, certain rights should be supported (to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness, to the ownership of property, to free speech, to self defense), the necessity of having some government to allow for the peaceful resolution of disputes of ownership, that certain governmental systems are better than others (laissez-faire capitalism, classical-liberal democracy, constitutionalism, separation of powers, checks and balances), to having opinions on particular political issues.

And, finally, once we have all of the above established, we can start looking at certain other items, about which people claim certain things, and considering the evidence for or against them. For many of them, the available scientific literature is that which one would expect for false premises: out of a large number of studies, a very small number report they work, but the better the studies, the fewer report any significant effect. Some of these claims include: acupuncture; chiropractic medicine; colon cleansing; detoxification; ear candling; folk and herbal remedies; holistic medicine; homeopathy; iridology; naturopathy; osteopathy; astral projection; curses; exorcisms; faith healing; ghosts; magick; psychics; vampires; voodoo; witchcraft; astrology; dowsing; dream interpretation; feng shui; hypnosis; numerology; UFOs; and miscellaneous others. One of the prime pieces of evidence here is the million-dollar prize offered by James Randi for anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural (in such a way that ordinary illusionists' magic tricks are ruled out)... for which not a single application has passed the most preliminary tests. These are the results that would be expected if the supernatural does not exist at all; and thus, based on that evidence, that is the conclusion I have reached.


Given what I have personally investigated and discovered, and what has been verified by thousands of other people, I hope you don't take it badly if I take your opinion on how poor and awful "science" is and that it can't /really/ discover anything and so on to be so much codswallop. Fortunately, there's an easy cure for belief in codswallop, and it's the same as the cure for any other form of ignorance: curiosity. Unfortunately, if you don't have any curiosity, and can't see the benefits of having it, there isn't much else I can do to give it to you. But I can hope that you will be able to figure out on your own that H. L. Mencken was right when he said, "I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Too fast for me.

You say that you understand by your method that you exist + that other people exist.

That was too fast. I have no problem with using rationality - I just want it in my pace and slowly so that I can see that between the rational arguments there is no gap. Some people just do it to fast!

(I do understand however the charm science can have for a persons ego. This is understandable as it is human nature. Actually, contrary to what you think - I like science. I like it even more when it is devoid of ego)

Do you understand that other people exist in the same way that you exist? Or are the other
people just equal to the physical movement of the trees, trains, cows around you?

Do you acknowledge that they are of the same existence as you have? How do you know they
are not all robots?

Your whipping example just shows that you do not understand the issue of human existence. If
you whip me with a stick I would agree that you physically exist (this does not require proof) -
but can you prove to me that you have a life experience like I do in my eyes?

I have not yet seen an experiment like that. Nor would we ever.

About astronomy - if you would take the time to study about ancient cultures (which gave a lot of
credit to religion) you would say that contrary to the common belief they had a very good astronomical
knowledge - not very far from the one we have today.

You also keep on quoting things you haven't verified (Quantum Chaos??) - how do you want me to take
that? Can I verify this claim? Does it make any sense to me? I do not even understand what you said.

Again - you are too fast for me...two minds interact? Didn't you tell me that you do not believe in a soul and
now you are talking like a mystic suddenly!

Please decide - either you do not have a soul and then you are alone in the world interacting with other
physical things like you.

On the other hand if you have a soul you can start speaking about other minds interacting. This is because in
order to have two minds interacting as far as I understand it you have to have some non-physical spiritual
connection connecting them.

Could you please refer me to a scientific explanation of what this non-material connection is? what its laws are?
I haven't seen such a discussion in scientific literature.

However - if you would open Quran or Hadith I think you would find plenty!

[جوري]

Great news then, they ridiculed the Jews already - so what? As long as they keep censoring episodes depicting our Prophet, let them do whatever they please.

The previous atheist fellow linked us to the alleged episode where they 'ridiculed the jews' in fact they were ridiculing 'the passion of the christ' and 'mel gibson'
it takes a certain wit to appreciate the satire in shows such as south park, I think perhaps the atheists are banking that no one is as 'smart as they are'? be that as it may a double sided hypocrisy doesn't nullify itself, I believe the anti-defamation league spelled it out best:
It was also praised by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish newspaper The Forward, which called it "perhaps the most biting critique of 'The Passion' to date."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Jew

pls. don't take an atheist word as if set in stone, they are ridiculous people with nonsensical agenda and insights!

:w:

[DataPacRat]

Too fast for me.

You say that you understand by your method that you exist + that other people exist.

Close enough. The difference between my philosophy and solipsism, or other pseudo-philosophies which don't assume or conclude I exist, tend not to be able to offer any framework that allows useful predictions, or even any hints of whether any given actions are right or wrong.

That was too fast. I have no problem with using rationality - I just want it in my pace and slowly so that I can see that between the rational arguments there is no gap. Some people just do it to fast!

If you'd like to read through one person's development of a similar philosophy, which I agree with in a number of ways (though I disagree on a few details), you could do worse than to start at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...sics_Main.html and http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...ical_Main.html, then once you've gotten those basics, move to the next section on epistemology, and then to ethics, and so on.

(I do understand however the charm science can have for a persons ego. This is understandable as it is human nature. Actually, contrary to what you think - I like science. I like it even more when it is devoid of ego)

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that scientists are humans, and they don't stop being humans and turn into Vulcans when they pull on their labcoats and start doing experiments. Science is a very human endeavour.

Do you understand that other people exist in the same way that you exist? Or are the other
people just equal to the physical movement of the trees, trains, cows around you?

Do you acknowledge that they are of the same existence as you have? How do you know they
are not all robots?

Your whipping example just shows that you do not understand the issue of human existence. If
you whip me with a stick I would agree that you physically exist (this does not require proof) -
but can you prove to me that you have a life experience like I do in my eyes?

I have not yet seen an experiment like that. Nor would we ever.

What you're describing is an age-old philosophical problem involving what are called "philosophical zombies", which gets into the whole idea of whether people can have the same qualia as each other.

It's true that, as you say, in a certain sense the problem is insoluable. However, treating the philosophical matter more practically, we can use the evidence to conclude that people act /as if/ they really do have minds and are real; and, based on that, we can make predictions based on that assumption, and those predictions tend to give better results than assuming that people don't have minds.

About astronomy - if you would take the time to study about ancient cultures (which gave a lot of
credit to religion) you would say that contrary to the common belief they had a very good astronomical
knowledge - not very far from the one we have today.

I /have/ studied ancient astronomy - mostly Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek, but also checking into everything from Australian to Mayan. Modern astronomy is /very/ different from ancient astronomy; we know that the wandering stars are actually planets, that they have moons, that the sun doesn't orbit the Earth, that there are planets invisible to the naked eye, that the whole solars system is just one among millions in the Milky Way, that our own galaxy is one among countless others, and that there are a whole host of weird and wonderful things in the heavens that we didn't expect to find until we found them.

