Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cabby on March 28, 2001, 05:22:00 PM
-
Just caught a few minutes on TV of the conference on human cloning(didn't catch the hi-falutin' official title)and some pony-tailed, bearded "geek"(in other words, he looked like a prototypical Leftist-Liberal) i assume was a geneticist, was expounding on the virtues of un-restricted scientific pursuit of human cloning. I didn't catch the buffoon's name.
He regaled his audience with statements such as :
"Religion has always been the enemy of Science"(partly true, but "always"??? BS).
"Science should be free of Religion and Science ITSELF should be the Religion"(revealing statement there, to say the least).
"Religion has killed millions while Science has SAVED millions(or words to that effect)".
This "scientist" is an ignorant ass.
While it is certainly true millions have died in the name of Religion, i wonder if this jerk is aware it's SCIENCE(and Technology)that gave the human race the thermo-nuclear bomb, napalm, the machine-gun, and many other interesting methods of burning, enviscerating, and poisoning of our fellow human beings.
This idiot thinks "True Science" is absent of any form of Ethics or Morality. Apparently this guy is ignorant of Einstein and other great Scientists of note. Not only that, this geek obviously missed many of the great Sci-Fi literature and cinema of the past 100 years whose plots were based on the Science vs. Ethics question. As in "Frankenstein", for starters.
"Pure" Science is great, but without ethics and morality, Science becomes just another agent of bitter oppression and an engine of death.
That "scientist" should have been run-off the podium.
Cabby
-
Yep the only difference between a lot of "scientific" people and religious people is the institution in which they have placed their blind unquestioning faith.
-
Religion doesnt kill people.
intolerance does.
The fact that there are more intolerant religious people than scientifics, doesnt hide that there are BOTH intolerant scientifics and believers.
you might say that religious intolerance was only in Inquisition days...Granted, go to afghanistan and try to convince them about genetics, and human evolution. I wont bet you would stay alive for more than 2 hours. In fact I would be surprised if you last so long.
+
While it is certainly true millions have died in the name of Religion, i wonder if this jerk is aware it's SCIENCE(and Technology)that gave the human race the thermo-nuclear bomb, napalm, the machine-gun, and many other interesting methods of burning, enviscerating, and poisoning of our fellow human beings.
It gave us, too, electricity, calefaction, houses, cars, computers, radio, TV, radiologic treatments for cancer, Plastic, Medicaments, etc etc etc.
Two sided blade here. The atomic bomb was a nasty thing, but the peaceful results of the atomic research are not. Genetics can save lots of lifes even before being borne,but also can bring us the human clonation era, and the "Doctor, design a perfect kid for me&my wife".
The fact that the science has produced so much deadly things cannot be blamed on science itself. But on the humans who use it.
(posted by a deep believer).
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-28-2001).]
-
If it's religion vs science in a "who killed the most" contest, it's not even close. Religion has had a long head start, and hasn't slowed down. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
bowser
-
Golly-geemit, I actually agree with Cabby.
I'm too far left to consider myself a Liberal Cabby, but I'll say this:
"Religion has always been the enemy of Science."
I try to do history for a living. One of my research fields is history of science. That statement is the biggest crock of toejam the 19th century ever dumped on Western culture (and the 19th C has dumped many crocks of toejam on Western culture). And surprise, it all came out of morons on both sides of the Darwinism debate.
The whole "history" of Religion being the enemy of Science is a fabrication of this debate. Columbus's contemporaries all new the world was spherical; in fact, they had a far better idea of its true circumference than Mr. "Let's just sail 3000 miles W of Spain and hit JApan" Moron. Galileo wasn't imprisoned for saying the truth; he was imprisoned for repeatedly making an bellybutton of himself and asserting as true what he could not prove. And the list goes on.
Iff you equate "Religion" with the extreme-right reactionary, bible-beating morons who try to apply a literal interpretation of the King James Version of the Bible to the scientific phenomena, then yes, Religion is the enemy of Science, and has been for, at most, 150 years.
Religion doesn't kill. People do, and with technology they do it really well.
Religions often serve as a method of distinguishing one's own group from others, and therefore justifying wars, but the belief in God alone doesn't do it. I'd argue for some basic anthropological forces that get expressed in religion.
Now, I disagree about everything else Cabby says.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-28-2001).]
-
In this aspect of things I agree with Cabby.
That scientist sure as heck wasn't ignorant. But he was a BIG ass. Being smart doesnt neccesarily make you wise.
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Religion doesnt kill people.
intolerance does.
The fact that there are more intolerant religious people than scientifics, doesnt hide that there are BOTH intolerant scientifics and believers.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-28-2001).]
