Scientists to Unveil Proof of 'God Particle' (Article) (Link) (PRETTY DAMN INTERESTING)

[Deleted member 38182]

Originally Posted by Cant Nobody Stop Me

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

Man #@#+ all that noise going on in this thread, I couldnt get past the face on the machine.

Whenever I see a face on an object I always smile back

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Dan Brown has some new material.

Science.

 

[josebronx]

I knew it!!

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD



No, it is not. 

^^ See how great my 4 word post was? Really contributes to the DISCUSSION board, doesn't it. 

And, you know what, fine FINE you guys wanna call it a religion? 

FINE, then ALLLLLLLL of you who talk smack about it, guess what? You are part of this bat $#!% crazy religion called science. You know how? You are living in the 21st century taking advantage of ALL that science has offered you. From even before you were born the "science religion" has been used for your benefit. 

Sonograms when you were in mom's tummy, epidural shot for her when giving birth to you, pasteurization of your baby foods, vaccinations when you were growing up, clothes on your back, clean running water, the car you drive, the computer you use, the wireless internet you are on, the medicine which will save your life later when you're old and get a heart attack the inevitable day science discovers the origins of the universe. 

You might think it takes blind faith, but if you look all around you, and at yourself, YOU are living proof of and validation of it's hypotheses and theories. 

Yes it is.
The same system of experientially based hypotheses, reflection and imaginative theory is found in both science and religion.

You love bragging about you level of education but your propensity to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal beliefs and life experiences says more about the true level of your acuity than any of your academic braggadocio. 

No, it's not. 
ARE you mother effin kidding me? The same system of experiment based hypothesis are used to validate and prove religion? Name ONE, ONE experimentally based hypothesis from religion, which has been used to test and prove the validity of the religion. 

1. Chill out. You're getting as riled up as a religious extremist, when confronted with opposing ideas. That alone says much about the parallels of religion and science.
2. One of the tenets of Buddhism ( a religious system and philosophy) is the importance of meditation to the development of a structured mind and spirit. Modern science has conclusively found tangible benefits to meditation. And while some in the modern neuropsychological community would like to write that off as a merely physical phenomenon...the bottom line is that this revelation was intuited by a religious society and validated through their lens of spiritual understanding thousands of years before the word science even existed.

Thats just one thing off top.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Cant Nobody Stop Me

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

Man #@#+ all that noise going on in this thread, I couldnt get past the face on the machine.

lol reminds me of 

the old autobot from dark of the moon transformers

 

[|A-Man|]

PleasurePhD you're wasting your time with Goldenchild on this topic. If he believes or thinks science and religion is the same thing or that science is a religion then he's wrong and most likely does not know what science is or what it entails AND probably has no idea what goes on with religion when it comes to how they conclude what they believe and the concept of faith.

He could also be trolling you and trying to be vague as hell with each and irrationally rationalize to compare the two and point out "similarities".

PPL who believe science is a religion are a waste of time. Probably trying to create their own religious sect themselves.

 

[hankmoody]

From December, when it seemed close:

http://www.theawl.com/201...-certainty-of-physicists
edit: Few others I had saved:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...origins-of-universe-but-questions-remain.html

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/the-higgs-confidence-game/

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

1. Science is just as faith based as every other human endeavor. 
2. It is just another manifestation of the most elemental form of human faith; the confidence of what we coin "nature" and in man's ability to understand it.

3. Science and religion have the equal potentiality to be innocuous or hazardous...because they are essentially one in the same.

1. No it's not
2. No it's not. The endeavor of trying to understand something doesn't automatically push you towards having faith or needing to have faith in something else to understand it. That's a ridiculous statement. 

3. No it doesn't and no they aren't. Read my other earlier posts as to why this is. 

1. You're not offering much of substance here but switch the words science and religion in your first rant and the opinion is equally valid.
2. You seem to hold the most monolithic and antagonistic views towards the concept of religion and the exact opposite perspective of science.

3. You're calling people stupid for their opinion, yet you seem to think you can accurately categorize religion with one broad condescending brush stroke, which in itself is pretty idiotic ting to do. 

1. Ya...... so I don't know if you realize, but the words can't be switched. So.... umm... that was my point. 
2. Besides the antagonistic view (I'll give you that) I have been discussing science using a "monolithic" view as well, so not completely opposite. But, I am doing this only because this is how the argument was presented to me, but I even stated that science is composed of many different fields. It doesn't invalidate any of my points or validate any of yours if I acknowledge that there are many different religions as well. So what's your point? 