You also keep on quoting things you haven't verified (Quantum Chaos??) - how do you want me to take
that? Can I verify this claim? Does it make any sense to me? I do not even understand what you said.

Do you /want/ to know?

If you do, then you have all you need to find the answers. If you don't, then no answer I give will matter to you.

Again - you are too fast for me...two minds interact? Didn't you tell me that you do not believe in a soul and
now you are talking like a mystic suddenly!

Please decide - either you do not have a soul and then you are alone in the world interacting with other
physical things like you.

On the other hand if you have a soul you can start speaking about other minds interacting. This is because in
order to have two minds interacting as far as I understand it you have to have some non-physical spiritual
connection connecting them.

Could you please refer me to a scientific explanation of what this non-material connection is? what its laws are?
I haven't seen such a discussion in scientific literature.

However - if you would open Quran or Hadith I think you would find plenty!

I have investigated the hypothesis that that which makes a person themself, which makes them a unique individual, is some sort of non-physical thingummy, along the lines of what is described as as a 'soul'. What I have learned is that mind is what brain does; damaging certain areas of the brain leads to predictable deficits in memory, skills, and personality, which seems to contradict the idea that what makes a person themselves is non-physical. I have also learned of a number of limitations of the mind, many based on physical limitations of the brain - to learn some of them yourself, you could do worse than to read the book "Mind Hacks", by Stafford and Webb, described at http://www.mindhacks.com/book/.

If you don't want to read the book, then you should at least learn what 'emergent properties' are, and how a simple set of rules can lead to unpredictable and complex behaviour of a whole new level. One good way to start learning this is Conway's "Game of Life", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life, and once you've absorbed the basic principles there, go on to other forms of cellular automata, fractals, and chaos theory and complexity theory.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You make me a headache. You just do not want to get the point.

Ok. You seem to like astronomy. You say you have a very very good knowledge in astronomy - better
then the ancients.

I saw an explanation in physics literature on why and how the earth orbits the sun. But could
you please answer me the following question:

Question: Why does the earth rotate around itself?

Did you ever see an answer for this question in any book? I think it is a good question
taking into account that all life on this earth depend on it.

After you solve this one - I have a few more others for you.

Lets leave the fancy words (quantum, chaos, and other latin stuff) aside for a while - ok?

[Supreme]

Interesting thread.

[DataPacRat]

You make me a headache. You just do not want to get the point.

We base our philosophies on different axioms - mine that thinking leads to useful ideas, yours, presumably, that the Quran is the Word of God. Those different axioms lead to different philosophies, and a variety of different conclusions. As long as our axioms differ, we will continue to disagree about a wide variety of things.

Ok. You seem to like astronomy. You say you have a very very good knowledge in astronomy - better
then the ancients.

Close enough. "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Newton.

I saw an explanation in physics literature on why and how the earth orbits the sun. But could
you please answer me the following question:

Question: Why does the earth rotate around itself?

Did you ever see an answer for this question in any book? I think it is a good question
taking into account that all life on this earth depend on it.

After you solve this one - I have a few more others for you.

Lets leave the fancy words (quantum, chaos, and other latin stuff) aside for a while - ok?

I'm not sure I /can/ avoid fancy words completely - but I can at least try to explain what they mean. After all, it's said that you don't truly understand something unless you're able to explain it even to your grandmother.

Q: Why does the Earth spin?

A: Fancy-word version: "Conservation of angular momentum".

Nonfancy-word version: Have you ever heard of that law of physics, "An object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force"? It doesn't just work for pushing things around, it also works for spinning things; in a closed system, one where you're not adding new pushes, this thing called "angular momentum" is a constant. If you ever have a chance to play with a gyroscope, you can learn a lot about how angular momentum works, hands-on. If you've ever seen a skater doing a spin, when they pull their arms in they spin faster, and when they spread their arms out they spin slower - using a bit of math, based on the principle of "conservation of angular momentum", it's possible to figure out how /much/ faster they will spin when they pull their arms in, and that when they stick their arms back out, they'll go back to the rate of spin they started with - their rate of spin has been 'conserved'.

What does all this have to do with the Earth? Well, a long, long time ago, around five billion years ago, what is now the solar system used to be more like a cloud of gas. The bit near the middle happened to pull itself together with gravity, and started turning into the sun. The rest of the bits of cloud hanging around started falling towards the forming star; those bits that hit it became part of it, but some happened to fall at an angle so that they fell towards the sun and /missed/. Because of the way gravity works, they kept on falling, circling around and around the sun. The bits going in circles bonked into each other, and eventually settled into something like a disk circling the newborn sun. Then, the same way that the sun formed by bits of stuff pulling towards each other with their gravity, some clumps and bumps formed in the disk, and once they started forming, they pulled in more and more of the stuff. Now here's the part that brings us to the answer to your question - the bits of stuff that fell into these new lumps did so by spiralling and circling in, and when they did, they added new "angular momentum" to the lump they joined, which just means that they gave it pushes and started it spinning. After a while, all the bits of stuff finished falling into the bumps; the bumps and lumps became the spinning planets and moons we know today, and they were spinning from the get-go. Now there wasn't anything else to give them any big pushes, to speed them up or slow them down, so they just kept /on/ spinning. And, aside from the occasional bonk that knocks one thing or another askew, they've been spinning steadily ever since.

(As an aside, there's one last little complication about the Earth's spin - it's been slowly slowing down for a while. This is because the Earth isn't quite a closed system, and there /is/ some pushing being done on the Earth... by the Moon, using gravity.)

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So - in short you think that some long time ago somebody "spinned" earth and it
keeps on rotating? This sound very strange to me. In fact - it sound like a made
up answer for people who want to run to fancy things and do not care about details.

The reason is - you exclude the idea of friction.

You assume that space is a vacum.

But - how can that be true? If it is a vacum how does light travel to here
from the sun. If it is not a vacuum why doesn't the earth slow down?

Give me a better answer please. One you actually checked and not abstract
formulas from a physics text.

[DataPacRat]

So - in short you think that some long time ago somebody "spinned" earth and it
keeps on rotating?

Take away the 'somebody', and make it the result of impersonal and mindless natural processes, and yes.

This sound very strange to me. In fact - it sound like a made
up answer for people who want to run to fancy things and do not care about details.

Whether something sounds strange to you has little-to-no bearing on whether it is true or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum is worth skimming through, as are the references and links, if you wish to learn more about it.

The reason is - you exclude the idea of friction.

The force imposed on something by friction counts as an 'external force', and if it is present, then that something is no longer a closed system, and the angular momentum may no longer be a constant.

You assume that space is a vacum.

I don't /assume/ it; I /conclude/ it, based on the evidence, such as the various spacecraft we've sent up into Earth orbit, and past it, which have measured the local air pressure.