Good post RAM, but I gotta ask the crowd, Why should us "religous" people..(i dont like the word religion, that is too big a bowl to put us in, I am a believer in Jesus Christ as the savior of all those who will believe) be tolerant, God is certainly not tolerant of sin? God abhors sin, cannot allow it into heaven. While I dont think that we oughta go out and kill folks over it, I certainly dont have to accept their sinful lifestyle as just another way of life..that is OK because its only fair. Balogna. I belive in an objective truth, not a subjective one.
ammo
-
'cos you ain't God, nor should you even pretend to be, that's why. It's His job to judge. The fact that you live surrounded by what you see as sin doesn't mean you have the right to persecute them; you make neither yourself nor the "sinner" a better person. Nor should the preponderance of sin in society blind you make you ignore the fact that you too, are unworthy of God's grace.
You may believe in an objective truth, but the Truth you hold is one you believe, and you will not know until later.
That's why.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-28-2001).]
-
Dinger: There is a big difference between "not accepting" a person's behavior and "persecuting" that person.
Just because my brother does something bad, it doesn't mean I shouldn't love him. But just because I love him, it doesn't mean I shouldn't try to help him change his behavior for the better.
As long as that distinction is clear, I agree 100%.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-28-2001).]
-
I have to agree with Cabby. Religion is not a bad thing, nor is science. They have collided from time to time, but only because they ask the same basic questions: who am I? What is all this? But religion and science have cooperated tremendously as well. Just look at the Islamic world from about 900-1200AD.
That scientist was a disgrace to his profession.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
'cos you ain't God, nor should you even pretend to be, that's why. It's His job to judge. The fact that you live surrounded by what you see as sin doesn't mean you have the right to persecute them; you make neither yourself nor the "sinner" a better person. Nor should the preponderance of sin in society blind you make you ignore the fact that you too, are unworthy of God's grace.
You may believe in an objective truth, but the Truth you hold is one you believe, and you will not know until later.
That's why.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-28-2001).]
well I assure you that I knwo what i am, a simple man, sinner but saved by grace. I have no thoughts of myself being even remotely close to being what God is in Deity. I certainly do not judge, but I can tell a person by his actions, certainly a liar is a liar, and a murderer is a murderer, I ditn judge them but I for sure know what they are, and do not have to accept them either.
"The fact that you live surrounded by what you see as sin doesn't mean you have the right to persecute them; you make neither yourself nor the "sinner" a better person."
What I see as sin? I use the Bible as the ultimate in truth. I dont need to make up definitions for sin...it is spelled out pretty well. And persecute? I do nothing of the sort, but I certainly will not offer praise or acceptance for their lifestyles. I can offer a way out and lead them to a savingf knowledge of Christ but that is all.. Persecution? I dont think so. But I will not say joe "having an adultrous relationship" is OK..He just looks at life differently, he lives a fast paced "feel good" lifestyle and hes no worse than me.. The bible calls that sin sir and so do I. I am not picking on any one in particular, just used them as an example. So am I tolerant of sin..No way, No how, not in my household or my little realm.
I consider myself only a simple Man, striving to be a good Godly example for my Boys. I live day to day Relying on God to guide me. Not my own strength, but His.
-
Truth?
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I also know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Now I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Then, Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
A friend of mine also feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? And Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Okay.. which part is truth again?
-
Sounds stupid but no way around it guys:
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
Whether they missuse religion or science it doesnt matter, ultimatly it happends because a person makes a decision. Religion and science are just implemets of human society, just big symbolic tools.
-
Heheheeh, ok, I shall find the most rabid ranting religious nutter (might already ahve him right here!) I know, then make him the poster boy of religion, and from this, I'll deduct that ALL religious people must be exactly like this dude.
Nice try Cabby, but obviously utterly flawed.
If we talk about science on a broad scale, it must be said that it has been hampered back to the days of Galileo Galilei) by religion, since it has moved in on the turf covered by religion (and previously mentioned religious nutters (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)).
But his statement is overly broad, and this chap is oblivious to the history of science. indeed, many of the early scientists were religious.
Science is a methodology, not a religion. This dude is just a love muffin, no biggie.
Regarding technology, scientists develop the technology. Politicians use it. Those of you in favour of having the right to own a gun should know the argument of "guns don't kill people" and that is essentially what we have here. And science, or the spinoffs hereof, have enabled us to live past 35, deal with diseases and do lots of stuff that was unthinkable a mere 200 years ago.
I think there are very very few scentists who do not think science should have ethical and moral considerations included.
This chap is just a dweeb. probably just some lab technician working for one of those places that help people get babies to the world.
He is saying what he's saying just to piss religious people off, and hiding behind his labcoat.
Yep the only difference between a lot of "scientific" people and religious people is the institution in which they have placed
their blind unquestioning faith.
Now funked, I didn't expect it from someone as educated as you.
