Atheism

Originally posted by Deadline
I thought a scientist was just a person who was educated to a certain level in a certain area eg a Biologist is still a scientist. Engineering, Computing etc.

Engineers are not scientists. Therapists are not scientists. Priests are not scientist.

They aren't scientists because they don't do science, which is to say they don't use their expertise to acquire knowledge by using the scientific method. It's not a matter of how much education you have in an area. A baby that discovers she gets burned every time she steps on hot asphalt is doing more science science than an engineer who builds a bridge (he is applying scientific knowledge).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a matter of how much education you have in an area.

I dunno man it seems it does.

a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a person that knows a great deal about a branch of science. An ornithologist is a scientist that specializes in the study of birds.
www.inhs.illinois.edu/resources/virtualbird/glossary.html

I know you can have a degree in computer science. So it pretty much seems to mean that if you get to a certain level in computing you can be a scientist.

Oh and theres this as well.

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

Engineering is the discipline, art and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize a solution to the needs of society

Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno man it seems it does.

a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Okay, and my dictionary states:
"a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods"

Dictionaries can't really be used to settle any debate beyond how a word is spelled.

Originally posted by Deadline
I know you can have a degree in computer science. So it pretty much seems to mean that if you get to a certain level in computing you can be a scientist.

Yes, you can get a degree in computer science if you go and study computer science. You don't get a degree in computer science if you study computer engineering (instead you get a degree in computer engineering) because it isn't a form of science, it's a form of engineering.

Originally posted by Deadline
a person that knows a great deal about a branch of science. An ornithologist is a scientist that specializes in the study of birds.
www.inhs.illinois.edu/resources/virtualbird/glossary.html

I would point to their example.

Someone who "specializes in the study of birds" qualifies as a scientists, "a guy who knows a lot about birds" does not.

Originally posted by Deadline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

Engineering is the discipline, art and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize a solution to the needs of society

Which proves the point I made. Engineering is the application of science, not science itself.

In the same way, a car is not the same thing as driving. It's a statement so absurd that it barely makes grammatical sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Yes, you can get a degree in computer science if you go and study computer science. You don't get a degree in computer science if you study computer engineering (instead you get a degree in computer engineering) because it isn't a form of science, it's a form of engineering.

Yes I know. However heres my problem.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

They aren't scientists because they don't do science, which is to say they don't use their expertise to acquire knowledge by using the scientific method.

Heres what the defintion says.
Engineering is the discipline, art and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize a solution to the needs of society.

It's not just about building stuff its about acquring knowledge.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Which proves the point I made. Engineering is the application of science, not science itself.

No it doesn't becuase its not just an application its involves the acquiring of scientific knowledge. Biology involves applying scientific knowledge as well does that make it not a science now? Maybe you're right but your going to have to find a better explanation.

At any rate I was right about Jessica Utts being a scientist.

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

Types of scientists

Statisticians

Well of course a lot of those things overlaps, a therapist may be a scientist, and so may an engineer be, however it is not a necessary quality, of either profession. I believe a scientist is commonly understood to be someone trying to find knowledge beyond what is already known and taught (some may just find out about still unclear, but already discovered areas of course, but lets not nit-pick for now).

Computer Science (though a dreadfully loose term) is really mostly a sub-field of mathematics and you can obviously be a Scientist in that area, however a programmer for example isn't necessarily or even likely a scientist, but just a practitioner of skills that have already been thoroughly defined.

I suppose this is somewhat about the difference between the traditional areas art, craft and science. All of which may overlap in many ways, but can at least be fuzzily separated, even though not necessarily universally agreed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well of course a lot of those things overlaps, a therapist may be a scientist, and so may an engineer be, however it is not a necessary quality, of either profession. I believe a scientist is commonly understood to be someone trying to find knowledge beyond what is already known and taught (some may just find out about still unclear, but already discovered areas of course, but lets not nit-pick for now).

Computer Science (though a dreadfully loose term) is really mostly a sub-field of mathematics and you can obviously be a Scientist in that area, however a programmer for example isn't necessarily or even likely a scientist, but just a practitioner of skills that have already been thoroughly defined.

