Originally posted by Ordo
Talking about dodging the point.Where is your statistical proof about MIT scholars shaving all their hair off and claiming to be the next coming of the Messiah. Seems to be based on conjuncture and rumor.
I think you are missing the point here.
MIT scholars deal in the provable and measrureable. The present their findings in facts. I think you would find the statistics for claims to Messiahhood in scholars significantly lower than in the mentally challenged or the already religiously indoctrinated.
Bible...based on conjecture and rumour.
Originally posted by inimalist
rationality: a culturally constructed set of beliefs which are no more objective than theology or anything else.lol, or, mr Believer, would you care to objectively prove "rationalism" over, well, anything?
Rational =
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
"I will not murder someone because taking a life is wrong."
Irrational =
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
"I'm going to kill someone because God told me its his will!!!!!"
Does that need to be explained any clearer?
Originally posted by Beliver
Does that need to be explained any clearer?
no, I was well capable of typing those two words into dictionary.com, though you saved me the trouble if it ever comes up.
I was making a snide joke about your constant claim to being "rational" or having "rational" thought processes.
On a completely related note, it is strange, be they theist or atheist, anyone who claims that science "proves" things as absolutely as you do really has no comprehension of the process at all. The only people who think that scientists ever "prove" or "disprove" things are creationists and idiot atheists who want to sound edgy when they say naughty things about God.
Scientists, they don't think they do.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I was well capable of typing those two words into dictionary.com, though you saved me the trouble if it ever comes up.I was making a snide joke about your constant claim to being "rational" or having "rational" thought processes.
On a completely related note, it is strange, be they theist or atheist, anyone who claims that science "proves" things as absolutely as you do really has no comprehension of the process at all. The only people who think that scientists ever "prove" or "disprove" things are creationists and idiot atheists who want to sound edgy when they say naughty things about God.
Scientists, they don't think they do.
So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?
How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.
Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven.
Originally posted by BeliverHe could have died from cancer.
So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.
Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven.
Originally posted by Beliver
So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.
Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven.
his claim has not been disproven
I used to swim competitively and could do the 50m freestyle in under 33 seconds. I cannot any longer. My inability to recreate this feat does not mean it never happened.
Originally posted by Beliver
I think you are missing the point here.MIT scholars deal in the provable and measrureable. The present their findings in facts. I think you would find the statistics for claims to Messiahhood in scholars significantly lower than in the mentally challenged or the already religiously indoctrinated.
Bible...based on conjecture and rumour.
You haven't presented your arguments in facts. "I think you would find..." thats conjecture not fact. Why should I listen to you conjecture against conjecture...?
Frankly, having been to MIT (not as a student) and have friends who go there (as students)...I think you'll find that actual experiences are not your simplestic exxagurations. I also think you'll find that MIT is 1. wholly irrelevant to thsi conversation and 2. makes you look ridiculous.