The scientific methodology differs radically from the any religion. And it's not faith based. Anyone with a decent understanding of the scientific methodology would know it is just that - a set of methods put together to accomplish something. Saying that science and religion require the same level of faith is a bit disturbing I think - for one, for a scientist the only thing almost as good as coming up with a new theory is destroying an old one. And as time has shown, once new data enters, old theories that do not match them are reevaluated and might be dropped entirely. With religious dogma, this is very rare indeed.
Christianity, for instance is founded on faith. In some sects or variants, if there were proof on the existane of god, it should not be mentioned or even dealt with; because the *faith* in God is what matters.
This differs drastically to the scientific methdology.
Just for fun, take a look what the devil's dictionary has to say about faith:
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) :
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In short, one love muffin unidentified "scientist" making inflammatory statements that are wrong. but please, feel to state that this is how every scientist is based on this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
If you do, I have some very nice examples of religious people you ought to see (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Sorry Santa, but you don't understand science too well. It may work as you say the ideal case, but in practice we can not personally verify every "fact" upon which the assumptions for our own work are based. In order to get anything done, practicing scientists have to accept some things without proof, with the blind faith that others have honestly and correctly confirmed that theory and experiment agree. In most modern fields of science, there is simply too much information for things to be done any other way. For us to verify every "fact" that we base our work on, would take a lifetime and then some.
-
Originally posted by funked:
Sorry Santa, but you don't understand science too well. It may work as you say the ideal case, but in practice we can not personally verify every "fact" upon which the assumptions for our own work are based. In order to get anything done, practicing scientists have to accept some things without proof, with the blind faith that others have honestly and correctly confirmed that theory and experiment agree. In most modern fields of science, there is simply too much information for things to be done any other way. For us to verify every "fact" that we base our work on, would take a lifetime and then some.
To a degree you're correct, funked. The gap between macro and micro physics has been an unspoken taboo among the science community, because so far they've found nothing to convincingly bridge it(although superstring theory is lookiing very promising). Still, each subset of physics, Newtonian or Einsteinian, work quite well as long as you don't try to crossover. Basically, the overall net effect of micro-physics is quite predictable from a macro level, whereas macro-physics has little influence on micro-physics.
The crux of the matter is that while some assumptions are made in scientific experimentation, it is done so with great reluctance. Whether assumptions are made or unfair biases creep into a scientific experiment, the bottomline is that physical proof is the criteria that determines valid results.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Yeah but who checks on the physical proof? When is the last time any of you checked on the physical proof of any of the scientific "facts" in which you believe? Not recently I'd wager. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Why not? Because you have... faith... that others have verified these things.
Now it may not be blind faith as I claimed earlier, because it is possible to check on some of the "facts", some of the "facts" agree with what we can observe in daily life, and some of the "facts" are verified by the correct functioning of technologies based on those areas of science. But for most scientific "facts", there is no way for the layman to verify them directly, and he can only "know" that they are true if he believes that others have accurately and honestly conducted experiments sufficient to prove them. (And in the case of things like evolution and global warming, those proofs are often far from complete. But that's a different issue.)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Harry Stotle, folks. A science's principles can only be believed, not proven. This goes all the way up to the principle of non-contradiction, we cannot prove its necessity, only that, without it, we cannot speak of anything.
Sandman, citing silly cases of Hebrew Bible rules isn't going to get you anywhere with a bunch of Christians (unless they're really wacko).
Ammo, I dunno, the Bible I has says that we're all liars, adulterers, murderers and the rest. It's not the 10 C that get you, it's how JC interprets them on the mount. And guess what? You can't reform the world by condemning it.
Finally, how do you KNOW that you're saved by Grace? God is omnipotent; there is nothing you or I can do to constrain him to save us. If we could, he wouldn't be all-powerful?
Oh and santa:
, it must be said that it has been hampered back to the days of Galileo
Galilei) by religion, since it has moved in on the
This is a myth. Sorry, it wasn't that way. Read my post above.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Leonid, there are gaps in scientific theory...
...but without gaps there wouldn't be a need for science in the first place.
Science is there to both fill and create the gaps - there would be no progress without this being true.
I like "inclusive" ideas, and most religions in the world fall far short of that ideal.
-
Funked,
Again, you're right to a degree. Yes, we all have faith that Newton and Einstein did their homework, or at least have faith that someone made sure about it. I think the difference lies in that I have seen the equations, seen the manifestations of those equations in everyday life as well as experiments. Thus, I can deduce that such a thing as gravity or even relativity exists. This is quite different from having faith in a metaphysical concept, something that cannot be sensed, except in ways that cannot be measured or recorded.
Science's form of faith is called Probability, which is a weighing of percentages, a statistical analysis. This really cannot be compared to the type of faith practiced in many religions.