I suppose this is somewhat about the difference between the traditional areas art, craft and science. All of which may overlap in many ways, but can at least be fuzzily separated, even though not necessarily universally agreed.

Yes I would pretty much agree it's certainly not a clear cut issue and they can overlap. Theres alot of grey in this topic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I would point to their example.

Someone who "specializes in the study of birds" qualifies as a scientists, "a guy who knows a lot about birds" does not.

🙄

that was meant as a tongue in cheek cut at statisticians, and all those math purists sort of by extension. her area of specialty is, anyways, relevant enough to make what she has to say more authoritative than a layman, though I think it supports the idea that she may be more tuned toward statistical trends than toward a hard theory of how psi might work in the brain.

I went to Utts' website and read her article on the evidence, as well as Hyman's rebuttal and Utts' response to the rebuttal (I didn't read all of this, mostly the intro's and conclusions: there's a shipload of stuff).

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/

Frankly, Hyman makes the more cohesive argument, if only because his is the easier job. The following statements, though, caught my eye (from his report, conclusions #3 and 7)...

"Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge--one who is familiar to the viewers, for all the remote viewing."

"The parapsychologists need to achieve the ability to specify conditions under which one can reliably witness their alleged phenomenon. They have to show that they can generate lawful relationships between attributes of this alleged phenomenon and independent variables. "

Basically: what qualifies one as an 'experienced viewer'? They've had this 'gift' all their lives? Have any of them practiced formal training of attention, especially given how important concentration is here? This isn't concentrating like putting together furniture from Ikea; the viewers monitor something much more ephemeral: images and feelings rising and dropping in and out of awareness.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if meditation 'masters' were used, subjects able to demonstrate profound concentration through decades of attention training and fine discrimination of interior phenomena. If higher effect sizes occured, this could be, eg, what Hyman referred to as a specified condition.

I've tried googling up some research along these lines, but I haven't found anything substantial. Perhaps recruiting subjects like this is too formidable a task.

Originally posted by Digi
Are Aesop's fables literally true? Second question, do we use them as teaching tools for children? Seriously, I need to spell this out? Religion is fables for adults. Shared stories and themes have value, period. Else, why read such obviously fictitious tripe as Aesop, or indeed any work of fiction with some deeper meaning?

Fables and religion are only the same if you're an Atheist.

But there is one objective difference: falbes were always meant to be taken as metaphors. Religious books on the other hand, contain allegories and metaphoric teachings here and there, but the core (essential) teaching is intended to be nothing less than literal.

Originally posted by Digi

Zeus and Odin then. You're missing the forest for the trees here, though. They're both so blatently false that there's no point in arguing validity of one over the other. That's how I see Jesus/Mohammad, or any similar comparison.

Because you're an Atheist; God and Santa Clause are the same to you.

Originally posted by Digi

Right, and such atheists are very wrong. Just like anti-atheist theists who think that lack of religion means a justification of rape, genocide, etc. are also wrong. Is it really so hard to fathom that religion is and has been a handy outlet for the in-group/out-group mentality that we naturally gravitate toward, as per our genetic disposition? Other outlets would be found.

What other outlets? Without Christianity or Islam, the Crusades would not have happened, because there'd be no reason for it. The incentive of a ticket to Heaven wouldn't be there.

(I figure you would embrace the idea of a Utopian religion-free world.)

Originally posted by Digi

So ok, forget the gun analogy. My point stands. To attempt another, a chronic bully at school says you stole his scissors, so he beats you up. You give him back the scissors, add $5 as apology, and tell him you're sorry. There's no longer a reason for him to be a bully to you. Now, do you think this will stop his behavior?

No, THAT won't, but I know what will. Only whooping his ass will stop him. I know this because as a kid, I whooped more than one bullies' ass. If some pinche puto tried to push me around or take my lunch money, I'd give him a blackeye. And then that fool would be scared of me when he saw around campus. For reals, man.

Originally posted by Digi

Cherrypicking. Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, to name the biggest ones, and there are many others. Political wars replaced religious ones, and if political struggles ceased, a new rallying point would be found.

It's not cherry-picking. The current war IS religious.

