A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded.
A note on spelling: A number of people have commented that 'close-minded' should be spelt 'closeD-minded'. This is incorrect. It's one of those cases in English where what you might suspect to be the case, isn't. The term is 'close-minded', in the same way that when one is reticent, one is said to be 'close-mouthed', not 'closeD-mouthed'.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
oh god. you make me sick when you face the stupidity of gods and humans like science. go to hell all of you. you still believe in gods? ax0xa00xa0axx0axa0. people of books and of technology.
Thanks Squeege, appreciate the respectful reply. Let me ask you this: Does science disprove the existence of a God? (And yes, I realize (a) your likely answer is "no" (b) that this answer does not undermine the validity of science (c) that this inability, if it exists, is likely due to the subjectively human quality you name and (c) that this inability can't be presumed as "proof of existence" either.
(ran out of room...) Point being, there are many who are exceptional scientists and still religious. Some who even believe science will, eventually, close that gap of evidence between the tangible and the divine. On the other hand, make no mistake -- I've studied Bacon and Descartes, have a grad degree in philosophy, etc. and get/agree with the objective/subjective distinction. Not sure all of sciences adherents do, though.
I'm not sure if you are leading me on into something, but your responses are all just about exactly how I feel, including the inability to prove or disprove a deity of any kind. Some say therefore religion and mysticism have no place in science for that very reason. As for religion and science co-existing, I hope you are correct. I truly believe we as people should come together to discuss things rather than deepen the rifts of hate. People are never going to agree with others 100%, but we are..
..humans, And we all share this earth together. cooperation can bring about amazing, wonderful advancements, while fighting accomplishes nothing, and only hardens the resolve of either side against one another. Damn, I sound like a hippie tree hugger.
I would say that the people who have a belief in a god and still "accept" the power of science, are the same people who pick and chose what is fact and disregard what is not compatible with their god. As for the close-minded science-minded people, science is objective, but it subjectively may not be able to explain everything. That is the human aspect of science, not the objective nature of it. It is an extreme belief at one end of the spectrum.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
who is that directed at?