213374U

No. You see, math are built upon a framework called logic. Logic is a man-made abstract construct that obeys a few simple and well defined rules, which are not principles or postulates, but just instructions. As such, they don't need to be true from a transcendental standpoint (it wouldn't make sense), they just need to be clear. Since mathematics follow those rules, mathematics are always true within the logic framework they operate in. But it turns out that outside that framework, they are not only baseless, but also meaningless. And since they are fundamentally abstract, their relation with anything meaningful in the "real" world is not immediate and must be drawn by science. Mathematics are just a tool, they don't have a "sense" which you can discuss. They just are. And the reason this is that way is because we have defined them that way. The same reasoning goes for science, only their framework is the physical world. If you try to apply them outside of it, they don't make sense. It is reasonable to think that since we didn't define the physical reality, science, being a human tool to rationalize it, is not as accurate as mathematics.

No, not mathematics. Mathematics are a self-contained parcel of certainty. As he said, they just are.

Hold on, I'm not done yet. I don't think that any movies made me cry. Bambi perhaps, but I was just a little kid back then...

Agreed. However, it is undeniable that science works within the parameters it's confined to. Those parameters are nothing more than the physical reality we live in. It is not absurd to think that in time those parameters may be expanded, though. However, as things are now, I don't see how that would trascend to explaining other things such as those which philosophy or religion seek to "explain". That is not what I meant. And yes, people who try to take scientific approaches to that sort of transcendental stuff are just followers of another belief. That's what I meant when I said that I don't see why you would want to go and prove stuff in religion. Religion and science are not opposite words as some people seem to think. That doesn't preclude the fact that some outdated dogmas have been rendered obsolete by the advances of science. @WITHTEETH: Fair enough. That was just an example. As I said, I know nothing about it.

Fix'd.

You should do something about that unhealthy urge of yours to spam to death every thread in the boards...

I don't think it's the same. You don't believe in science. You are convinced of its validity by overwhelming evidence which is predicted through logical reasoning and mathematics. Okay, I admit it. I know nothing about string theory. But it seems to be a solid theory in that most of the scientific community accepts it. You may compare this to any believer swallowing what their local guru tells them, but nothing stops me from going and studying string theory, and if I can, proving it false. You can't really do the same with religion. I don't see why you would want to, anyway.

He reminds me of someone... "

Well, I'm certainly no Einstein, but since I can make use of the quote function several times in a single reply without the need to SPAM the forums with several posts in order to reply to a single post, while you seem unable to do the same, I am obviously closer to him than you. ) To someone with an intelligence as limited as yours, perhaps. But replying to each statement in an orderly, quoted, non-SPAMming manner, makes for tidy, easier to follow posts. And it keeps the boards cleaner. You see, if someone just didn't want to read the crap you call posts, they would just have to skip ONE post. But the way you do it, they have to skip half the page. Don't you dare question the POWARH of phrenology!

Not that you would ever do that, of course. "

I guess the ability to quote multiple posts in a single reply is also a measure of intelligence. "

"Also, it's a proven fact that Catholics have a substantially smaller cranium, which obviously leads to the conclusion that they are an inferior race."

Well, the key here is that your opinion is yours. You may have been more or less influenced by the media, political currents, or whatever, but you are supposedly allowed a certain degree of critical thought. Religion (organized religion, that is) on the other hand, does not regard critical thought very highly. People are told to accept certain things, which depend on which religion we are talking about, just because they are dogmas. You don't dissect a dogma and subject it to critical analysis, because it has been given to you by God (or the Pope with his Holy Infallibility) and thus, it's fundamentally right. True faith is like giving the Pope (or whoever is in charge) admin privileges to your mind. That is the risk. Of course, not everyone allows religion to dictate their every action, fortunately.

Well, at best, religion is based on an indemonstrable premise. It is, obviously, a matter of choice, a matter of belief or faith, if you will. Therefore they may or may not be valid for everyone. If anyone refuses to accept the premise of religion, the whole moral system crumbles. However, philosophical theories that deal with moral issues, specifically those that address the "moral minimums" are somewhat solider in that they stem from formal reasoning. It's not so easy to dismiss them, unless you want to assume a relativist stance. We could do that, and I reckon it's a valid approach, but it's not a very efficient or fruitful one, as I'm sure you will agree.

Yeah, I know what you mean. After all, it's fashionable to be a hater. And if you hate religion, you are usually regarded as "cool", even if you don't have the slightest idea why you hate it. I see a lot of people like that, and I can only feel pity for them, for they are just a different brand of fanatics. More civilized, perhaps, but fanatics anyway. And I don't give a flying f*ck if I sound arrogant. ) You tell that to the millions of Polish that flooded Rome for a last goodbye to the late John Paul II. Or to the North American christian fanatics that are against any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. Or to the palestinian kamikazes. Yeah, religion is nothing today. And who said anything about banning religion? Tobacco kills arguably many more people yearly, and I don't think it should be banned. Don't place words in my mouth.

No, it isn't. Religion is something you choose, while morality is something that, in the unlikely case that you lack it, is imposed on you by law. Perhaps in the past it was religion that inspired some philosophers and pointed them in the right direction regarding moral issues, but today, organized religion is nothing but a tool for control of the masses, and an obstacle in the way of social progress. At the very least, I think we can all agree that organized religion does more harm than good.

That's pretty much it. In our societies first we became "enlightened", and then we began experimenting with democratic formulas that stripped the Church, nobility and monarchy of their power. I don't know if doing it the other way around as they are doing it in Iraq will guarantee their maturing as a society. I hope it does, but only time will tell.

DUDE. Where is Postal? "

Yeah, only SW is not sci-fi.

Um, no. Sunni arabs and Kurds make up only for about 30 or 40 percent of the Iraqi population. The rest are Shiites.

Eh, IIRC, the participation on the Iraqi election was ~60%. Not bad considering the risk that voting involved and the fact that the elections were sponsored by an occupying power. Check the figures on the referendums for the European Constitution in some places for comparison. And sorry, but there is no excuse for terrorism. Much less this terrorism. It is believed that most of the terrorist attacks are planned and executed by sunni groups that, having lost their preeminent position as the dominant ethnia (Saddam himself was sunni and greatly oppressed the other groups), are just trying to cause unstability. It really has nothing to do with the democratic process.

Have you guys tried The Chronicles of Riddick? I don't know if the game had an engine specifically designed for it, but it looks pretty similar to D3, only it runs much more smoothly. It's no wonder since it's supposed to be an Xbox game. Any thoughts?