No, I read the current thread title a couple of minutes ago.  I've never heard of PICISI before, to my knowledge.  I thought it was possibly a charity Vod was representing.

I clicked this thread because I thought it was about a charity.

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.

Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?

or humans will invade aliens planet

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

snip-

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

What I mean by modern is .... blah blah blah...

Irfan, I am going to make an insult/Joke about you and your country please dont take it seriously & be a sport.

Seriously which school did your parents sent you that your brain is so thoroughly washed - with some form of detergent - that you are actually calling a British India Map the Muslim India map ?? Please get your facts right. Please read on..


Get your hands & feet together folks I see an Indo Pak war coming.

 There is no Hindu there is no Muslim its plain and simple INDIAN.

In the ancient times people lived near the now dried up vedic Saraswati they werent Hindu, they didnt have rules, they didnt follow any other civiliztions but were expert traders.

Then we were part of the Haryanks and in a broader picture the Mahajanapads, the greatest empire of these 'Janapads' = Realm of the People ? It was the Magadh empire.

Then came the persians and the greeks, who returned back to their abodes when they were faced with the sheer logistical challenges of a military conquest in this peninsula.

Then throughout the classical age India was the land of the people whose majority were Hindu, and by majority I would say above 90%

It was during this classical time when the Mauryas rose & fell and with them spread the wings of India all across the south of Asia.
It was during this time when the age old tradition of cultivating wheat and the expanding wheat - farm lands spreading to the East and the west at an exponential rate; that the name 'Sone Ki Chirya' (The Golden Bird) was coined to India.

It wasnt until the early half 5th century, when the White Huns lead by Toramana invaded the North of Pakistan through the Afghan mountains, that Islam or any form of islam was introduced here. It was a short lived reign but converted enough Hindus to other religions like Tengri & Manichaeism, it basically opened up the possibility of conversion of Hindus to other religion which wasnt possible until now..

Much later in the 7th Century when Sindh (today's pakistan) was conquered by an invading Umayyadi Meccan army followed by the death of Muhammad. But even then this was isolated to the Northern part of the peninsula. While the rest of India was entering the late classical era, during which India and it's cultural influence spread further south east down through Sumatra and Indonesia.

The small muslim kingdoms formed during the Umayyadi crusades in the north were part of the Meccan caliphate but it's rulers were too unequipped to invade the rest of India.

Lets face it, Islam is the best religion for barbarian central asian tribes, who were among the early adopters of the religion. They could eat almost anything, they could have many wives, they got rid of the need of idols, anyone anywhere could just curl up and claim to be in a 'holy place' - which is good if you are a nomad and have no fixed place to live. Multiple wives just increases the reproduction efficiency and most importantly they could take anything from anyone because according their 'trollbook' the whole world is theirs to pillage.

AND they've been so successful at this craft of pillaging that they eventually dared to get into the heart of Delhi (Old Delhi) by the beginning of the 13th century and eventually set up the muslim rule in India by converting the general population into their own religion of Islam. But this was for 300 years not 800 The french, the Spanish the Portuguese and the Dutch started arriving by the 16th century and by the 17th Century the Britts.

In a way the britts were the first political unity this peninsula had seen in a long time.

But we shouldnt forget one fact. Religion is stupid. It is fake, it is a form of mind control, a form of herding the sheep. That sheep is the common man, every religion had one agenda and no it was not 'peace', it was the illusion of peace through fear and subjugation.

Hindu, muslim, sikh, Buddhists, Jains, Tengris (lol) all are and were ALWAYS Indians.
They just started believing in different imaginary concepts at different points in time thats all.


I get it how pathetic the common man in Pakistan today must feel that the founder of their country was nothing more than a delusional hateful old man, yes I m talking about Jinnah. Its high time my ancestral brothers stopped living in another man's delusion.

I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.

I think you missed some of what Hume stated, however.  If Hume concluded that "believing in a 'god' without any [evidence]...is irrational," then he contradicted himself.

Hume rightfully pointed out that Empiricism, and therefore Science, have non-empirical, unscientific foundations.  Specifically, the assumptions that give the Scientific Method validity are entirely philosophical, e.g. how the rules of sound inference and knowledge of the limitations of inductive reasoning give validity to the assumption that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an assumption that is absolutely required for Science to work at all, and for which there is both no evidence nor a means of empirical falsification.

With regards to religion, Hume would say that a lack of evidence is not a strong enough basis (actually, it carries no weight whatsoever) to reject theism specifically because one who does would also be forced to reject the epistemological underpinnings of science itself.  Yes, it is true there is no physical evidence for God, but because there is also no physical evidence for the validity of the scientific method, then we must defer back to Philosophy to establish the validity/invalidity of both. In other words, if one can make a total scientific departure to validate scientific epistemology (note: Science is merely a philosophical subset), then why cannot one make the same departure for theism?

On a side note, it's my personal observation that the unbelievably-vast majority of religious debates are a priori invalid for the aforementioned reasons.  Atheists make bullshit claims that it is silly to believe in God due to a lack of evidence (claims which are often supported by equally-bullshit analogies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot which hold no weight whatsoever), and then theists, thinking that these invalid arguments are actually credible, entertain them and provide bullshit rebuttals by hopelessly trying to cite evidence that supports the existence of God.

When it comes down to it, religious debates set in an empirical context are invalid and a waste of time, and people just spew a bunch of hot air.

-snip

I know what the world is facing today because of religion and hence I just disregard this term. There are no atheists or theists in life but only Good and Bad people. While I love and respect the former, I dislike the latter. What kind of a person are you?

You ask why rational people try to engage theists into critical thinking, then go on to detail how you, like most atheists, began as a child being conditioned to believe the theist myths of your parents until you discovered the skills of critical thinking and objective reasoning.

So you prove that theists can break their conditioning but then question why we bother trying to free the minds of others who, like us once, were brainwashed.

This is false. Planet earth didn't exist 13.798 billion years ago.