-
Sorry Santa, but you don't understand science too well.
Why do I feel insulted? Let's examine why. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It may work as you say the ideal case, but in practice we can not personally verify every "fact" upon which the assumptions for our own work are based.
This doesn't contradict anything I've said about science.
your claim, that science is the same as faith, is utterly false, Funked. Nothing personal bud (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). IF we decide to check it out, we can. You don't have to accept anything as faith, unless you want to. Experiments have been conducted and are *available* for your pleasure, should you feel the need to question or verify.
Such evidence is not available in say the Christian mythology.
In order to get anything done, practicing scientists have to accept some things without proof, with the blind faith that others have
honestly and correctly confirmed that theory and experiment agree.
Not without proof. Without verifying the correctness of whatever it is they base their work on. There's an enormous difference, and it's not only semantics. It's justifiable belief, not faith. For instance, I do not have to know a whole lot about the suns movement to have justifiable belief that it'll come up tomorrow, nor do I have to have an engineering exam to trust a bridge designed by a team of engineers is actually going to support my weight. Talking yer average western road bridge here.
In most modern fields of science, there is simply too much information for things to be done any other way. For us to verify every "fact" that we base our work on, would take a lifetime and then some.8/b9
Agreed. But once again, it is possible to verify, and in that sense, you're not working on blind faith. Someone before you have produced some work that has been verified by others, done according to the scientific methology and been through the peer pressure review.
Compare this to "I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn". The difference is so immense the two aren't even close to being "not that far away".
So, I feel insulted because a) you're someone I respect and b) I ain't wrong. In the countless hours I've spent opping #philosophy on the undernet, the discussion about the difference between science and faith or indeed this very discussion about whether science is a religion or like a religion has popped up so many times I have macros (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
You're right in the sense that scientists do not always verify the correctness of the theories upon which they build further work. You're wrong in the sense that they're acting on blind faith.
Hope ya ain't getting angry with me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Additional; check out this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html)
It deals with the subject and is very well written.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
I agree with Santa on most things.
Funked, yes, there has to be a degree of faith to believe in science, but like Santa said, I see the results of what scientists have discovered and created on my everyday life.
I dont know exactly how my microwave works, I have faith that someone found out how and was able to make one. I havent checked to see if someone truly conducted experiments about it and all, yet when I want to eat a Hot Pocket, my microwave works flawlessly.
This is a vague example.
I would love to get into this discussions, but its hard for me since it would take me lots of time to try to put my serious words in english, and even if I did, there would be lots of misinterpretations.
-
Studies show that science causes cancer in rats. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-
".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "
-
ROFL Nate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Touché
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
--Santa, that site is full of toejam. Sorry. I dislike creationists, and I believe they're sorely mistaken, but this explanation is sorely lacking.
This distaste stems from the excesses of the medieval Scholastics, whose often empty formalism was applied to Aquinas' theology based on Aristotle's metaphysics. Early science arose in part from the rejection of this vapid quibbling
Not only is every sentence in here a lie, but every phrase is as well.
Philosophers of science mostly conclude that science is metaphysics neutral, following the Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem [1914]. Science functions
the same way for Hindus as for Catholics, for Frenchmen as for Americans, for communists as for democrats, allowing for localised variations that are[
ironed out after a while. However, science does indeed rule out various religious etiological myths (origin stories), and often forces the revision of
historical and medical stories used in the mythology of a religion. And when cosmologies are given in ancient scriptures that involve solid heavens,
elephants and scarab beetles, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world as it is observed.
Nope, nope and nope.
Pierre Duhem was a good, well meaning guy, but he's no longer a major force in the philosophy of science. He was a devout Catholic and a Newtonian physicist who found himself in the middle of the "Battle between Religion and Science" of the early 20th century, and sought to find a way to reconcile the two, in part by showing as bald-faced lies the historical roadkill our author cites earlier.
That science is "metaphysics neutral" is roadkill. In order for us to make sense out of modern, experimental science, we have to make assumptions about how the world functions, Epistemology, and what consitutes believable proof. Guess what? That's metaphysics.
Evolution is not a "fact" the same way my drinking coffee right now is a fact. Evolution we believe only because we accept certain standards for proof, such as the physical universe functions the same now as then; what is most probable is what happened.
HEll, any scientist can tell you that it is entirely possible that the universe was created yesterday, but it ain't bloody likely.
These standards are metaphysical assumptions, and to call them something else is to belittle science and expose the position we should be defending to ridicule.
themselves metaphysical claims. For example, the claim that the world is flat (if made by a religious text) is a matter of experiment and research, not
first principles and revelation. If "by their fruits shall ye know them", false factual claims are evidence of bad science, not good religion.
