Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 07-24-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
I agree that religion changes more than science and to me, is more useless. Science has its up side and its downside--upside is like the vacinne for polio, downside is like Hiroshima and worse. Science overall arguably is more of a negative than a positive when weapons of war are considered.

And then there is what is true. Neither science nor religion changes what in reality, is true. We can believe all we want in various religious doctrines or various scientific theories and our belief does nothing to alter the validity or invalidity of them.

I see by your reply that you automatically assume I am defendiing Christianity because I don't have much faith in science. Have you ever considered the possibility that both are way off the mark? And have you ever considered the probability that the Creator doesn't give a monkey's ass about either one of them?

What's worse, Hiroshima or the Biblical Flood? How about the ancient Israelites murderous rampages recorded in the bible? How about the condoning of rape in the bible? How about the condoning of slavery? I think weapons of war are extremely important to my (and yours) survival and am glad to be apart of one of the more scientific countries in that regard. As the saying goes, if you want peace you must prepare for war. Look at the Israelites, they had weapons and slaughtered thousands upon thousands. Of course, if we had the LOGOS' scientific knowledge, we could send a massive flood on our enemies and drown innocent people along with "evil doers".
Science never claimed to change anything. Science is a way of arriving at explaining as much as we can about the world around us. We believe in scientific theories because they are the best way of making predictions. If a better theory comes along that makes better predictions, it replaces the old theory. If god didn't give a monkey's ass about science, then he could have made the universe behave in an arbitrary way. But that is not the case. The universe behaves in ways that we can formulate, predict, and understand (mostly on the larger scale).

Hawkingfan · 07-24-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Again with the "4 legs"! Hawkingfan, where does Lev 11 say that any flying insect has 4 legs? Please reread what I wrote earlier. It says "flying insects that crawl on all four (feet). The ancient Hebrews *obviously* regarded the first four legs as having "feet for crawling". That makes sense if you look at a diagram of a grasshopper, where the front four legs are pointed forward, and tucked under the body.

Here's a science question for you! We know that a grasshopper has 6 legs. How many feet does it have, IYO? Zero or 6? Please use science to validate your answer. What would an entomologist say?

Please read my first post on page 2.

Hawkingfan · 07-24-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
Yeah, but do you really believe that Natural Selection will survive the test of thermonuclear war? Just today on CBSNews.com, it was announced that many scientists are predicting nuclear war within a decade if Bush and the other Bozo's of international illrepute fail to mend their ways. And what will we say about the legacy of our modern science then? That is, if anyone is left on the planet to comment.

Consider this before believing too much in modern science...

Global Village Idiot:
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...lageidiot.html

You have no idea what you're talking about. You should learn what natural selection is. Natural Selection surviving? What?
If all humanity were to die from a nuclear war, that is STILL natural selection.
Humanity will probably not survive much longer (in geological time and in the perspective of how old the solar system is) anyway. It is certain there will be a major natural catastrophe or climactic change that humans will not be equiped to survive. But *something* probably WILL be equiped. *That* is natural selection. It has nothing to do with humans surviving forever. It has everything to do with the species that has the most beneficial adaptation to changes.

Asha'man · 07-24-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
The point of Hebrew dietary laws is to insure for a healthy population, which was entirely necessary given their historical war and rumor of war situation.

If God was giving food advice to keep the Hebrews healthy, then why the hell didn't he mention anything about germs? Do you have any idea how many millions died due to preventable illness?

With all the fighting with swords and spears and arrows, he could at least have instructed them in washing out a wound, use of soap, etc.

But instead, the all loving God leaves man ignorant about such things for another 3000 years or so, until man manged to figure it out on his own. :banghead:

It looks to me like God is nothing but a sadistic bastard for that oversight....

Secular Pinoy · 07-24-2003, 09:04 PM

aberdeen, if you want to debate the merits of Natural Selection, then go to the EvC forum and defend your thesis there. There's already a thread dedicated to your assertions.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-25-2003, 01:36 AM

Quote:

And then there is what is true. Neither science nor religion changes what in reality, is true. We can believe all we want in various religious doctrines or various scientific theories and our belief does nothing to alter the validity or invalidity of them.

Science, in a nutshell, is the process of finding out the truth about the Universe we live in. We do this in the only way that works. We observe, we test, we come up with theories about what's going on and then see if they hold up.

Similarly, the "scientific worldview" isn't a religion: it is the sum total of everything currently known to be true beyond reasonable doubt. If you're pretty sure that you know how to get to your local supermarket, then I'll wager that you determined this scientifically: by observation and experiment.

Therefore, rejection of science means rejection of the process of finding out the truth: it means embracing ignorance.

lpetrich · 07-25-2003, 04:51 AM

aberdeen:
I don't find it nearly as hard to believe that a virgin could give birth as scientists two hundered years ago found it hard to believe in bottom-less black holes of outer darkness, seas drying up, stars flying away from each other being rolled back like a scroll, the sun burning out and a great many other science facts that modern scientists currently believe.