But - how can that be true? If it is a vacum how does light travel to here
from the sun. If it is not a vacuum why doesn't the earth slow down?

Give me a better answer please. One you actually checked and not abstract
formulas from a physics text.

Q: If space is a vacuum, how does light travel through it?

A: Ignoring a lot of quantum mechanics which doesn't apply, light is made of little particles called 'photons' rather than waves. It's basically a lot of tiny little balls shooting through space. Most of the light in our Solar system was shot out straight from the sun; some of the light happened to hit a planet or moon and bounce off of it, going in a new direction instead of straight away from the sun; some of the bounced light happens to be aimed straight at Earth, which is how we can see them in the night sky.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

1. It doesn't sound strange - it sounds stupid.

2. The fact that something is written in wikipedia does not mean it is true.

3. Vacum is something that nothing can travel through because it is a vacum.
If your little tiny balls of light can travel through it then they are there (if they
even exist) - and thats the end of it. It is no longer a vacum.

4. Anyway, if the light travels all the way from the sum - why don't I see it all
the way in the middle? Why is space so dark? That's a good question - Isn't it.
And don't give me this little balls explanation because I find it like a nice way
of saying that you do not know. I can invent any explanation I want and say
that it is because of little balls that make up everything.

5. Nature around me is simple. I do not believe that you have to sacrafice your life to science in order to understand it. Bless Allah he has given us eyes to look and look for the information by ourselves without relying on silly theories made by other people. If you would go out a bit you would see that nature is really quite natural (and is not dissected to little non existing balls)

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

By the way - the idea of a "closed system" is a stupid blasphemy!

What is a closed system??

Show me one .

Can you show me something in Allah's universe which is not connected to other
things?

A closed system is not even dead - it is non existing.

This is why you need to put so much gas in your car - because as much as you think your calculations are accurate it is just one wasteful stupid mistake

[DataPacRat]

1. It doesn't sound strange - it sounds stupid.

Whether something sounds stupid to you has little-to-no bearing on whether it is true or not.

2. The fact that something is written in wikipedia does not mean it is true.

Of course not. If you think that "conservation of angular momentum" is false, then you are free to make the attempt to prove otherwise.

3. Vacum is something that nothing can travel through because it is a vacum.

Um... no. A vacuum (note, two u's) is vacuum because there's little-to-no matter in it. "Empty space" just about sums it up. The absence of any matter in a region of space has nothing to do with whether or not matter can travel through it. In fact, if you look at things a certain way, the fact that two bits of matter can't occupy the same space at the same time means that matter can /only/ travel through empty space.

If your little tiny balls of light can travel through it then they are there (if they
even exist) - and thats the end of it. It is no longer a vacum.

Not quite. Photons do not have mass, and thus are not "matter" in that sense. A vacuum is still a vacuum no matter how much light is going through it.

4. Anyway, if the light travels all the way from the sum - why don't I see it all
the way in the middle? Why is space so dark?

Because photons are directional - that is, they travel in a particular direction, from A to B, and don't really change their minds and suddenly change directions in the middle. Light travels in straight lines. Sunlight travels straight outwards from the sun, most streaming out into space, but some until it hits our eyes; or until it hits a planet, and bounces, and some of that then hits our eyes; or until it hits the upper atmosphere, bumps into some of the atoms there, changes direction, and some of that hits our eyes; or until it hits something else on Earth, reflects from it, and then some of that hits our eyes, letting us see things. Light from other sources also travels in straight lines - the light from other suns travels for light-years until it reaches your eyes and lets you see a star; the light from your computer screen's phosphors travels in straight lines until it reaches your eyes; and so on.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

A bunch of worthless superstition used in order to rule you by making you feel smart.

I just proved you that it is false - if it was true then the earth would have stopped rotating a long time ago and that is a fact.

Rotate a spinning top and after a while it would stop rotating. That is the way it works on my table there is no reason it won't work like that in any other place.

[DataPacRat]

By the way - the idea of a "closed system" is a stupid blasphemy!

What is a closed system??

Show me one .

Can you show me something in Allah's universe which is not connected to other
things?

A closed system is not even dead - it is non existing.

This is why you need to put so much gas in your car - because as much as you think your calculations are accurate it is just one wasteful stupid mistake

Gabriel Ibn Yus... I am getting the distinct impression that no matter what answers I give, you are going to refuse to accept them.

If you are asking me your questions because you truly have a desire to learn the answers, then I will be happy to do what I can to figure out how to express the answers in a way such that you can understand them. However, if you are simply challenging even the most basic principles of physics, such as the existence of photons, for the sake of denigrating science, then I see little point in my continuing here.

So: Do you wish to learn?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You are the one who does not wish to learn.

Your physics is wrong. It does not matter how many formulas and long words you put into it.

It leads you to develop defected wasteful technology which spoils the planet and the life of all of us.

We are enslaved to the technology based on your mistakes which you justify by wrong confused theories.

Could you please explain to me how a river streams? Why do I need to put pressure into the pipes that
bring water to my sink but the river outside my window seems to flow naturally?

Or do you view this as an unimportant question?

Why do you so eagerly want to go against nature?

[DataPacRat]

Your physics is wrong. It does not matter how many formulas and long words you put into it.

Since you do not seem to actually wish to understand what I am trying to say, all that I have left to say is that you might want to re-read your own holy text and apply some of its lessons:

"Increase me in knowledge. " -- 20:114
"follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge." -- 17:36
"Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge?" -- 3:66
"a guess can never take the place of the truth." -- 53:28
"Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful." -- 2:111

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Gabriel Ibn Yus... I am getting the distinct impression that no matter what answers I give, you are going to refuse to accept them.

I get the impression that it is not you that giving me the answers but rather wikipedia - I want answers that I can personally verify. Your (wikipedias) balls thing is not something I can verify I do not say that I know it I say that I believe it - and it would be better also in your case that you would admit that you do not know but rather believe.

Personally - I do not believe in these explanations. They are filled with ridiculous gaps which if you would dedicate a moment to look for you would also for sure come to see.

Simply because these explanations do not empower me.

If man is truly capable of building spaceships - we are we not taught how to do that?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Since you do not seem to actually wish to understand what I am trying to say, all that I have left to say is that you might want to re-read your own holy text and apply some of its lessons:

"Increase me in knowledge. " -- 20:114
"follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge." -- 17:36
"Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge?" -- 3:66
"a guess can never take the place of the truth." -- 53:28
"Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful." -- 2:111

I am sorry, I can not continue this discussion - the Quran is not for the use in artificial arguments. It is a Holy Text.

I can just conclude by offering to you to read it and extract the valuable lessons you can take from it for the sake of your soul.

[DataPacRat]

I get the impression that it is not you that giving me the answers but rather wikipedia - I want answers that I can personally verify. Your (wikipedias) balls thing is not something I can verify I do not say that I know it I say that I believe it - and it would be better also in your case that you would admit that you do not know but rather believe.

