Religion

rrneck

(17,671 posts)

3. The technology is wonderful.

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 11:45 AM

Aug 2012

I especially like its elegant simplicity. But it's not a panacea.

Before anything can happen technologically, a lot has to happen emotionally. Technology can't really replace faith in something, whether it's God, ourselves, or the technology that allows someone to walk without legs.

You have to believe you can survive a life mutilated. You have to believe you can overcome the pain and difficulty of using the prosthetics. You have to believe.

There are those who profit from that most basic of human impulses. But that doesn't invalidate the value of faith. It could be that the only thing that can do that is having it and not acting on it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where god fails, science succeeds [View all] cleanhippie Aug 2012 OP

And this photo is supposed to demonstrate what? Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #1

The title of the thread? Buzz Clik Aug 2012 #126

How? Be specific Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #131

Any reason to slam religious belief. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #2

The technology is wonderful. rrneck Aug 2012 #3

Faith in one's ability to overcome is one thing, faith in a supernatural entity is another. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #5

One's ability to overcome may or may not be there, rrneck Aug 2012 #6

I do not disagree. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #7

Thanks. Same here. nt rrneck Aug 2012 #8

In fact, while I am sure he is grateful for the technology, he attributes much of his cbayer Aug 2012 #18

I am, in the most technical sense possible, rrneck Aug 2012 #19

I knew a kid in New Orleans who had an amputation due to cancer. cbayer Aug 2012 #20

When I was in the ER I asked the doc if I would be able to play the guitar. rrneck Aug 2012 #23

The question is, had the ER doctor heard it before. Hilarious! cbayer Aug 2012 #24

He just looked at me. It was a tough room. rrneck Aug 2012 #25

Something that does not exist can't fail... rexcat Aug 2012 #4

I guess that would depend on what one considers as evidence, humblebum Aug 2012 #9

And what would you consider "evidence"? rexcat Aug 2012 #10

You need to have "other ways of knowing" abilities. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #11

cleanhippie, is right. It does involve "other ways of knowing" - something humblebum Aug 2012 #12

! cleanhippie Aug 2012 #13

? rexcat Aug 2012 #14

I expected nothing less, but humblebum Aug 2012 #15

You have it completely wrong... rexcat Aug 2012 #21

But the rationale employed in looking for your rational explanation is humblebum Aug 2012 #22

That it has a physical explanation is a narrow set? Confusious Aug 2012 #27

I think you just validated my point. The statement "physical explanation" narrows humblebum Aug 2012 #28

Limited is usually bad Confusious Aug 2012 #29

"otherwise you're treating things that are not real as if they are" - and humblebum Aug 2012 #30

I guess you could call it a trap Confusious Aug 2012 #101

"You prove real by testing" - No, you can prove "your" reality by "your" tests. humblebum Aug 2012 #102

I thought we all lived in the same reality Confusious Aug 2012 #103

Do we all live in the same reality? cbayer Aug 2012 #104

Physical reality Confusious Aug 2012 #105

Sorry for jumping in here, but I found your statement intriguing. cbayer Aug 2012 #106

Thats what I said nt Confusious Aug 2012 #107

Yes, we all live in the same reality. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #132

It is easy for you to say what is "real" and what is not. And humblebum Aug 2012 #108

No actually it wasn't easy Confusious Aug 2012 #109

"The onerous is not on me to prove they exist" - no one said that it was, but as I have already said humblebum Aug 2012 #110

Well you got that wrong Confusious Aug 2012 #111

You still don't seem to have a grip on what you are talking about. humblebum Aug 2012 #112

Oh brother Confusious Aug 2012 #113

You are just kinda "out there" aren't you? humblebum Aug 2012 #114

Not even an obvious on spoon bending? Confusious Aug 2012 #115

When you use the term "obvious" - that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion. You still humblebum Aug 2012 #116

If you can't even agree that a spoon is a physical object, Confusious Aug 2012 #117

Who said a spoon is not a physical object? You referred to "spoon bending." Not humblebum Aug 2012 #118

Well then "spoon bending" is "action" Confusious Aug 2012 #119

You still do not have a clue what you are talking about. No one said that your so called humblebum Aug 2012 #122

you said "prove it" Confusious Aug 2012 #129

You still don't have a clue. Do you even have the least idea of what humblebum Aug 2012 #130

sheesh. Do you even read? Confusious Aug 2012 #134

You are debating against the Scientific Method, not me. Even well-known humblebum Aug 2012 #135

Figures Confusious Aug 2012 #136

Well you would get the same reply from Hawking. And I don't think humblebum Aug 2012 #137

Definitely dementia Confusious Aug 2012 #138

I should have guessed. Even your name is pretty close to confusion. humblebum Aug 2012 #139

No. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #80

If one uses the very narrow epistemology designed specifically for application humblebum Aug 2012 #81

There you go, then. You are correct. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #88