And I just get my panties all bunched up when someone even suggests that Christians at any point (outside of a handful of crackpots) maintained the Earth was flat. As Duhem could and did point out, only until the recent wave of Bible-thumpin' creationist nuts did any Christian organize challenge reasonable scientific conclusions.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Santa and Animal, read my last post, it's more in line with what you are saying. No you are not offending me at all.
Leonid:
. I think the difference lies in that I have seen the equations, seen the manifestations of those equations in everyday life as well as experiments. Thus, I can deduce that such a thing as gravity or even relativity exists.
But for so many fields of science, you (or I) have not seen the equations, and the predictions of the scientific "facts" are not readily visible in everyday life. But that doesn't stop you or I from believing that they are true, or at least reasonably accurate. And of course the definition of "reasonably accurate" is completely subjective, and very important, because there is always some error between theory and experiment in most fields. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Funked - One of the key tenets of science is that an experiment must be repeatable, for the results (and therefore the hypothesis) to be correct.
If science was based on faith like you say funked, then Fleishman's Cold Fusion experiment would be taken as being valid by the scientific community.
It couldn't be repeated by anyone anywhere in the world, and hence is considered bogus.
Contrastingly, if I said I had just seen the Virgin Mary and she said that AH was a holy pursuit and I should build a towering cathedral to house all devotees of AH (complete with ADSL connections), you couldn't say I was wrong.
-
Science will explain religion as religion will explain science, one day, when we are ready.
"You can't handle the truth" ... Jack Nicholson "A Few Good Men"
we can't yet, to full of ourselves...
Science of Religion http://www.srfpublishers.org/index.cgi/1151?KWwVJx59;;35 (http://www.srfpublishers.org/index.cgi/1151?KWwVJx59;;35)
Eagler
-
Good point Dowding. Of course I have never argued that science and religion are identical.
-
You know what the problem with christanity is today? Its medival. Yep... the "concepts" of God, Jesus, heaven etc are stuck in the 15th-17th centuries. I think that for christanity to survive as time rolls on it will have to "remake" itself to a certain extent. I mean we "know" of things like black holes, Quantem Physics, Quarks, blabla bla but have never really tried to improve our concept of spirutiality. This is a great weakness that is easily exploited in the 21st cen by others.
I personily feel that all religions to a certain extent have some "right". I dont think any can say they are the ultimate truth. I mean how can a christain say Buddia is going to hell but some child molesture who found God 2 hrs before execution is going to heaven... the whole thing is goofed.
batdog
-
First, you have to assume that the repeatability of experiments indicates an underlying principle. That is a metaphysical assumption, and not just splitting hairs.
Second, you have to make some pretty big assumptions about things you cannot test. Can you test the Big Bang? Hell no. You can test for what you postulate to be its effects, and reason up to the cause, but in the end it doesn't give you certitude, nor is it universally valid. You have to accept the premises for it to work, and those premises are not trivial.
Religion today is a helluva lot different from religion int he 15th century. The problem, batdog, is that people today want to view 15th-century religion as being ruled by the extremist nuts in today's religions. That wasn't the case.
-
Scientists may be arrogant personally, but they are pretty humble when it comes to knowlege. They always know how much they do not know and every discovery opens more things that are not known.
Newertheless, while despite any particular discovery we always will be in search of thruth because the knowlege is incomplete,
any particular discovery can help us detect the falsehood.
There are plenty of occasions that prove that the guy who wrote the Bible did not know more then any priest 2000 years ago.
The creator could have been behind the evolution or could have created the whole thing in one day and disguised it to look like the result of evolution - carbon dating and everything... Furthermore, I do not expect Him to explain DNA to Moses - creation of life from dirt (inorganic matter) is a passable metaphor. But He would not have written that the Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around it and other nonsense.
miko
-
Oh man but......
"While it is certainly true millions have died in the name of Religion, i wonder if this jerk is aware it's SCIENCE(and Technology)that gave the human race the thermo-nuclear bomb, napalm, the machine-gun, and many other interesting methods of burning, enviscerating, and poisoning of our fellow human beings."
Is this outlook be compliant with this one
"guns don't kill people people kill people"
<runs for cover>
-
Originally posted by batdog:
I mean how can a christain say Buddia is going to hell but some child molesture who found God 2 hrs before execution is going to heaven... the whole thing is goofed.
batdog
He has a good point right here....
-SW
-
I have actually asked those questions before, and here is the answer I got:
1. about the Buddah thing....... God speaks in many tongues. meaning that each religion is part of the same, they are just modified to fit each culture.
2. about the killer finding God right before he gets his well deserved shot, he's going to hell. he didn't really find God, he just tried to cheat his way into heaven. God ain't buyin it! now some really do find God, and change their life. I think God would know the difference.
