The Islam Thread. Page 24

  • Page

    of 115 First / Last

  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 14:09:02
    So you didn't; that doesn't negate that scientific discovery has driven technological development in every war point blank.
  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Mar 2013 14:13:05 39,567 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    So this will probably be flame bait galore but:

    If eating processed meats such as Bacon and sausages (pork) is bad for you does that mean that Muslims generally live longer than your average Christian?

    ...

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 14:13:29
    ...
  • RunningMan 7 Mar 2013 14:14:29 2,451 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Other way round and only the second world war drove development. Presume it's the A-Bomb example. Could argue that this stopped the war years before it would of. The basic science for the A-bomb was also know since the early 20th century, it was mainly engineering. The science for the a-bomb arose from the study of a train traveling at near the speed of light, Einstein had no idea where that idea would go.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 14:18:37
    Science is, in my mind, a euphemism simply for problem solving.

    The freaking bow and arrow is science. Surely.
  • RunningMan 7 Mar 2013 14:21:22 2,451 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You are right, it is just problem solving. Somethings you get things you didn't expect.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 14:23:20
    The key point about science is that it's a systematic approach to acquiring knowledge. Science doesn't deal in "the truth" as such. It's about theories according to the best available evidence.

    That is fundamentally opposed to how religion works for me.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 16:01:34
    Zakat in England is covered by paying tax to the government. I paid about 1000 in tax last month, one third of the governments income goes on welfare so just last month I gave 333 to the needy.
  • RedSparrows 7 Mar 2013 16:56:43 24,248 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    1k tax? A third on welfare?
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:14:10
    Yeah a third of the governments spending is on welfare. Ridiculous.
  • chopsen 7 Mar 2013 17:18:07 16,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aren't you doctor? Can't you have some kind of get-out clause about helping the needy all the time, so keep all the money.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:21:40
    Just annoys me that probably half of that money goes to people who don't deserve it.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:24:55
    Hmm, I read less than 2% of welfare claims are fraudulent.
  • chopsen 7 Mar 2013 17:31:38 16,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well, you don't have to be fraudulent to be getting money off the state and not deserve it. Look at me. I'm paid for by the state, and all I do all day is F5 this place and look at pictures of cats on reddit.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:32:02
    Even if that is true then to actually get welfare should be far harder. When I've done home visits so often the council paid properties, with families on welfare with apparently no money, have the best tvs with the blue ray player etc yet apparently they need my tax money to be able to feed their kids.
  • chopsen 7 Mar 2013 17:35:26 16,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Wait, have you gone from saying people should give more to charity to saying welfare should be harder to receive?
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:38:43
    Welfare and charity is different. I'm happy for a soldier injured in Iraq to receive benefit, a mother who is alone with three kids because her husband died of cancer. I don't think you should get benefit because you have multiple children, because you pretend to look for a job because you are a bum etc.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 17:40:32
    Can the injured soldier in Iraq buy a Blu Ray player?
  • monty2k 7 Mar 2013 17:51:06 249 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    -cerberus- wrote:
    monty2k wrote:
    Wow, my post was a bit more pompous that I thought it would be.

    Sorry for that.
    Don't worry about it. Guess we're both very passionate about the subject ;)
    Sorry! I have frequently have this talk/debate with my brother who is a militant aetheist. I think I accidentally transferred some of my sibling rivalry against you!
  • Khanivor 7 Mar 2013 17:51:41 41,262 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    bitch_tits_zero_nine wrote:
    So you didn't; that doesn't negate that scientific discovery has driven technological development in every war point blank.
    How can something a few hundred years old be responsible for all wars for the last ten thousand?
  • sevenup 7 Mar 2013 18:19:20 13 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Aren't you doctor? Can't you have some kind of get-out clause about helping the needy all the time, so keep all the money.
    What kind of Doctor is that then? Doctor of World of Warcraft?
  • monty2k 7 Mar 2013 18:30:09 249 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @RunningMan

    Yes, I am a scientist. I've been studying lung disease for the past 4 years and I've just submitted my post-viva thesis corrections so soon I shall be Dr Monty2k! :) It that enough academic willy-waving for you? :-P

    I do know your argument and I've even used it myself! I mentioned that science and religion are different in principle (which you covered in more detail in your post). I share your view of science. God defies observation and accepted scientific technique. That's why religion pisses off so many scientists! I believe the most important quality of any scientist is an open mind. I don't believe in God but I won't dismiss all religions as fairytale either. I like to keep myself open to all ideas however ridiculous. Maybe that's just me.

    I think I was a bit ambiguous with my final point concerning science and warfare. Most people who claim that science is "better" than religion treat the argument like a game of top trumps, they never use your argument. For them, religion is intrinsically bad and science is intrinsically a force for good. It's a flawed argument. Science is neither good nor bad. It has no morality. The applications, however, do have moral implications. That's why I used the example of science and technology advancing through warfare.
  • -cerberus- 7 Mar 2013 18:51:10 3,633 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    monty2k wrote: I like to keep myself open to all ideas however ridiculous. Maybe that's just me.
    What you need to do, as a scientist, is rely on verifiable facts and nothing else.

    Science is good because, contrary to religion, it will never uphold the status quo. And I could not imagine a sadder fate for humanity if it would...

    People are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.

  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 18:53:18
    sevenup wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    Aren't you doctor? Can't you have some kind of get-out clause about helping the needy all the time, so keep all the money.
    What kind of Doctor is that then? Doctor of World of Warcraft?
    Arf arf. :-/
  • sevenup 7 Mar 2013 19:00:43 13 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Oh, you're one of those fake Doctors. Carry on then...
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 19:02:02
    What on earth is a fake doctor?
  • Page

    of 115 First / Last

Log in or register to reply