Lol.
Are you a scientist?
I am.
All I have to say is please don't discuss scientific method while defending the merits of religion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pope Francis Visit to NYC and Philadelphia Could Delay iPhone 6s Deliveries on Launch Day
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol.
Are you a scientist?
I am.
All I have to say is please don't discuss scientific method while defending the merits of religion.
Again, you come off as hostile towards the idea of religion since you call it whatever those asterisk represent. Also, since you state that no one can prove the existence or lack of existence of God, and then say that that makes all religions false. Well, wouldn't that mean there is just as much of a chance that the religions are right than there is that they're wrong? Then the people that don't believe in God are just as wrong as the people that do and we're left with nothing.
I'm not trying to argue your beliefs. You obviously dislike religion and that's fine for you. But when you call people (directly or indirectly) idiots for believing in God and call religion "_____," your argument begins to lose credibility. You're not arguing points, you're expression frustration.
I've loved your posts in this thread!
I was just thinking the same thing and I love how you listed all the topics almost in exasperation.
P.S. The bolded parts made me chuckle.
Getting back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised that Apple will ask both UPS and FedEx to allow iPhone customers to pick up their iPhone 6s/6s+ models at their New York City area package distribution centers.
I wouldn't be surprised that Apple will ask both UPS and FedEx to allow iPhone customers to pick up their iPhone 6s/6s+ models at their New York City area package distribution centers.
lmao, wow do you want a lollipop or just a new pipet?
I actually am one as well. I'm not defending the merits of religions, but actually replying to a stupid post and now to shnxx, whom didn't bother to actually read the post I replied to and just want to give his 'lol' reply.
This is what I would expect as well, give the customer options or at the very least shipped them to specific areas of apple stores nearby the zip codes so they can pick them up fast and be on their way.Getting back on topic,
I studied physics at Berkeley.
You could start with The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Getting back on topic,
If they've suspended services, I doubt Apple's request will change anything. However, there may be an option to reroute the products to different zip codes. I'll be curious to see how this works.
I'd be really pissed if my iPhone would get delayed because of a guy who dresses like it's Halloween all the time.
Out of curiosity, and I honestly don't mean to sound rude so please don't take this rudely, but how does having a Ph.D. in neuroscience (which sounds really interesting to be honest) give you special merits to judge the existence of God?
Don't get me wrong, if you're a neuroscientists than that is an amazing feat and you must be extremely intelligent, but how does understanding that subject enable you to make conclusive statements?
I don't pontificate on religion much; but when I saw the post on scientific method and how the other guy doesn't understand it, that's when I had to chime in.
Religion and science are clearly at odds with one another for the basic reason which is that one relies on evidence and the other on faith.
To use scientific method as supporting religion in any way is intellectual dishonesty at best and idiocy at worst.
I don't really want to get into the argument regarding validity of the judeo Christian religion since it's pretty much a waste of time, but I don't think it requires much more than critical thinking + some basic knowledge of facts about the universe and human nature to know that religion is a man made construct, for the most part from Bronze Age peasants who were not sure where the sun went at night.
There's a better chance of Apple Maps successfully navigating somebody from their house to the mailbox
I like how you worded that.
I don't understand why they must be enemies? I am annoyed when scientific minds mock religious people, but I am also annoyed when wildly religious people deny basic and understood scientific principles and ideas.
Couldn't an individual simply view science as the exploration and understanding of the reality that God has made? If some people choose not to believe that the reality was made by God, then they can certainly continue their scientific ventures alongside those that do.
I don't know which god you're talking about but the abrahamic religions contain many myths and tales which are demonstrably wrong.
In addition, there is simply no need for anyone to invoke a mysterious being such as God when there is absolutely no evidence for doing so.
If there are gaps in our knowledge, that's because we are still working on it, and inserting God as an explanation simply impedes progress.
I suppose that is the issue. For many people, evidence will be based in scientific and testable facts while others will consider life itself as evidence for God's existence. I am referring the Christian God, but one could insert any God into my argument.
Some people simply won't accept the thought that the universe and everything in it was formed by chance or through some currently untestable hypothesis. I think it stems from a fear of the unknown.
You clearly don't believe in religion. Others do. Until evidence can prove one side of the argument, people will have differing views and I think that's okay. What I don't understand is when one side (and both sides are guilty of it) gets angry or tries to force it's ways on the other. That impedes progress. There is no denying that "the church" has inhibited scientific progress throughout history, but I blame that on the people of the religion, not on the religion itself.
I don't get why one side has to be right in the face of doubt. That I've read, you haven't insulted anyone for being religious in this thread, you merely stated your opinion, which I think is very good and shows maturity. You come off a level-headed and reasonable. What I'm annoyed with are the people in this thread who call religion "_____" and anyone who believes in it idiots.