Like I said, this is what I was told, and it makes sence to me, I'm sure everyone has their own views on the subject.
------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-
".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
First, you have to assume that the repeatability of experiments indicates an underlying principle. That is a metaphysical assumption, and not just splitting hairs.
Second, you have to make some pretty big assumptions about things you cannot test. Can you test the Big Bang? Hell no. You can test for what you postulate to be its effects, and reason up to the cause, but in the end it doesn't give you certitude, nor is it universally valid. You have to accept the premises for it to work, and those premises are not trivial.
Religion today is a helluva lot different from religion int he 15th century. The problem, batdog, is that people today want to view 15th-century religion as being ruled by the extremist nuts in today's religions. That wasn't the case.
IMO the sheer complexity of this world and the universe gives more evidence of Divine creation than any man-made theory ever even touched. The process by which a baby is concieved in itself lends to creation. ANd the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged in its precepts from its inception gives more reason to believe that God Truly is in charge. I believe that the Bible is the God-Inspired Word, and infallible truth. It is righteous, and askews evil. "John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" verse 3" All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" verse 10, samne chapter "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not"
ANd am i a Bible Thumping Nut? Well i guess so if you wish (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) However keep in mind it is not me throwing around the insults (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I am certainly one thing, just a common man that has chose to Join the winning army, I am not special, nor am I a pretty boy, just saved by His never-ending Grace.
-
I'm sorry, I didn't know I called you a Bible-thumping nut. I use the term in its technical sense, to refer to someone who not only believes the Bible is the Truth (which, if you accept on faith the premises I guess it is), but asserts that everything in it, especially the stuff secondary to the Message, is the literal truth, and can be proven by scientific methods. Moreover, this literal truth is far more important to the believer than any deeper meaning that may be in there.
That, for me, is a Bible-thumping nut. There aren't many around, but they get a lot of airtime, and they form the "straw man" for "science"'s attacks on "religion".
For example, is it really important that the world was created in 6 periods of 24 hours apiece? Doesn't the Genesis story have much more significance if you look at it as a description of the relationship between God and Creation? And, for those of you who believe, don't you find the beginning of John cited by ammo above compelling on many levels?
Oh and Nate, if the killer fully repented, and God forgave him, yeah sure, that's it. Horrendous evil is a nasty theological problem. But remember, God is omnipotent, so He can do as He wills, and by the fact that he does it, it will be good. (it's good Bart!) The whole reason for the Reformation was because someone felt the Christian Church that existed was giving too much power to the individual to determine her or his salvation.
So you can only believe these things because you believe God said so; and whether Divine Decree limits omnipotence, is another question.
Fun stuff.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
And, for those of you who believe, don't you find the beginning of John cited by ammo above compelling on many levels?
Not really. I find it stating the same thing three times, each time in a different order of the previous. Kind of like saying: "I created the car, the car was created by me, if the car was created it was created by me."
If speaking in riddles is a big part of why the Bible is "The Truth" , hey man I can do that too. I've just not seen any reason to convince me any of it is true.
And no, nothing you can tell me will convince me otherwise. But, if you believe, more power to you. I'm not going to take that away from you.
-SW
-
I wasn't talking to you seawulfe.
-
Same here Dinger, the "you" was generic and applied to all who read my post. Sorry, very confusing I know.
-SW
-
I knew you weren't talking to be.
You talking to me?
Are YOU TALKING TO ME?
I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE HERE!
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
"John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" verse 3" All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" verse 10, samne chapter "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not"
NP SW, understand your standpoint. While I do disagree, that is what is great about this country, we can practice our on Freewill...at least to the extent of the law. Of coarse as A "Bible-Thumper" I kinda like strict laws (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now for an explanation of John 1:1, It is an expression of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Word describes Jesus Himself. "In the beginning was the Word" Christ is eternal, foreever..Alpha to omega. Scofield says- "He is, from Eternity, but especially in His incarnation, the utterance or expression of the Person and thought of Deity. In the Being, Person, and work of Christ, Deity is expressed"
"and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" An absolute. This part of the verse is often used in debate within denominations of the Christian Church over the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghosth. It expresses the Trinity, in that the Word was Christ and seperate form God, however they are one in power.
"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made"
Pretty strong argument for Creation..If you give credence to the Bible..which of coarse is what the Christian Church is founded.
-
I just want to make it clear, I am not trying to disrespect anyone's religion or what you believe in. I understand why people want to believe, and I understand a lot of what the Bible is trying to say. I, under my own mind set, can't see it as being true. I could obviously very well be wrong and if I am, well I'll give you guys a wave from my place in hell.
I do beleive in being a good person, morally and ethically, much like the Bible teaches. In that sense, I follow the Bible. I do not, however, believe in Jesus Christ, God or any of the who created us. So in that sense I do not follow the Bible, and if I'm wrong and the Bible is right I am damned eternally for my ignorance.