3. I don't mean to call people stupid. I apologize if I said that. I am just strongly disagreeing and providing substantial evidence for my argument. I'm not the one trying to categorize religion into one group and then stating that science fits directly into that group. I'm not making that definition for all religions. I am merely stating that science is NOT a religion by any means. I'm not even discussing multiple/other religions to categorize them together. I'm only speaking about how the fields of science don't fall into anything similar to any religion. Using your argument would lead you to that path of categorizing all religions into one group (defining them as such) and then it makes sense as to why you would be stating that science could fit right into that definition of being a religion. 

 

[mjgreatxii]

Originally Posted by laker4lifeman

Originally Posted by kangaroobombs

Originally Posted by NikeTalker23

I'm sorry but unless you yourself prove everything that science has accepted as how the universe was created, you are believing it based on faith. FAITH.

You sound like an IDIOT right now.

 

[mycoldyourdone]

ermagherd

checkmate atheists

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Yes it is.
The same system of experientially based hypotheses, reflection and imaginative theory is found in both science and religion.

You love bragging about you level of education but your propensity to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal beliefs and life experiences says more about the true level of your acuity than any of your academic braggadocio. 

No, it's not. 
ARE you mother effin kidding me? The same system of experiment based hypothesis are used to validate and prove religion? Name ONE, ONE experimentally based hypothesis from religion, which has been used to test and prove the validity of the religion. 

1. Chill out. You're getting as riled up as a religious extremist, when confronted with opposing ideas. That alone says much about the parallels of religion and science.
2. One of the tenets of Buddhism ( a religious system and philosophy) is the importance of meditation to the development of a structured mind and spirit. Modern science has conclusively found tangible benefits to meditation. And while some in the modern neuropsychological community would like to write that off as a merely physical phenomenon...the bottom line is that this revelation was intuited by a religious society and validated through their lens of spiritual understanding thousands of years before the word science even existed.

Thats just one thing off top.

That's your example of an experimentally based hypothesis which has been used and tested to prove and validate a religion? And, this gives your argument validity in proving science is a religion? 

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

PleasurePhD you're wasting your time with Goldenchild on this topic. If he believes or thinks science and religion is the same thing or that science is a religion then he's wrong and most likely does not know what science is or what it entails AND probably has no idea what goes on with religion when it comes to how they conclude what they believe and the concept of faith.

He could also be trolling you and trying to be vague as hell with each and irrationally rationalize to compare the two and point out "similarities".

PPL who believe science is a religion are a waste of time. Probably trying to create their own religious sect themselves.

Y'all dudes are hilarious.
Do you know that there are world renowned physicists, who are religious and that there is also a whole school of thought, which articulates the interconnectedness of science and religion?

Look up Charles Coulson a Cambridge educated pioneer in quantum theory or Harold Schilling a noted scientist and the former chairman of physics at Penn State. Read their works and then attempt to laugh it off as easily.

[size=+2]CONCERNING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION[/size]

Just look at this thread...you're hollering " don't waste your time trying to convert those silly non-believers " just like a staunch religious zealot would and others are in here pump faking....talking about "I'm scared" & "I KNEW IT!!"...like they have any real grasp of the intimate details or realistic implications of this finding 

 Just like the masses of uninformed religious followers.

It's hilarious man....science is the new religion of the West.

 

[firmeporvida]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by blackxme

Originally Posted by NikeTalker23

I'm sorry but unless you yourself prove everything that science has accepted as how the universe was created, you are believing it based on faith. FAITH.

Science hasn't even come to a conclusion of how the universe has been created, the "Big Bang Theory" is theory that is full of flaws. All it says is that the universe expanded from an infinitely dense point. It doesn't tell us why or how.  Nothing in science is faith based, you either have sound evidence to back up an idea/theory or you don't.

Science is just as faith based as every other human endeavor. 
It is just another manifestation of the most elemental form of human faith; the confidence of what we coin "nature" and in man's ability to understand it.

Science and religion have the equal potentiality to be innocuous or hazardous...because they are essentially one in the same.

Did you really just say that SCIENCE IS FAITH BASED?!!!

 

[wr]

has sillyputy appointed successors?