It is obvious to me that you do not have a clue. And I will humblebum Aug 2012 #89

If you find one Shadowflash Aug 2012 #90

Take a look in the mirror. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #91

Ha! Shadowflash Aug 2012 #93

You just keep on proving my point. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #95

Sure. If you say so. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #96

And on and on and on... humblebum Aug 2012 #99

You must never shake your head, then skepticscott Aug 2012 #31

You have never quite figured out the true meaning of empiricism, have you? humblebum Aug 2012 #33

And where have I ever made the claim that there was humblebum Aug 2012 #34

No that's YOUR dishonest projection onto other people skepticscott Aug 2012 #39

It must be just me and the text books that have it wrong. They are humblebum Aug 2012 #57

You know there are more than 5 senses right. Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #59

I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before. But, humblebum Aug 2012 #60

And you are saying this as a scientist Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #61

My sense of D�j� vu must be working overtime today. Or maybe humblebum Aug 2012 #64

Yeah, we've had this conversation before Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #65

As do you. Regardless the definition and process of empiricism remain the same. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #66

Penn Jillette said essentially that Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #74

Most self-identified "agnostics" skepticscott Aug 2012 #77

Penn Jillette has also said "I know there is no God." nt humblebum Aug 2012 #92

In the context of this thread, ... Buzz Clik Aug 2012 #127

If by "scientific evidence" you mean empirical, objective evidence, nowhere humblebum Aug 2012 #128

Only a God would be capable of the absolute conclusion you make. Not even Science engages in such patrice Aug 2012 #52

What is your point? rexcat Aug 2012 #55

For the record, Pisotrius is a dedicated Christian cbayer Aug 2012 #16

"more or less before I could remember" Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #17

Thanks for this post. It is a tribute to the human spirit. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #26

Saying you have no idea skepticscott Aug 2012 #32

Science had everything to with it... rexcat Aug 2012 #35

Pistorius disagrees with you. cbayer Aug 2012 #36

Reality disagrees with him. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #38

And I suppose you spoke to him about this... rexcat Aug 2012 #40

See post 16 cbayer Aug 2012 #41

You did not answer my questions. rexcat Aug 2012 #42

Take it up with Oscar, rexcat. cbayer Aug 2012 #44

See post 42... rexcat Aug 2012 #46

No, he speaks for himself. cbayer Aug 2012 #47

Strange, I have not seen any posts here from him... rexcat Aug 2012 #48

Yeah, the reporter he spoke with probably just made those quotes up. cbayer Aug 2012 #49

My point... rexcat Aug 2012 #50

I see now that you are actually serious. See you around the campfire, cbayer Aug 2012 #51

I have seen from you... rexcat Aug 2012 #53

Yep, just more blatant hypocrisy. It's to be expected. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #70

Of course I did not come out and say... rexcat Aug 2012 #87

Dupe cbayer Aug 2012 #45

Nor god nor science, but the amazing human spirit. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #37

I do believe that the prosthetics were.... rexcat Aug 2012 #43

So what. I'm sure the others' shoes were too. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #56

Thanks for being snarky... rexcat Aug 2012 #85

...and where does that "amazing human" spirit comes from? demosincebirth Aug 2012 #54

It comes from within. Some call it heart, some call it soul. A place beyond the physical reality. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #58

How wise and all-knowing you must be skepticscott Aug 2012 #67

Even you, my friend, probably have a soul. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #69

"Life doesn't have to be all about bitterness and resentment. " cleanhippie Aug 2012 #72

That's hilarious! onager Aug 2012 #79

No more than simply asserting skepticscott Aug 2012 #76

I say that humans have no soul... rexcat Aug 2012 #86

You may be the exception. I can't speak for everyone. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #97

Oh please... rexcat Aug 2012 #120

Begging doesn't really help. Sorry. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #123

I don't see where I begged... rexcat Aug 2012 #125

I never mentioned religion, but reading your post you sound more like a spiritual person demosincebirth Aug 2012 #68

"But all of us are living proof of it's existence." cleanhippie Aug 2012 #71

Hello, little scurrier. Even you, yes you, have a soul. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #73

And good morning to you, passive-aggressive pontificator. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #75

You know what's really sad? skepticscott Aug 2012 #78

It makes perfect sense when you put his "bitter and resentful" comment into context. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #82

"A first year psych student could see where that comes from." Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #83

The visiting pastor comes up to the old farmer working in his cornfield. dimbear Aug 2012 #62

Excellent. I like that, dimbear. cbayer Aug 2012 #63

Now that is funny. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #84

Not the best way to make a point. rug Aug 2012 #94

Incredibly weak, even by your standards onager Aug 2012 #98

Let me see . . . . rug Aug 2012 #100

What? No more argumentum ad photographum? onager Aug 2012 #133

You mean like the argument in the OP? rug Aug 2012 #140

What standards? rexcat Aug 2012 #121

Next time you edit, it's "too". rug Aug 2012 #124