I understand the situation I'm in, but I think it's everyone's choice to do what they believe is the truth and stuff. I've thought about both the scientific and the religious view points of how "it" all began, and I gotta say... I'm stumped. Either way is quite believable, which is where I will end my "speech". :-)
I mean no disrespect to anyone that does believe in what the Bible teaches.
-SW
-
Assuming the big bang theory is correct: what was there before the big bang? I mean, where did all the stuff in our lovely little universe come from?
Assuming that the universe is expanding: whats beyond the edge of the expanding universe and how far out does it go?
There is a creator or a source of creation of that I am sure. Call it God, call it a milkshake but something definately created all that is.
Throw humans into the mix and things are bound to get muddled up. Good, bad and the ugly.
Yeager
-
Heh, Yeager here's something else to think about:
What if whatever created us does not exist in our immediate form of "reality", what if this is where dimensions come into play? What if this place we live in is only a small part of a much bigger place? (by place I mean space as we know how it exists-- infinitalely)
Fact of the matter is, what we know is only limited by what we can see and how far out we can see. We can't even get past our own moon, we have no idea what is further out there.
So in a way, we know about 1% of what is actually out there and on how many levels it exists on. Our reality is limited only to our planet only.
Eh, I'll stop now.. this is starting to sound like a drug induced "what if" discussion.
-SW
-
Ammo, that sort of argument is kinda a circular argument.
And you cannot use the very thing under debate to prove itself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I.e I could state in an essay that there are invisible pink unicorns. When you ask for proof, I'll point to the essay (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Dinger, you're right; it IS crap. It's an attempt to mate science with philosophy and make it sound good. Relevant to the discussion, but not good. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Glad ya picked up on it, as it illustrates some of the problems.
At any rate, faith vs science. Science has the definite edge based on track record and accomplishments (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
c202 vs 109G10 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
SAnta, yes I can (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The word if God stands alone. There is an ongoing argument that has raged for years..but ever moreso in later times as to its validity. The prophesy's and truths within still show today their common sence, the Basic Nature of God as in Natuer and Human Nature, the Definition between wrong and right, etc... It hasnt lasted through the ages for nothing pal. You yourself claim to follow a character from the Bible, the loser in the end time, but he is in his season today, you seem to revel in it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But as you know all to well I believe his time is limited, where as the King I follow is eternal and already has the Victory.
SW, saNTa and the rest have their own way of doing things and the their own way at looking at the grand scheme. Its your own free will to do as you please in this manner. Go with it, as I will mine my way. I will continue to gather my strength from God Himself, and reap hios blessings. I am sure you will draw on whatever it is that keeps you going (self?).
In any case..<S>
Cyou in my gunsight
ammo
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Science will explain religion as religion will explain science, one day, when we are ready.
I really like this quote. Good one, Eagler (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
He has a good point right here....
-SW
Heaven isn't a place. It's a consciousness we are all striving for. Your actions here determines where you start next. It's called Karma and Reincarnation. The big boomerang of life. Don't think you every get away with anything, the boomerang just hasn't made it back yet to hit you in the back of your head when you are not looking and least expect it.
born and raised Catholic, just not buying the one shot deal. too many loop holes in it, like the one stated above. The confession helps, but you still have to pay for the bad karma you have created.... and it won't be pretty. We learn some of our best lessons from suffering...
Eagler
(steps down from soapbox)
-
Anybody ever think that maybe they are one in the same, only we're to stupid/ignorant to figure it out? Nobody will ever convence me that the dna molocule just worked it's way together through random occurances. Name one thing in nature that starts in a chaotic state and on it's own with 0 intellegence and only through random occurances gets into an organized state.
IMNSHO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) God created science and used it to create us.
Udie
-
Name one thing in nature that starts in a chaotic state and on it's own with 0 intellegence and only through random occurances gets into an organized state.
Actually there are too many such systems to name. There is a whole branch of science devoted to such systems which are all around us (self-organizing systems).
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-30-2001).]
-
name some (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and tell me some books i can go get to read up on it. Seriously (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'm realy starting to get into science. I go to www.broadcast.com/audiobooks (http://www.broadcast.com/audiobooks) it's a good site, they have a science section with 3 good books to listen to. Reletivity, Characteristics of Physical law and Chance and Chaos. I've listened to them about 5 or 6 times each, very cool stuff to think about.
-
Udie: I'll name two (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sand dunes. they are ordered so the more dense particles are below the lighter ones (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Pebbles on a beach. Same principle (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
These two don't even include any form of intelligence.