I can offer lists of experiments to verify any of the answers I've given. To prove light is made of photons, the definitive experiment is demonstrating the photoelectric effect, as demonstrated http://library.thinkquest.org/C00853...ricEffect.html among other places.

Personally - I do not believe in these explanations. They are filled with ridiculous gaps which if you would dedicate a moment to look for you would also for sure come to see.

If you know of an /actual/ gap in physics, instead of merely a gap in your own understanding of physics, I would be quite interested. However, in order to find such a true gap, you would first need to demonstrate that you understand what a given physics theory /does/ explain, and you have yet to demonstrate any such understanding.

Simply because these explanations do not empower me.

If man is truly capable of building spaceships - we are we not taught how to do that?

What makes you think we aren't? A number of private companies are building spaceflight-worthy rockets, and several of them intend to make a business out of space tourism. Here's a site where you could learn a lot about rocketry, both fictional stories about it and the real thing: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/.

[DataPacRat]

I am sorry, I can not continue this discussion - the Quran is not for the use in artificial arguments. It is a Holy Text.

If you do not wish to continue discussing any of this with me, that is your choice.

I can just conclude by offering to you to read it and extract the valuable lessons you can take from it for the sake of your soul.

I have already read it, in a variety of translations. Those five lines I quoted happen to be my favorites.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I'm done here.

[Pygoscelis]

The end of this thread was a good case study in Science vs Religion. Science asks questions, holds nothing off limits, and constantly self corrects. The answer to bad science is good science. The gaps science leaves, and it does leave them, is filled by future scientists. Religion is exactly the opposite. It doesn't ask questions, it assigns answers. It has no self correction mechanism - correcting it is blasphemy. The gaps religion leaves is left ominously unfilled and it is taboo to showcase them. Science is logic. Religion is emotion. Science is harsh reality. Religion is comfort. The two speak to different aspects of the psyche and all of this is shown in the posts above, where the science fellow is presenting many ideas and thought experiments and inviting correction and counter-point, and the religion fellow is sensing blasphemy and putting his fingers in his hears and shutting his eyes tight (once realizing the science fellow isn't going to accept the religion fellow's viewpoint on mere authority).

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You are kidding right?

Sometimes I do not know what is wrong with people.

Psygoscelis - I know a few scientists.

Most of the scientists I know are broke %$#@ which have no dime on their
back and nobody cares about what they do (including themselves). Most of them had some fantasy of becoming noble prize winers but it never happens.

This shows me that science is a worthless crap because it was useful they won't be so broke and people would care about what they do.

Rather - all the science that you can read from wikipedia is a bunch of unproved propoganda which you can read but not truly understand (and don't tell me otherwise ) and even more so verify.

This is no harsh reality - it is simply a deception. Utter stupidity that applies to your ego.

I asked a few very scientific questions and received no answer from your learned friend aside from wikipedia quotations which I am well capable to read by myself.

In fact - with all due respect to science - most of the people I know (not only scientists) are broke $$#$%% if science is so great why do we not live in true abundance and have to be slaves to our work place? Do you not care about that?

[جوري]

The end of this thread was a good case study in Science vs Religion. Science asks questions, holds nothing off limits, and constantly self corrects. The answer to bad science is good science. The gaps science leaves, and it does leave them, is filled by future scientists. Religion is exactly the opposite. It doesn't ask questions, it assigns answers. It has no self correction mechanism - correcting it is blasphemy. The gaps religion leaves is left ominously unfilled and it is taboo to showcase them. Science is logic. Religion is emotion. Science is harsh reality. Religion is comfort. The two speak to different aspects of the psyche and all of this is shown in the posts above, where the science fellow is presenting many ideas and thought experiments and inviting correction and counter-point, and the religion fellow is sensing blasphemy and putting his fingers in his hears and shutting his eyes tight (once realizing the science fellow isn't going to accept the religion fellow's viewpoint on mere authority).

Your own views on science are nothing but a long tale of emotion.. Every science and art is but a branch of the same tree, where one fails the other picks up and fills in the gap. Since they are a gift of the same originator they shouldn't be at odds, but harmonious. I think with your often too sweep a brush and perhaps simply out of sheer laziness of making minimal effort, you decide that christianity is a prototype for religion and then sweep the rest under the same umbrella and believe that you've made a good point.

In fact the centuries upon centuries of Muslim empires governing under Islamic rule should be the best highlight of what can happen when science and religion are combined.. do contrast that to the dark ages of christianity and try to separate the two if you want your points to have any weightiness!

all the best

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Your own views on science are nothing but a long tale of emotion.. Every science and art is but a branch of the same tree, where one fails the other picks up and fills in the gap. Since they are a gift of the same originator they shouldn't be at odds, but harmonious. I think with your often too sweep a brush and perhaps simply out of sheer laziness of making minimal effort, you decide that christianity is a prototype for religion and then sweep the rest under the same umbrella and believe that you've made a good point.

In fact the centuries upon centuries of Muslim empires governing under Islamic rule should be the best highlight of what can happen when science and religion are combined.. do contrast that to the dark ages of christianity and try to separate the two if you want your points to have any weightiness!

all the best

So true. May we see such a time soon again.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Muslims should not be watching this “south park”. How many times has that programme insulted Jesus (pbuh)? I think reaction to disgusting programme encourages them to do more.

[Pygoscelis]

In fact - with all due respect to science - most of the people I know (not only scientists) are broke $$#$%% if science is so great why do we not live in true abundance and have to be slaves to our work place? Do you not care about that?

You are quite welcome to leave this computer you are on and the electricity that operates it and go live in a cave somewhere and spend most of your time thinking about how you are going to kill your next beat to eat or gathering berries. Is that really any better?

[Pygoscelis]

In fact the centuries upon centuries of Muslim empires governing under Islamic rule should be the best highlight of what can happen when science and religion are combined..

And what happened then? Islamic preachers declared science and inquiry blasphemous and these former mighty Islamic lands are now backward third world countries. That is what religion can do to science. The main contrast between science and religion can be seen when contemplating the word "Faith". In religion its a virtue. In science its the worst kind of sin. You make assumptions but these assumptions are highlighted, declared and open to reversal. In religion you may be hanged or burned at the stake or stoned or have your head cut off for questioning traditional ideas. In science questioning the prevailing theory and proving it wrong draws the highest reward. The two are completely opposite approaches to knowledge.

[جوري]

And what happened then? Islamic preachers declared science and inquiry blasphemous and these former mighty Islamic lands are now backward third world countries. That is what religion can do to science. The main contrast between science and religion can be seen when contemplating the word "Faith". In religion its a virtue. In science its the worst kind of sin. You make assumptions but these assumptions are highlighted, declared and open to reversal. In religion you may be hanged or burned at the stake or stoned or have your head cut off for questioning traditional ideas. In science questioning the prevailing theory and proving it wrong draws the highest reward. The two are completely opposite approaches to knowledge.