 

[danikerhino]

Equations prove science is fact and theories is probably and logical.

 

[girlslovewaffles]

Originally Posted by firmePORvida

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by blackxme


Science hasn't even come to a conclusion of how the universe has been created, the "Big Bang Theory" is theory that is full of flaws. All it says is that the universe expanded from an infinitely dense point. It doesn't tell us why or how.  Nothing in science is faith based, you either have sound evidence to back up an idea/theory or you don't.

Science is just as faith based as every other human endeavor. 
It is just another manifestation of the most elemental form of human faith; the confidence of what we coin "nature" and in man's ability to understand it.

Science and religion have the equal potentiality to be innocuous or hazardous...because they are essentially one in the same.

Did you really just say that SCIENCE IS FAITH BASED?!!!

Son, I stopped reading after that statement.

 

[hankmoody]

For people looking for a good science-y podcast, check out Point of Inquiry. I just subscribed to it recently through iTunes and enjoyed the two most recent podcasts. The most recent one concerned a new book's assertion that ignorance drives science. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

PleasurePhD you're wasting your time with Goldenchild on this topic. If he believes or thinks science and religion is the same thing or that science is a religion then he's wrong and most likely does not know what science is or what it entails AND probably has no idea what goes on with religion when it comes to how they conclude what they believe and the concept of faith.

He could also be trolling you and trying to be vague as hell with each and irrationally rationalize to compare the two and point out "similarities".

PPL who believe science is a religion are a waste of time. Probably trying to create their own religious sect themselves.

Y'all dudes are hilarious.
Do you know that there are world renowned physicists, who are religious and that there is also a whole school of thought, which articulates the interconnectedness of science and religion?

Look up Charles Coulson a Cambridge educated pioneer in quantum theory or Harold Schilling a noted scientist and the former chairman of physics at Penn State. Read their works and then attempt to laugh it off as easily.

[size=+2]CONCERNING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION[/size]

Just look at this thread...you're hollering " don't waste your time trying to convert those silly non-believers " just like a staunch religious zealot would and others are in here pump faking....talking about "I'm scared" & "I KNEW IT!!"...like they have any real grasp of the intimate details or realistic implications of this finding 

 Just like the masses of uninformed religious followers.

It's hilarious man....science is the new religion of the West.

What you're arguing doesn't even have anything to do with non-believers or conversion. I'm saying not to waste time on ppl who think like you do because your argument is fundamentally flawed, it is unreasonable, and logically unsound. You can not see it, I don't really think anyone should take the time to MAKE you see it and show you why you're wrong.

Saying science is a religion is wrong. Not subjectively wrong. Objectively wrong.

Now you're just coming with poor straw men arguments about science being the "new" religion and all these ppl saying you're wrong are no better than religious extremists/fundamentalists

You're so transparent right now. Your argument does not have a leg to stand on so you deflect and contort so things can fit your skewed viewpoint. Going on unnecessary tangents without establishing any support to your argument other than the widespread general similarities amongst other institutions where your claim can also be asserted or the vague commonalities you're latched on to since you believe what you're saying to be true.

Buddhists meditating which leads to some scientists discovering it's good for you and that some other scientists might not agree is not an argument that science is a religion. That's just a bunch of horse +@%$ you're throwing in to your post. It's like you can't even grasp the side of the argument you're on and what it will take for you to have a legitimate case to prove this as a fact. All I see from you is another unfounded, baseless, belief with no evidence supporting it other than your uninformed and/or uneducated opinion on the matter.

 

[goldenchild9]

First of all....

I wasn't attempting to prove that science is a religion by citing the importance of meditation to Buddhist philosophy or by pointing to the responses in this thread.

i was asked to cite a religious hypothesis which was validated through experimentation, hence validating the existence of that religion...I clearly showed that.

And what scientist is going to argue with the fact that the pruning of synaptic connections, normally done during sleep cycles but can be replicated through mediation, is essential to clear thinking? Stop talking out your behind.

I clearly responded to the question asked of me by PleasurePhD.

Now if you would like some insight into why science is a religion, I can provide that as well...

 

[mycoldyourdone]

oh lawd yall toastin some roll bread

 

[atlien seeko]

This is amazing. I cant wait to read up on it. Thanks for the heads up. Been waiting on this...

 

[gry60]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Science is a religion.

No, it is not. 