And I wonder what "evidence" Aberdeen has of this supposed incredulity.

Why would it be hard for the Grand Designer of the universe to cause a virgin to give birth? You have to do better than that...

Actually, the Universe looks like it was designed by committee.

If one wishes to challenge what is truly good and not good for human beings to eat, that one is on rather shakey ground. There is no particular agreement among modern nutritionists and others about what is fundamentally good for us. ...

Pure moaning and groaning.

It is difficult to do carefully-controlled long-term studies on our species as compared to doing such studies on (say) rats. So that's why some of the details of nutrition continue to be difficult to work out.

However, the basics are reasonably well-understood; we are not as ignorant as aberdeen seems to believe.

I think it is quite obvious that the author or authors of Leviticus wrote in a form that was easily understood by the people of that culture--it was probably a cultural given in that particular society that these creatures had 4 'legs'...

So it was dumbed down? That sort of "explanation" can account for anything.

In another perspective, we could easily say that human beings have four legs instead of two legs and two arms.

It's a matter of definition. "Leg" commonly means a limb used for walking or similar forms of locomotion; I use the term "limb", because it is suitably generic.

For example, our universal laws of light, gravity, etc are undoubtedly not correct from true LOGOS (universal or God) perpective--the Hubble has already cast serious doubts on the validity of current theories of both.

Seems like Aberdeen has been reading too many newspaper headlines.

Likewise, the concept of time is only a construct from our perspective;

Although we have a subjective perception of time, there is nevertheless an objective physical reality that may be called "time".

The history of science also clearely postulates that what we call science today will be utterly scorned 100 years from now, as by then we will know how ignorant our current theories truly are.

A crude newspaper-headline view of science. Headline-grabbing overturns are actually relatively rare -- science is cumulative. Let's consider chemistry:

Reinterpretation of chemical elements (earth, air, water, fire -> modern elements)
Some "mixtures" found to follow law of definite proportions
Atomic theory explains definite proportions
Valence theory further explains definite proportions
Periodic Table of Elements interrelates them
Quantum mechanics ultimately explains essentially *everything*

There is no true science from our view, so don't try to pretend that there is.

Bull doo-doo.

Neither is it all irrational to assume that the Creator could cause a virgin to give birth, either to a human, a partial human or even a total non-human---

However, proposing miracles can explain anything.

people who try to 'scientifically' limit the Creator are truly speaking out of the end they normally sit on.

So one is controlling the creator by claiming that It cannot do this, that, or the other thing? What power I have!

I agree that religion changes more than science and to me, is more useless.

Yet another "how irreligious I am" fundie.

Science has its up side and its downside--upside is like the vacinne for polio, downside is like Hiroshima and worse. Science overall arguably is more of a negative than a positive when weapons of war are considered.

And how is the religion business supposed to be much better? Imagine a god that intervenes on the side of his chosen people in the fashion of the miracles of Exodus and the like -- god would be a very destructive being, wouldn't he?

And have you ever considered the probability that the Creator doesn't give a monkey's ass about either one of them?

Then why do you seem so difficult to distinguish from an Xtian, O Aberdeen?

Actually, I used to be an athiest...

*Yawn* That's what they all say.

I asked the Creator to prove to me that he exists if in fact, he does... And he did. ...

In what way?

I noticed in you list of scientific achievements, you left out Hiroshima, nuclear waste, smog, global warming, vanishing species, healthy drinking water and etc. ...

And how successful has the religion business been in creating Utopia?

And the most such comments prove is that technology is a two-edged sword -- it can do good things and it can do bad things.

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 07-25-2003, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
Actually, I used to be an athiest... I asked the Creator to prove to me that he exists if in fact, he does... And he did.

Seems like there's a lot of circular circuitry in your brain...
I don't believe you were ever an "athiest" (sic). Atheists do not ask their creators to prove that they exist, because atheists do not have creators.

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
I have found from experience that if one trusts in science, the Bible or Christianity, than one is invariably disappointed. Then again, if one uses the name "Jesus", then the Creator will not only prove he exists if asked but also, prove that Christianity and science have nothing in common with either Jesus, the Creator and/or, what is true.

I've "used the name Jesus" on countless occasions (for the purposes of entertainment, debate, and mockery), and I have gotten no such proof from any creator. Is there a special way I need to pronounce "Jesus"? And in what form was this proof presented to you?

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
I noticed in you list of scientific achievements, you left out Hiroshima, nuclear waste, smog, global warming, vanishing species, healthy drinking water and etc. A true science always weighs both sides of the equation and doing such will invariably find modern science weighed in the balances and found severely wanting. Armageddon anyone?

So I guess the Bronze Age is the right period for you, eh?

Oh, and I guess you forgot to include the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Witch-burning in the list of Jesus achievements?

Quote:

Originally posted by aberdeen
Have you ever considered the possibility that both [Christianity and science] are way off the mark? And have you ever considered the probability that the Creator doesn't give a monkey's ass about either one of them?

How can you believe that Christianity is "way off the mark" if you believe in the Christian creator?!