What happened was the dissolution of the last of the Muslim Empires at the hands of the west:
With collapse of the Soviet Union and international Communism, Islam became the only remaining ideological system and obstacle to worldwide domination by materialistic secular systems. For nearly two decades the media assault by the West upon Islam has increased in scope, intensity, malignancy, and persistence. It continues to assert that the West alone is the sponsor of freedom and the advocate of human rights and equality for the sexes.

Their strategy is to defame Islam, accusing it of being the cause of 'backwardness' among the people and asserting, therefore, that Islam should be abandoned. They further assert that the only way to 'progress' lies in embracing the standards and culture of the West and to accept its leadership in all worldly matters. In addition, they accuse Islam of restricting freedom or free expression of opinion.

It is also noteworthy that Muslim combatants, no matter what their cause may be, are almost exclusively labeled in pejorative terms, such as 'terrorists,' 'extremists,' 'Islamists,' 'fundamentalists,' 'rebels,' 'anti-government factions,' and the like. In addition, the facts of the circumstance for which they may be struggling are rarely ever provided in the non-Muslim media.

On the other hand, in a negative matter, e.g. a crime, where the identity of the person is mentioned, the reporter finds it necessary to include his religious affiliation if he is a Muslim! These tactics are quite familiar to those who have witnessed the reporting of oppression by the oppressors in any time period, so nothing has changed in this regard.
source
Since you are not a scientist yourself and speaking with someone who has a doctorate I'd refrain from speaking on behalf of the scientific community or feigning to understand the ethical and moral dilemmas which arise within.

If you want to conclude with your usual slow witted endeavor that draws such satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusion then you may do so on your own time and with like minded individuals whose idea of scholarship is beer a porno site and some light-hearted banter about how you buy playboy for the articles!

all the best

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You are quite welcome to leave this computer you are on and the electricity that operates it and go live in a cave somewhere and spend most of your time thinking about how you are going to kill your next beat to eat or gathering berries. Is that really any better?

You already live in a cave. You think you are sophisticated but you are just a cavemen. Look around you - do you see civilized people? I do not.

I see people - lonely, caring for themselves, misanthropic who are just trying to survive. I do not see anything to be proud of. The only difference is that now people like that have atomic weapons. To tell you that I am happy about it - I am not.

To tell you that I think that you deserve the computer that you have - I do not.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Also - just so you would know - your scientific knowledge, of your society that is, is really inferior to what we had in the past.

[Skavau]

So Gabriel, I take it you never visit a doctor, or ever take medication.

I take it you grow all of your food rather than buy it from supermarkets, or general food stores. I take it also that you don't have any fridges or freezers to store your food at appropriate temperatures to keep them fresh and safe to eat. I take it that you don't use the safe drinking water from the taps. I take it further than you forgo all electrical appliances, devices and tools for food. I take it that you don't own a car, or a vehicle. I take it that you do not washing machines to wash your clothes. I take it that you don't even bother to iron them. I take it that you never hope that if a fire breaks out in your place of residence that you can use technology to call the fire serivce to come to your aid. I take it that you never use the beneifts of public transport, or public services. I take it that you shun all modern media such as computers and the internet?

Oh wait. And I could go on....

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So Gabriel, I take it you never visit a doctor, or ever take medication.

I take it you grow all of your food rather than buy it from supermarkets, or general food stores. I take it also that you don't have any fridges or freezers to store your food at appropriate temperatures to keep them fresh and safe to eat. I take it that you don't use the safe drinking water from the taps. I take it further than you forgo all electrical appliances, devices and tools for food. I take it that you don't own a car, or a vehicle. I take it that you do not washing machines to wash your clothes. I take it that you don't even bother to iron them. I take it that you never hope that if a fire breaks out in your place of residence that you can use technology to call the fire serivce to come to your aid. I take it that you never use the beneifts of public transport, or public services. I take it that you shun all modern media such as computers and the internet?

Oh wait. And I could go on....

So what. What are you trying to do? Justify to me why I should be a slave for stupid technology?

First of all, your grandmother and my grandmother did not have these things and they managed just fine.
You might think not - but if they wouldn't you wouldn't be here and enjoy all this abundance so I personally
prefer thanking my grandmother first before I thank some anonymous scientists for all the stuff I have.

Second of all - You seem to imply that this justify why we should be slaves to our technology. In my book
it is the technology that should serve us and not the other way around. My grandfather had a business, his
grandfather had a business. I need to go to work and get a paycheck. This means my grandfather was
better of than I am.

If my grandfather wanted to give a better life to my grandmother - he worked harder

If I work harder - nothing happens - I get the same paycheck. Absolutely the same. This means that my
grandfather and grandmother were free people - while I am a slave - and so is anybody else
who is receiving a paycheck.

If you would think about it for two seconds you would see that with all the technology we have - we could
make this world into a paradise on earth - but nobody is lifting a finger to do that?

Why is that?

Because people are so stuck with their ego's.

So with all due respect - if people are so stupid not to have an easy life when they can - I won't take their word
on much more complicated things like "the structure of the universe" etc.

First I want to see that they understand basic human affairs.

And yes - I do use these things - but I still think that we can have a better technology and also that we shouldn't
be so physically spoiled - it makes us weak and pathetic.

[Zafran]

And what happened then? Islamic preachers declared science and inquiry blasphemous and these former mighty Islamic lands are now backward third world countries. That is what religion can do to science. The main contrast between science and religion can be seen when contemplating the word "Faith". In religion its a virtue. In science its the worst kind of sin. You make assumptions but these assumptions are highlighted, declared and open to reversal. In religion you may be hanged or burned at the stake or stoned or have your head cut off for questioning traditional ideas. In science questioning the prevailing theory and proving it wrong draws the highest reward. The two are completely opposite approaches to knowledge.

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed. Its needed in every action.

The model you talk about can only be found in the history of europe and the vatican - that has very little to do with the rest of the world.

where did Islamic preachers declare scienece and inquiry blasphemous? what does that have to do with the "backwardness of the third world countries which has more to do with First world countries taking advantage of them. The people in power always like to label the less powerful - so that they can use and abuse them - like Tyrants.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed. Its needed in every action.

where did Islamic preachers declare scienece and inquiry blasphemous? what does that have to do with the "backwardness of the third world countries which has more to do with First world countries taking advantage of them. The people in power always like to label the less powerful - so that they can use and abuse them - like Tyrants.

I think what he does not understand is that science and religion go together
(or rather should).

In fact - they have nothing to do with each other in the way that is constantly
implied by the people writing on this post.

Science - deals with physical things at best.

Religion - deals with spiritual things.