^^ See how great my 4 word post was? Really contributes to the DISCUSSION board, doesn't it. 

And, you know what, fine FINE you guys wanna call it a religion? 

FINE, then ALLLLLLLL of you who talk smack about it, guess what? You are part of this bat $#!% crazy religion called science. You know how? You are living in the 21st century taking advantage of ALL that science has offered you. From even before you were born the "science religion" has been used for your benefit. 

Sonograms when you were in mom's tummy, epidural shot for her when giving birth to you, pasteurization of your baby foods, vaccinations when you were growing up, clothes on your back, clean running water, the car you drive, the computer you use, the wireless internet you are on, the medicine which will save your life later when you're old and get a heart attack the inevitable day science discovers the origins of the universe. 

You might think it takes blind faith, but if you look all around you, and at yourself, YOU are living proof of and validation of it's hypotheses and theories. 

Yes it is.
The same system of experientially based hypotheses, reflection and imaginative theory is found in both science and religion.

You love bragging about you level of education but your propensity to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal beliefs and life experiences says more about the true level of your acuity than any of your academic braggadocio. 

That's not the scientific method.
Hypotheses are not based on experiments; they're formulated after observation of phenomena happening in nature. Experimentation is the step in which you verify the validity of your hypothesis.
Theory is not imaginative: hypothesis is. Theory is a statement that explains the phenomenon based on the empirical evidence provided by the experiment. When the evidence is missing (i.e if it's impossible to conduct experiments) but there's no proof that the hypothesis might be wrong, the statement is called Law, and it remains applicable as long as we can't find something in nature that violates it (look up classical vs relativistic physics).

With that said, science IS NOT a religion because its very nature goes against dogmatic thinking. It does not pretend to know everything and it's possible to challenge every single theory or law provided that the accompanying evidence is compelling enough. Science rewrites itself everyday; religion, not so much.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

All I see from you is another unfounded, baseless, belief with no evidence supporting it other than your uninformed and/or uneducated opinion on the matter.

Word?
All of these tough words...

So then, lets get to the core of this, since you are obviously so much more knowledgeable than me (and evidently the Ivy league educated physicists, whose dissertations you laugh off)...tell me, what is a religion?

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by Gry60

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD



No, it is not. 

^^ See how great my 4 word post was? Really contributes to the DISCUSSION board, doesn't it. 

And, you know what, fine FINE you guys wanna call it a religion? 

FINE, then ALLLLLLLL of you who talk smack about it, guess what? You are part of this bat $#!% crazy religion called science. You know how? You are living in the 21st century taking advantage of ALL that science has offered you. From even before you were born the "science religion" has been used for your benefit. 

Sonograms when you were in mom's tummy, epidural shot for her when giving birth to you, pasteurization of your baby foods, vaccinations when you were growing up, clothes on your back, clean running water, the car you drive, the computer you use, the wireless internet you are on, the medicine which will save your life later when you're old and get a heart attack the inevitable day science discovers the origins of the universe. 

You might think it takes blind faith, but if you look all around you, and at yourself, YOU are living proof of and validation of it's hypotheses and theories. 

Yes it is.
The same system of experientially based hypotheses, reflection and imaginative theory is found in both science and religion.

You love bragging about you level of education but your propensity to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal beliefs and life experiences says more about the true level of your acuity than any of your academic braggadocio. 

That's not the scientific method.
Hypotheses are not based on experiments; they're formulated after observation of phenomena happening in nature. Experimentation is the step in which you verify the validity of your hypothesis.



Theory is not imaginative: hypothesis is. Theory is a statement that explains the phenomenon based on the empirical evidence provided by the experiment. When the evidence is missing (i.e if it's impossible to conduct experiments) but there's no proof that the hypothesis might be wrong, the statement is called Law, and it remains applicable as long as we can't find something in nature that violates it (look up classical vs relativistic physics).




With that said, science IS NOT a religion because its very nature goes against dogmatic thinking. It does not pretend to know everything and it's possible to challenge every single theory or law provided that the accompanying evidence is compelling enough. Science rewrites itself everyday; religion, not so much.

LOL
Experience =/= Experiment

I said experientially, not experimentally.

 

[atlien seeko]

Ok, from the article alone, I'm underwhelmed. I think this is just a way for them to keep studying. They have to prove something to keep getting funded.

I'll keep reading.