SignOfTheCross · 07-25-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by conkermaniac
Well, a Christian on another forum challenged me to demonstrate how the Bible contradicts science. He also asked me to look at www.godandscience.org. Now I realize that there are strength in numbers. The more strong examples I can find, the more convincing my argument becomes.

I'm thinking about collecting all of these onto a website, so that they can be used as a future reference (of course, giving credit to the appropriate persons). I would appreciate any examples.

Thanks

The Bible can't contradict science because it doesn't concern it. Therefore, any effort you'd put into proving the Bible contradicts science would be a total waste of time.

Peace,
SOTC

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 07-25-2003, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
The Bible can't contradict science because it doesn't concern it. Therefore, any effort you'd put into proving the Bible contradicts science would be a total waste of time.

Peace,
SOTC

I must disagree. For a painfully long time, the Bible was science, remember? This ended only a couple of centuries ago. Only recently has it started to be considered "cool" to dissociate the Bible and science. It's also a convenient burden-of-proof reliever, don't you think?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 09:04 PM	#65
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	aberdeen, if you want to debate the merits of Natural Selection, then go to the EvC forum and defend your thesis there. There's already a thread dedicated to your assertions.

07-25-2003, 04:51 AM	#67
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	aberdeen: I don't find it nearly as hard to believe that a virgin could give birth as scientists two hundered years ago found it hard to believe in bottom-less black holes of outer darkness, seas drying up, stars flying away from each other being rolled back like a scroll, the sun burning out and a great many other science facts that modern scientists currently believe. And I wonder what "evidence" Aberdeen has of this supposed incredulity. Why would it be hard for the Grand Designer of the universe to cause a virgin to give birth? You have to do better than that... Actually, the Universe looks like it was designed by committee. If one wishes to challenge what is truly good and not good for human beings to eat, that one is on rather shakey ground. There is no particular agreement among modern nutritionists and others about what is fundamentally good for us. ... Pure moaning and groaning. It is difficult to do carefully-controlled long-term studies on our species as compared to doing such studies on (say) rats. So that's why some of the details of nutrition continue to be difficult to work out. However, the basics are reasonably well-understood; we are not as ignorant as aberdeen seems to believe. I think it is quite obvious that the author or authors of Leviticus wrote in a form that was easily understood by the people of that culture--it was probably a cultural given in that particular society that these creatures had 4 'legs'... So it was dumbed down? That sort of "explanation" can account for anything. In another perspective, we could easily say that human beings have four legs instead of two legs and two arms. It's a matter of definition. "Leg" commonly means a limb used for walking or similar forms of locomotion; I use the term "limb", because it is suitably generic. For example, our universal laws of light, gravity, etc are undoubtedly not correct from true LOGOS (universal or God) perpective--the Hubble has already cast serious doubts on the validity of current theories of both. Seems like Aberdeen has been reading too many newspaper headlines. Likewise, the concept of time is only a construct from our perspective; Although we have a subjective perception of time, there is nevertheless an objective physical reality that may be called "time". The history of science also clearely postulates that what we call science today will be utterly scorned 100 years from now, as by then we will know how ignorant our current theories truly are. A crude newspaper-headline view of science. Headline-grabbing overturns are actually relatively rare -- science is cumulative. Let's consider chemistry: Reinterpretation of chemical elements (earth, air, water, fire -> modern elements) Some "mixtures" found to follow law of definite proportions Atomic theory explains definite proportions Valence theory further explains definite proportions Periodic Table of Elements interrelates them Quantum mechanics ultimately explains essentially everything There is no true science from our view, so don't try to pretend that there is. Bull doo-doo. Neither is it all irrational to assume that the Creator could cause a virgin to give birth, either to a human, a partial human or even a total non-human--- However, proposing miracles can explain anything. people who try to 'scientifically' limit the Creator are truly speaking out of the end they normally sit on. So one is controlling the creator by claiming that It cannot do this, that, or the other thing? What power I have! I agree that religion changes more than science and to me, is more useless. Yet another "how irreligious I am" fundie. Science has its up side and its downside--upside is like the vacinne for polio, downside is like Hiroshima and worse. Science overall arguably is more of a negative than a positive when weapons of war are considered. And how is the religion business supposed to be much better? Imagine a god that intervenes on the side of his chosen people in the fashion of the miracles of Exodus and the like -- god would be a very destructive being, wouldn't he? And have you ever considered the probability that the Creator doesn't give a monkey's ass about either one of them? Then why do you seem so difficult to distinguish from an Xtian, O Aberdeen? Actually, I used to be an athiest... Yawn That's what they all say. I asked the Creator to prove to me that he exists if in fact, he does... And he did. ... In what way? I noticed in you list of scientific achievements, you left out Hiroshima, nuclear waste, smog, global warming, vanishing species, healthy drinking water and etc. ... And how successful has the religion business been in creating Utopia? And the most such comments prove is that technology is a two-edged sword -- it can do good things and it can do bad things.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.