It is the people who wish to base all of their life upon technocratic
ideas they get from science which are the problem. They are just
closed minded and cannot see the danger in their attitude and it's
true implications.

Science without a religious mindset is simply dangerous as
it is everything but human and worships the physical and
the dead (as a consequence) instead of the spiritual and the living.

The idea to explain life by scientific terms is pathetic and backwards.

[Skavau]

So what. What are you trying to do? Justify to me why I should be a slave for stupid technology?

I am willing to bet that you already are. You complain about science whilst using its fruits. That sir, is hypocrisy.

First of all, your grandmother and my grandmother did not have these things and they managed just fine.

Yes, they did. Although to claim further that they needed no scientific advancement would be false. They had a car, they had a large farm (which would not have been possible to maintain without technology). They relied upon an understanding of growing vegetation in order to grow and prepare it properly and effective. They relied upon a modern understanding of agriculture in order to ensure their livestock produced food safely and effectively (as well as eventually being butchered safely and effectively). In their house, they also relied on safe drinking water and fridges and freezers to effectively allow their food to keep well.

And now, at their old age they rely upon medication to sustain their lives. My Grandfather is on steroids every single day and is due an operation on his eye in order to help him see better. Ypu picked a bad example.

Second of all - You seem to imply that this justify why we should be slaves to our technology. In my book
it is the technology that should serve us and not the other way around.

What do you mean when you say I think it should justify why we should be "slaves to our technology"?

If I work harder - nothing happens - I get the same paycheck. Absolutely the same. This means that my
grandfather and grandmother were free people - while I am a slave - and so is anybody else
who is receiving a paycheck.

This has nothing to do with science.

If you would think about it for two seconds you would see that with all the technology we have - we could
make this world into a paradise on earth - but nobody is lifting a finger to do that?

I agree. But again human reluctance to use what we know has nothing to do with scientific accomplishment.

So with all due respect - if people are so stupid not to have an easy life when they can - I won't take their word on much more complicated things like "the structure of the universe" etc.

So you disagree with scientists, who have studied and worked in the field all their life purely because... you think they have an unnecessarily hard life? Eh?

You can very easily look up the peer-reviewed work to determine yourself if you think they are right in their analysis of the universe. Whether or not they live decent lives has nothing to do with their research.

[Skavau]

I think what he does not understand is that science and religion go together
(or rather should).

The scientific method is the advancement of an understanding of natural phenomena through observation, experimentation and the creation and testing of hypothesis. Science broadly is a series of techniques designed to explain and make sense and better understand our natural world through the gathering of empirical observation.

How is religion the slightest bit familiar?

Science - deals with physical things at best.

Religion - deals with spiritual things.

Whether or not religion deals with 'spiritual' (whatever that means) things has nothing to do with anything. Science does not (self-admittedly) deal in the supernatural, spiritual, or things declared outside of nature. If you think religion attempts to talk about that they do not go together.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I am willing to bet that you already are. You complain about science whilst using its fruits. That sir, is hypocrisy.

No it is not. I am slave who is willing to say that he does not like to be a slave.

About agriculture - there is no story in the world that you can tell me that would explain to me how
people came up with bread.

In fact - the fact that we know who to make bread is a very clear proof for me for believing
in supreme intervention in human affairs.

If you think about it - we live in "modern times" and we can't come up with a simple concept
like peace while we have abundance. Yet, we very easily believe that our forefathers could
look at a bunch of wheat and understand that if they would grow it in mass levels for a year,
then harvest it, then process it, then grind it and then add to it water and bake it - they would
get bread.

In my opinion - the process of making bread is far beyond any human thought I have ever seen -
yet we always had it.

Bread might seem trivial to you compared to quantum whatever - yet to me it is not. Thinking it is
is the true hypocrisy.

[Skavau]

No it is not. I am slave who is willing to say that he does not like to be a slave.

So I take it you are going to forgo all of your electricity and as soon as possible, give up posting on the internet?

About agriculture - there is no story in the world that you can tell me that would explain to me how
people came up with bread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread

In fact - the fact that we know who to make bread is a very clear proof for me for believing
in supreme intervention in human affairs.

Except that the process is understood and explainable. It is far more likely that humans accidently or deliberately experimented to create bread than it is a "supreme intervention" gave us the information. Indeed it is also far more likely that someone claiming a miracle is deluded, or mistaken than it is that they actually saw a miracle.

If you think about it - we live in "modern times" and we can't come up with a simple concept
like peace while we have abundance. Yet, we very easily believe that our forefathers could
look at a bunch of wheat and understand that if they would grow it in mass levels for a year,
then harvest it, then process it, then grind it and then add to it water and bake it - they would
get bread.

Your refusal to accept the history of bread has nothing to do with with humanitys inability to have global peace.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So you disagree with scientists, who have studied and worked in the field all their life purely because... you think they have an unnecessarily hard life? Eh?

Working all your life on something doesn't mean that you are not wrong.

Again - why do we have to put gas into cars? Do you not think that it would be better if we wouldn't?

I personally very strongly believe that there is science which shows that this is unnecessary - yet, aside
from ridiculous reports in scientific-american we never seem to see any real progress on this matter?

And why is that? Because your precious science has to be financed by somebody.

And this somebody has interest to make money out of you - and contrary to what you think
he does not make money out of making you smarter.

If you think that you finance science by tax than you live in a fairy tale - because you receive the money
you give to tax to begin with. This means that you do not finance anything because the money is not yours.

Am I getting to you?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

What do you want me to do with this wikipedia link?

By the way - wikipedia is another interesting thing. Quite like bread when you think about it.

Whenever I want to find an answer for something I seem to be able to find it in wikipedia (even
on an esoteric thing like "the history of bread")

Yet - I do not know so many people who write to wikipedia? Also - for what - my knowledge of
human behavior is that they

- do not have encyclopedia knowledge usually.

- do not do things without being paid.

So how come you have all these things there. I find it an interesting question.

[Skavau]

Working all your life on something doesn't mean that you are not wrong.

Correct. However your reasons for distrusting them and dismissing their work out of hand are ridiculous.

I personally very strongly believe that there is science which shows that this is unnecessary - yet, aside
from ridiculous reports in scientific-american we never seem to see any real progress on this matter?

The refusal to mass-produce different ways to fuel cars has nothing to do with our understanding of it.

And this somebody has interest to make money out of you - and contrary to what you think he does not make money out of making you smarter.

If you think that you finance science by tax than you live in a fairy tale - because you receive the money
you give to tax to begin with. This means that you do not finance anything because the money is not yours.

Am I getting to you?

What does this have to do with science, or anything I've said? You're just hinting at a conspiracy theory.

[Skavau]

What do you want me to do with this wikipedia link?

By the way - wikipedia is another interesting thing. Quite like bread when you think about it.