Ok, lets look at the biggest one of them all, the bloodiest conflict in human history: WW2. The Japanese were literally fighting for a god. Emperor Hirohito was literally the living incarnation of the Sun Goddess in human flesh, and why the Japanese soldiers were so brutal. That's also the reason it took two A-bombs for them to surrender, because the God-King would not have approved. In fact, one of the stipulations of the Japanese surrender was Hirohito publicly denouncing his divinity.

(And this was all in the 20th Century)

"new rallying points?" Like what? And how do you know? Now you're just speclutating.

Originally posted by Digi

Also, if there wasn't oil involved, if we hadn't gotten bombed and attacked repeatedly, if it was just because we wanted to prove Christianity's superiority, would we be at war? Hell no. Of course Bush appealed to religion, he knows his constituents. Doesn't mean religion is the reason for the true conflict, at least from our end. If anything, Islamist extremists rebel against the rampant secularism and commercialism they see coming from Western society, even if the name they give it is Christian. I'd argue it's closer to Islam vs. Atheism (or at least Agnosticism or Apathism) than Islam vs. Christianity.

If you wanna tweek it to Islam vs Atheism, then it's still no less religious. Actually, from their point of view, Islam vs The Devil would probably be more accurate. Because alcohol, gambling and interest/usury are all banned in Islam, but thoroughly loved and encouraged in the US. Plus, all the crap Hollywood pumps out. But still, its no less religious.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What other outlets? Without Christianity or Islam, the Crusades would not have happened, because there'd be no reason for it. The incentive of a ticket to Heaven wouldn't be there.

The Crusades happened in part because al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was a dick, yes, but on the Western side the demand for the attacks came from fear that the Rashidun Caliphate was trying to take over the Byzantine Empire (and given that they were at war and the Calipahate had conquered Byzantine controlled Asia Minor that seems like a reasonable fear). The Church did sanction and support the war but in many ways it was a clash between two empires, something you get just fine without religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, lets look at the biggest one of them all, the bloodiest conflict in human history: WW2. The Japanese were literally fighting for a god. Emperor Hirohito was literally the living incarnation of the Sun Goddess in human flesh, and why the Japanese soldiers were so brutal. That's also the reason it took two A-bombs for them to surrender, because the God-King would not have approved. In fact, one of the stipulations of the Japanese surrender was Hirohito publicly denouncing his divinity.

It took two bombs because they were dropped in relatively quick succession, within just three days of each other, and many were skeptical about the US ability to repeat the attack. You'll note that the time between Hiroshima and Nagasaki is much shorter than the time between Nagasaki and the final surrender. Unconditional surrender is hard to swallow, especially when you're being invaded by another nation (the USSR in this case) at the same time. Presumably part of the delay was also an excuse to hide as much evidence of their war crimes as was possible.

Simply, it's wrong to say that "religion caused this war" or "desire for power caused this war" or "fear caused this war". There is almost always a number of important factors, separating one out is an excersize in futility.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Simply, it's wrong to say that "religion caused this war"

I never said that. But religion WAS a factor. The Japanese, were in fact, fighting for a god.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What other outlets?

Political wars, as I've said before. If every war we've ever been in is religious, please enlighten me.

The hilarious part of this is, you've also made a rather strong case for the world being better off without religion, whereas I've been attempting to say the opposite. The irony is not lost on me, and is at least some amusement in this otherwise-fruitless discussion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
(I figure you would embrace the idea of a Utopian religion-free world.)

Hell no. I embrace freedom of expression. Wishing others to be a particular way is egotistical and tyrannical. You also thought I'd be a d*ck when making this thread instead of trying to inspire discussion, and have sniped at atheists consistently in your comments. As usual, I'd be offended if I could bring myself to care about your presumptive and stereotyped opinions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, THAT won't, but I know what will. Only whooping his ass will stop him. I know this because as a kid, I whooped more than one bullies' ass. If some pinche puto tried to push me around or take my lunch money, I'd give him a blackeye. And then that fool would be scared of me when he saw around campus. For reals, man.