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is a good popular easy to read book and has a chapter on it IIRC.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Santa,
I Don't know if those 2 apply. That I think is more a function of gravity and wind. Give me another please (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ydue
-
The next question after you agree that there is a superior intelligence at work here, is which religion do you follow?
Why should you be Christians and not any of the myriad religions out there?
That is why I am agnostic, with a dislike of organised religion.
-
Udie, well, they met the requirements in your question.
And you KNOW I am gonna be a smartass if given an opportunity (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
I got one for the scientist..
Explain the hummingbird. Its heart and lungs have many times the surface area within to accomodate its wings motion...which is anywhere from 50-200 times a second. The heart and lungs are capable of suppliing the blood and subsequent energy. The bones of the hummingbird are nothing like that of any other bird, or living organism. They are super light and the design is like no other. There IS NO way that this organism evolved or adapted from anything. It is just a picture of God's inifinate wisdom.
-
Ammo, you are dead wrong. Hummingbirds used to be dinosaurs until they decided to become something else.
Lord knows what the little buggers will decide to be next....
Cabby
-
Udie, the most common examples are in chemical reactions or flow of fluids, where if you mix things up they can form complicated structures that look "man-made", all by themselves. If you study fluid dynamics or chemistry you see this stuff a lot.
In the last 30 years or so, people have started to study the underlying mathematics and tie this kind of stuff in with complexity theory, and computer science topics like genetic algorithms or neural networks or adaptive control. And guess what... it works. You can predict a lot of observed behaviors and design useful things using these theories.
If you believe that the laws of physics extend to living things, then it's pretty clear that these mechanisms could explain how life formed and developed. Of course it is not proven, but it is not disproven either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Personally, I think creating a simple set of rules which results in an incredibly vast and constantly adapting array of life forms is a much more elegant and awe-inspiring feat than designing each one individually. I don't think the Bible rules out the former possibility. Creationists might not be giving God enough credit. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-31-2001).]
-
God is just a comedian playing to an audience that's to afraid to laugh.
Baaaa
WrW
-
cabby, my assessment of this guy would be similar to yours. But I think you've picked an easy target - a straw man.
I'm curious. How many of you guys call yourselves scientists?
avin
-
Ammo, take the example of the eye. Something so complexc surely cannot have evolved into place. I mean, every little thing there has to be JUST right for us to see as good as we can. My father has an eye doc background and the eye is very delicate indeed.
Now, theists and others would argue that because of this incredibly complexity, and the need for the eye to function, it would need a creator and evolution would not be able to do it properly.
But in the animal kingdom, to which we as humans belong, *any* advantage, no matter how slim, is good. It is, to be sure, better to see a very blurred picture of a potential threat than to see nothing at all. R. Dawkins, a prominent biologist specializing in evolution, argues this eloquently in his "The Blind Watchmaker". it is a common mistake for us to equal dead things of our construction and the methods employed to the animal kingdom, but it is inaccurate when talking about organisms that actively fight off entrophy.
So, the case of the hummingbird would be very similar to the case of the human eye. Accumulative change over a long period of time, spurred by small advantages has lead to the hummingbird as it exists today.
Similarly, a person (cannot remember who argued "what a work of god the nose is! f I didn't have it, where'd I put my glasses on?" (paraphrasing).
Ammo, to each his own (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). I'm sure you find strenght through your faith and I am equally sure it is a good force for you. As such, I do not want to belittle it (except when I am in Satan mode, at which time everyone of course takes me absolutely seriously (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)).
It is perhaps unfortunate when science collides with this very spiritual thing in people one might call a soul. But science lives a life of its own and it not actively seeking out a confrontation with various religions; it's just a quest for knowledge. If theists feel the results of a scientific process is unacceptable or just plain wrong, to me, they're entitled to their opinion.
But if they argue that a scientific theory is wrong, I might feel compelled (should I have any understanding of the subject) to make a few posts that might seem, hm, going against religions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). They are not against religion, but for science (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Why should us "religous" people..(i dont like the word religion, that is too big a bowl to put us in, I am a believer in Jesus Christ as the savior of all those who will believe) be tolerant, God is certainly not tolerant of sin?
Hmmm... Why should us atheistic people be tolerant because religious people are not tolerant because their god is certainly not tolerant of sin?
God abhors sin, cannot allow it into heaven. While I dont think that we oughta go out and kill folks over it, I certainly dont have to accept their sinful lifestyle as just another way of life.
I guess that means we atheists don't have to accept your "we believe in god so we can do what we want and want other to be like us" lifestyle as just another way of life? Sounds fair.
As long as other people don't mess with my personal life they can believe in holy hampster or whatever but once they start to force their beliefs upon me I get angry. I don't tell them how they should live and I certainly wont listen how they would like me to live.
------------------
jochen When I am king you will be first against the wall
Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!