Whenever I want to find an answer for something I seem to be able to find it in wikipedia (even
on an esoteric thing like "the history of bread")

Yet - I do not know so many people who write to wikipedia? Also - for what - my knowledge of
human behavior is that they

- do not have encyclopedia knowledge usually.

- do not do things without being paid.

So how come you have all these things there. I find it an interesting question.

You are the very definition of an anti-intellectual. You inherently distrust information out of fear, out of conspiracy theories and out of contempt. If you like I could probably waste some time and find you information on the history of bread on scientific websites. But you're perfectly capable of looking it up yourself.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You're just hinting at a conspiracy theory.

Hardly. I am saying that you are dropping out something out of your computations
and thus suffering because of it and getting to all sort of ridiculous views no life.

Conspiracy is something that others hide from you - not things you hide from yourself.

This something that you hide from yourself is exactly what religious people have been
hinting at for ages.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

What you deliver to me is not information. It is theories I do not agree with no matter how many people with suits you would bring to convince me otherwise.

The earth does not rotate because of "conservation of angular momentum". This is a stupid idea which has never been proven and that is the end of it.

I would just like to add that I probably have a better academic education than you do and my knowledge in exact sciences is very good by any standards. Contrary to what you might think - I do not spend most of my day in a Masque.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Science does not (self-admittedly) deal in the supernatural, spiritual, or things declared outside of nature.

There is nothing supernatural in spiritual things - you are alive and that is the end of it.

You are just willing to base your viewpoint upon a doctrine that disputes this fact. Science views the fact that you are alive as neglectable.

So how can you base a healthy normal viewpoint upon it?

Because it gives you some trivia answers?

[Skavau]

What you deliver to me is not information. It is theories I do not agree with no matter how many people with suits you would bring to convince me otherwise.

The earth does not rotate because of "conservation of angular momentum". This is a stupid idea which has never been proven and that is the end of it.

I would just like to add that I probably have a better academic education than you do and my knowledge in exact sciences is very good by any standards. Contrary to what you might think - I do not spend most of my day in a Masque.

Sorry, I witnessed your discussion with DataPacRat and only drew the same conclusion that Pygoscelis drew. I don't know what your problem with the conservation of angular momentum is, or why you think there does not exist a body of evidence for it.

[Skavau]

There is nothing supernatural in spiritual things - you are alive and that is the end of it.

'Spiritual' and 'supernatural' are both white nose to me.

You are just willing to base your viewpoint upon a doctrine that disputes this fact. Science views the fact that you are alive as neglectable.

Science tells us what is, not ought.

So how can you base a healthy normal viewpoint upon it?

Because it gives you some trivia answers?

See above.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Any idea you consume translates in your mind to a viewpoint of life.

This is basic human nature. The reason for this is that you have invested time in listening to
this idea and therefore need to integrate it in your view point.

When you consume only scientific ideas your viewpoint on life would be technical and
rigid. This rigidity is today universal and dangerous.

Like a diet. If you ear just carbs you would be unhealthy.

Having just science and rationality and philosophy is an unhealthy mental diet.

[Zafran]

[Science tells us what is, not ought.

Not true - I'll repeat

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed.

[Skavau]

When you consume only scientific ideas your viewpoint on life would be technical and rigid. This rigidity is today universal and dangerous.

It is a good job then that I do not only "consume" scientific ideas then, isn't it?

[Skavau]

Not true - I'll repeat

What does your confusion over experimentation in science have to do with my point that science tells us what is, not what ought?

Your argument that perhaps our experimentation could differ if repeated in the future is merely informing me that you are inherently distrustful of human experience. By your own reckoning, we could not be reasonably sure of anything. We could have no reason to believe the world is even slightly close to how we perceive it.

[Zafran]

What does your confusion over experimentation in science have to do with my point that science tells us what is, not what ought?

Your argument that perhaps our experimentation could differ if repeated in the future is merely informing me that you are inherently distrustful of human experience. By your own reckoning, we could not be reasonably sure of anything. We could have no reason to believe the world is even slightly close to how we perceive it.

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

[Pygoscelis]

If I work harder - nothing happens - I get the same paycheck. Absolutely the same. This means that my
grandfather and grandmother were free people - while I am a slave - and so is anybody else
who is receiving a paycheck.

This has nothing to do with science. It has much more to do with your life choices. I earn as much money as effort I put in, because I work for myself. If you chose to work for somebody else and they are not paying you what you deserve, promoting you, giving you raises, why do you stay their employee? You are not a slave. Nobody is forcing you to work for them.

[Pygoscelis]

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

with perfect certainty, it can't. All it can do is make better and better guesses. But that is still a vast improvement over accepting things on faith. If the laws of the universe suddenly changed tomorrow, all our machines that we have based on the science that unconvered them would stop working - and we'd have to go back to the drawing board. Science corrects its base assumptions every now and then. Look up how Einstein corrected some very basic assumptions of Newton. For these corrections and ideas Einstein is one of the most famous and credited scientists in history. That's what you get for challenging and correcting assumptions and understandings of Science. When you challenge understandings of religion its called blasphemy and people tend to get killed for it.

[Zafran]

with perfect certainty, it can't. All it can do is make better and better guesses. But that is still a vast improvement over accepting things on faith. If the laws of the universe suddenly changed tomorrow, all our machines that we have based on the science that unconvered them would stop working - and we'd have to go back to the drawing board. Science corrects its base assumptions every now and then. Look up how Einstein corrected some very basic assumptions of Newton. For these corrections and ideas Einstein is one of the most famous and credited scientists in history. That's what you get for challenging and correcting assumptions and understandings of Science. When you challenge understandings of religion its called blasphemy and people tend to get killed for it.

I know about Einstein but you have to look at how long it took for somebody to actually correct Newtons assumptions. Many people have challenged religions and have surivied by doing so.

Ultimatley science is still based on some kind of belief even if it keeps getting revised - it still relies on the same method used by the previous people.

My Main problem was with Skavu's view on Is and ought about Science anyway.

[JETforce]

Here we have Swedish channels, located in arguably the most left-wing country on Earth, being bullied by far right wing religious people into not airing a simple joke. Wow, makes me sick.

[Skavau]

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

It is a good job then that I do not only "consume" scientific ideas then, isn't it?

I do not understand what you want to see.

But - for me it seems that it is clear that you are a person which is on a very limited and unhealthy mental diet.

At the end of the day it does not do you good. If you want, I can recommend for you other sources were you can get better mental food.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.

Your problem is that you blend two things together and you do not notice when we try to point it out to you.

1. We do not have a problem with what science has proven .

2. We have a problem with scientific theories which are presented as proven
- while they are not.

There are many such theories and if you would look at it you would see that most of them have
the following common properties :

1. Your ability to truly verify them is zero (which means that you believe them rather than know)

2. They all seem to try to dispute or rather leads you to ideas which go against Allah.

3. They dis-empower you.

Combining these three things together makes me feel that we should keep distance from these
things.