I suppose you are incredulous about the Big Bang theory or how something came out of nothing, etc but that's because you are using your intuition, rather than studying on the subject.
But more importantly, inserting God as the explanation for something that cannot be explained simply makes one beg the question, "where did God come from?"
You're exactly right. I've heard that question asked.
As for the big bang theory, I do not know a tremendous amount about its intricacies (I am a business major), but I do know that there are moderate amounts of evidence supporting it, but it begs the same question of what caused it or how it began; I've studied it only for one semester in a philosophy class. It goes into an endless loop. I can only assume that you are far more informed about scientific theories than I am, which affects your outlook.
Inserting God is a simpler or easier answer to end the loop. It is easier to say that God started the processes than to hypothesize endlessly at how it began. Until it can be conclusively proven that the big bang theory is correct and that we understand what caused it to occur, there will be doubt and many people will use God to ease the doubt. This brings us back to your excellent comment before that "one relies on evidence and the other on faith." It takes faith or a general understanding that God exists outside of science and/or outside the realm of our complete understanding and that is why don't ask the question "where did God come from," but I'd be lying if I said I've never pondered that as well. Many people will not accepts believing in a concept that is "beyond our understanding" and that's okay. Form your views and ideas about life as you see fit.
God/religion, for many people, is a comforting concept. It gives people hope, purpose, and fulfillment. Sadly, it is exploited and becomes a regime that persecute people and punishes scientific exploration in many instances. If the right check and balances are in place, I don't see how it is harmful. But this is just me rambling.
I hope I am giving satisfactory answers to you because I have thoroughly enjoyed your responses which force one to think. I feel like I'm not really arguing the right points (or that I'm talking in circles). What I've been ultimately trying to say in this thread is that religion isn't bad, we just need respect and controls in place just like with any other organization. Humans are flawed, thus science and religion are flawed. As of right now, theories of our creation are just theories. If we finally figure out how it all came to be and evidence is shown that proves God's lack of existence, I will not stubbornly stick to my belief. As of right now, evidence only suggests one way or another and people try to force that on each other (and religions is obviously extremely guilty of this too). Once evidence proves, things will be entirely different.
EDIT: I wanted to add that if we were to engage in a full debate, I assure you that you would win. You deal with scientific concepts and method on a daily basis, I assume. I don't deal with intricate scientific theories or philosophical arguments enough to properly debate them. So, I acknowledge my shortcoming there. You don't get into a lot of deep debates when studying not-for-profit accounting!
Those asterisks stand for bull-**** (I can't believe that they'd censor it), and no, it doesn't mean that there's a chance that religions are right. What it means is that while I find extremely unlikely the existence of a God, I can't completely rule it out. Likewise, no one can prove its existence nor know its will. So while accepting there's a chance a God exists is completely rational, blindly believing it and confusing it with the fairytales they tell you when you're growing up (like the Bible) is quite idiotic.
His company makes electronics, he wasn't that important and certainly not one of the top 5 most important.
Again do you want a lollipop or pipet? have you used one?
Anyways, that book even starts by dismissing the notion of him talking about the god of the bible. Thus, he does not go against religions believes to debunk them with facts, instead he argues against agnostics, deities, and then tries to explain with just as much proof as other religious books with his flawed thinking of cosmological evolution. He also doesn't have a good basic knowledge of biology since he makes you think that natural selection equates evolution, but where is the random mutations, etc etc etc.
IMO that book is just a ridiculous example to throw when facts of religion are not broken in it. Isn't it funny that afterwards he said a divine being could exist, just that it had to a physicist god not a theist god. At the end god is god, whatever title you put at the front you are still calling something god. In the end I could call you a moron like you did towards others here because you give me as an example "the god delusion" followed by what equates as your Pope, Richard Dawkins, but I don't, because I think only fools that think they know everything would bring down others with what they think they know to be true 100%. That is just poor scientific thinking. Then again you are a physicist, you prob didn't take any real biology or chem after the intro courses nor social ones like anthropology to try to understand what I'm trying to say.
You actually didn't chime in, you just gave your 'credentials' on an internet forum. Did you even read what I was quoting to understand, no you didn't. You just wanted to try to take a jab with nothing to back it up.
You can't use the scientific method to disprove religion, even if you wanted it, that is the whole point of my post. If you didn't get that, then I don't know what they are teaching you in caltech tbh.
Berlin Wall! What rich ignorance. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, not out. Nobody wanted to go into that communist craphole!
Praying to a saint is not worshiping a saint. It is asking someone else to pray for you. Try to at least understand what your opponents believe.
Kissing a hand is worship to you? What about shaking hands or bowing or hugging or any of the innumerable physical features out there? Are those also worship?