Now you're just forsaking the analogy to post something that's off-topic and self-serving. I'm not sure if I should laugh at such an outburst or chide you for missing the point again.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you wanna tweek it to Islam vs Atheism, then it's still no less religious. Actually, from their point of view, Islam vs The Devil would probably be more accurate. Because alcohol, gambling and interest/usury are all banned in Islam, but thoroughly loved and encouraged in the US. Plus, all the crap Hollywood pumps out. But still, its no less religious.

It's religious, but it's also about alcohol, gambling, and interest? Guys, religion = alcohol, gambling and interest!

Clearly that isn't your point, but you may want to clarify your correlations in the future. You went ahead and made my point for me, so meh. For them it's religious, I said that 3-4 posts ago. For us, it's not. Take religious convictions out of Americans and we'd still be at war because of economic and retaliatory reasons.

Originally posted by Digi
Political wars, as I've said before. If every war we've ever been in is religious, please enlighten me.

The hilarious part of this is, you've also made a rather strong case for the world being better off without religion, whereas I've been attempting to say the opposite. The irony is not lost on me, and is at least some amusement in this otherwise-fruitless discussion.

No, but in that post, you also went further. If not political wars, then there would be "new rallying points". Like what?

Originally posted by Digi

Hell no. I embrace freedom of expression. Wishing others to be a particular way is egotistical and tyrannical.

God Bless America!

Originally posted by Digi

Now you're just forsaking the analogy to post something that's off-topic and self-serving. I'm not sure if I should laugh at such an outburst or chide you for missing the point again.

I guess you should laugh, because I didn't miss the point. It was a good analogy; if there's a group of undesirables that you want to kill and there's no guns around (or knives), then one must improvise.

But at the same time, I answered your hypothetical. The best way to deal with a bully is to whoop his ass, preferably with many witnesses.

Originally posted by Digi

It's religious, but it's also about alcohol, gambling, and interest? Guys, religion = alcohol, gambling and interest!

Clearly that isn't your point, but you may want to clarify your correlations in the future. You went ahead and made my point for me, so meh. For them it's religious, I said that 3-4 posts ago. For us, it's not. Take religious convictions out of Americans and we'd still be at war because of economic and retaliatory reasons.

Alcohol, gambling and usury are against Islam.

For the leaders, yes, not for the little guy on the front though. When I was in Desert Storm I noticed that we (the grunts actually doing all the work) were more religious than the bigwigs in suits bossing us around. In fact, I know people in Iraq right now and ones who just back; religion factoring into this war is a big deal to them.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
For the leaders, yes, not for the little guy on the front though. When I was in Desert Storm I noticed that we (the grunts actually doing all the work) were more religious than the bigwigs in suits bossing us around. In fact, I know people in Iraq right now and ones who just back; religion factoring into this war is a big deal to them.

So to you the fact that the people arranging the war don't care much about the religious aspect proves that its religiously motivated?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So to you the fact that the people arranging the war don't care much about the religious aspect proves that its religiously motivated?

No, the opposite of that. Bush may have been a devout believer, but I doubt all the Joint Chiefs are.

But religion always factors in somehow. Even for an officially secular nation.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, the opposite of that. Bush may have been a devout believer, but I doubt all the Joint Chiefs are.

But religion always factors in somehow. Even for an officially secular nation.

That religion is one factor out of many doesn't mean it's reasonable to describe it is a religiously motivated war. It's accurate, yes, but extremely misleading like claiming that a chocolate cake is made of eggs.

Cosign Sym.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, but in that post, you also went further. If not political wars, then there would be "new rallying points". Like what?

Battle for land. Resources. Food or water. Moral differences (which, yes, are different than religion). Skin color, culture, etc. The aforementioned political reasons, which would include not just political differences but allegiances to other nations with political differences, thus sucking in all countries associated with them.

Use your imagination dude. I came up with those in like 10 seconds. Are your glasses really so tinted toward religion that you can't see other motivations for things in our world?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Blacks are the seed of Ham and thus cursed by God to be in slavery to the white man. You mad?

mad? no.

i've come to realize that more than any other reason, african american slavery was just business.

Originally posted by Digi
I came up with those in like 10 seconds.

Translation: you pulled them out of thin air.

In theory, anything can be fought over.