The only "proof" you have so far given to these things is, in short, the following:

"I do not want to loose my technology and I think that this technology comes from these
theories - therefore I am willing to embrace them fully in order to have the nice gadgets that I have"

My advice for you - just part these two things - be careful with what you consume - you are well deserving
to use the technology without buying into foolish theories and there is no need for you to do so.

Just like when you eat a banana - you peel it first. Same thing here :)

[Skavau]

The only "proof" you have so far given to these things is, in short, the following:

"I do not want to loose my technology and I think that this technology comes from these
theories - therefore I am willing to embrace them fully in order to have the nice gadgets that I have"

I have not tried to demonstrate anything in science. I simply reference the modern commodities that we all take for granted. It is the height of hypocrisy and the very definition of 'biting the hands that feeds you' to lambast science and insult scientists when their discoveries have been the foundation for advancement in the last 150 years. The reason people generally live longer now in developed nations is due to increased standards of living, increased level of health and medical treatment avaliable to use on the ill. The reason that many diseases are treatable or eradicated now (that would otherwise cause death) is also entirely due to scientific accomplishment and discovery. The reason that most of the world is able to recieve food is entirely due to scientific accomplishment due to the Haber Proces.

The reason we are even able to have this conversation is due to the advanced nature of telecommunications. I do not claim that the fact I happen to enjoy the modern day commodities is evidence for their existence. We already agree they exist. They come from sweat and toil from the scientific method - something you villify.

[Skavau]

I do not understand what you want to see.

But - for me it seems that it is clear that you are a person which is on a very limited and unhealthy mental diet.

At the end of the day it does not do you good. If you want, I can recommend for you other sources were you can get better mental food.

You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).

What you want me to know about you? I see the answers you give and I can understand were you come from -
that's enough.

You are stubborn - you do not want to take good advice when you get it.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I have not tried to demonstrate anything in science. I simply reference the modern commodities that we all take for granted. It is the height of hypocrisy and the very definition of 'biting the hands that feeds you' to lambast science and insult scientists when their discoveries have been the foundation for advancement in the last 150 years. The reason people generally live longer now in developed nations is due to increased standards of living, increased level of health and medical treatment avaliable to use on the ill. The reason that many diseases are treatable or eradicated now (that would otherwise cause death) is also entirely due to scientific accomplishment and discovery. The reason that most of the world is able to recieve food is entirely due to scientific accomplishment due to the Haber Proces.

The reason we are even able to have this conversation is due to the advanced nature of telecommunications. I do not claim that the fact I happen to enjoy the modern day commodities is evidence for their existence. We already agree they exist. They come from sweat and toil from the scientific method - something you villify.

YOU JUST DONT WANT TO GET IT.

There are two types of science:

1. Engineering - I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

2. THEORETICAL BULL****

Contrary to what you think - THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

I have no problem with studying how a computer works or how a car works - and believe
me I know.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STUPID EXPLANATION SCIENCE GIVES FOR "WHY" QUESTIONS.

When science explains to me how things work - I have no problem with that - this is great.

But the "why" answers are STUPID foolish and wicked. And above all UNPROVABLE.

This is what I am trying to tell you - even a monkey parts the cover of a banana. I do not care
if you eat the fruit - we all do, enjoy it and are actually demanded to know how it
works. But do not eat the cover - you would get a stomach ache and be sick.

[Zafran]

Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.

Here you see you contradict yourself - first you say Science tells us what "is" but then you say "we cannot claim absolute certainity" - make your mind up will you. Thats what I'm complaining about - your confused statements.

If you go back to you the last page you'll see that you put this down

Science tells us what is, not ought.

Now you say something else.

You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).

You made a statement which shows that you think science tells you what "is".

[Skavau]

Here you see you contradict yourself - first you say Science tells us what "is" but then you say "we cannot claim absolute certainity" - make your mind up will you.

Science discovering what is, is not the same thing as declaring absolute certainty. How on earth could you confuse the two?

No-one involved in science will tell you that they absolutely without any section of doubt infallibly know something. That is not what science is about, and it cannot be about that. It is a progressive movement that adapts with new information.

You made a statement which shows that you think science tells you what "is".

Yes, and I have never ever said otherwise. Science tells us what is. The quotation you provided from me was merely me pointing out the naturalistic fallacy that you made several pages ago.

In fact, did you even read what I said properly? How does me declaring that science tells us what is mean I happen to be contradicting my claim that it does not tell us what ought?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Science discovering what is, is not the same thing as declaring absolute certainty. How on earth could you confuse the two?

No-one involved in science will tell you that they absolutely without any section of doubt infallibly know something. That is not what science is about, and it cannot be about that. It is a progressive movement that adapts with new information.


Yes, and I have never ever said otherwise. Science tells us what is. The quotation you provided from me was merely me pointing out the naturalistic fallacy that you made several pages ago.

In fact, did you even read what I said properly? How does me declaring that science tells us what is mean I happen to be contradicting my claim that it does not tell us what ought?

Science does not discover what is. We already know what is.

Legitimate science is science which builds technology. You are well encouraged to study who to build
this technology and even more encouraged to try and build better one.

However - science does not tell us anything about life and this is an illusion humanity has to
start waking up from (before it is too late). If we won't wake up from that we would live in one huge
formula with no emotions, compassion, love, family what so ever - just an endless array of faceless
offices.

The theory of relativity for instance is a perfect example of a seductive fallacy like that which is a
bunch of wide speculation leading to no useful technology - zero what so ever.

When in fact - I have not seen a good explanation to what is the invisible force that pulls an apple from
a tree (why it pulls the apple not how) - if you can answer me this question after 500 years of physics
I would be happy.

This just shows you that science is absolutely not interested in giving you answers - but rather
just with developing formulas.

Our technology is good - yet very problematic - we burn insane amount of fuel and natural sources in order
to sustain it - while the question if this is required is more than debatable.

Contrary to the naive view on science (as an adapting body of knowledge) - many people have suggested much
better ways in order to deal with this question - most of them ended up bankrupt and unknown at best.

As well - I can well supply you with examples of well respected physicists and natural scientists who tried to do
very well justified research in domains which do not fit the mainstream viewpoint and has been fired from their
universities (some even denied a Noble prize).

Also - did you notice that the two main physical theories simply cannot coexist (that is the quantum business and the relativity thing) - I am not very good in logic but to the best of my understanding it seems that there is something fishy going on.

Finally - did you know that through this process of accumulation of knowledge there are many things not being taken care of. For instance - the formulas of the theory of electromagnetisim (Maxwell's formulas) were developed under the assumption of an Ether theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is based on these equations - while disputing the
assumption of Ether - how is this possible from a logical standpoint?

Many gaps. Natural in any human endeavor - especially when not properly going outside criticism.