Bill Hicks said it better.
I decided to quote myself, instead, but please link to whatever it is he had to say on the subject.
So if you believe in some sort of life force, why not call it snargleblazz or something? The term God is already taken, and while different people mean different things by it, God is usually intelligent, and some god in the pantheon created the universe. Calling your woo god does nothing but gives your nonsense some initial credence from the unwashed that it does not deserve.
Also origin of the term “Holy Mackerel!”
Snappy!
Ideally, each subject would have two amputated limbs; one would be the target of the prayers. The other would be a control arm.
Of course religions can change. I’m currently reading a book on the history of the Reformation. Some very big changes occurred.
Religions, almost by definition, rely upon supernatural explanations for events, and that, almost by definition, fails to be scientific. You can choose one or the other, but you can’t have both.
In 4,000 B.C., maybe. Today, no.
Man, that could get expensive: it would cost …
Well, yeah. But on the other hand…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19625848
[QUOTE=Bill Hicks]
Lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna want to see a [beep]ing cross, man? “Ohhh!” May be why he hasn’t shown up yet. “Man, they’re still wearing crosses. [beep] it, I’m not goin’, Dad. No, they totally missed the point. When they start wearing fishes I might show up again, but … Let me bury fossil heads with you, Dad. [beep] ’em … Let’s [beep] with them! They’re [beep]in’ with me now, let’s get ’em. Give me that brontosaurus head, Dad.”
You know, kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know. “Thinkin’ of John, Jackie. We love him. Just tryin’ to keep that memory alive, baby.”
[/QUOTE]
I always loved Jon Stewart’s on-the-outside-looking-in puzzlement; something about, what, did Jesus explain that he was going to die? Though you should fear not, for I shall return to comfort you lo that very Sunday; but I say unto you, if I see even one egg, then I’m gone. No, all kidding aside: I hate eggs; paint them so they don’t even look like eggs any more, and then hide them all. If, in years to come, you remember nothing else of me and my teachings, recall always that I despised eggs.
Scientists hold dear, and extrapolate off of, far more than they can reproduce by experiment. I can’t make and observe a Big Bang, do you know someone who has?
I’m on your side, I’m just saying…
If you think that if you can’t make it or observe it, it isn’t “Science”, then you have a very limited understanding of the term.
Grin! Valid point. It’s not all “reproducible.” (And some of the results that are reproducible would be impossible for small, independent researchers. Like finding the Higgs boson. The physics department at San Diego City College isn’t gonna be duplicating CERN’s results any time soon!)
I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say that then.
What needs to be reproducible is not the hypothesis, it is the observation.
Scientists, as we speak are reproducing the conditions of the early universe and testing their hypothesis regarding the periods immediatly after the “big bang”.
If you mean we cannot run back time and re-start the universe then you may be correct but scientists are not extrapolating from a mere idea or a comforting thought or a poetic phrase. They are using observations, maths and physics to check if they are right and modifying their hypothesis accordingly.
Science works backwards from what we see to understand the underlying causes.
Religions declares a supernatural cause by fiat and retrofits everything in the world to that.
Reproducible does not mean any guy with a lab in the basement can reproduce it, it just means that enough information is given about the procedure that anyone who wants to reproduce it - with enough money - can. And that subsequent runs will turn up the effect also. Look at cold fusion - Pons and Fleishmann correctly gave enough information for their experiment to be reproduced - and the results refuted.
99.5% of all results (probably) never get reproduced because no one cases enough to do so.