Cult Evolution

[superluminal]

Hahaha

What a joke.

Your lifestyle is based on exploitation.

And yours isn't?

And didn't you work with people who design weapons systems?

Yes.

Without religion, science is blind.

No. Without reason and compassion, science is blind. Two attributes that religion has in short supply.

 

[S.A.M.]

And yours isn't?

Nope, I have only what I need (no car) and I avoid investing in any industry that imposes on human rights.

Yes.
No. Without reason and compassion, science is blind. Two attributes that religion has in short supply.

Guess yours was on standby when you rationalised enhancing weapons.

 

[superluminal]

Nope, I have only what I need (no car) and I avoid investing in any industry that imposes on human rights.

sam is an island. She has no computer, dosen't eat, has no house. But it's all OK cuz she has no car. So noble.

Guess yours was on standby when you rationalised enhancing weapons.

If it makes any difference, they were defensive weapons. And of course it dosen't count that I also worked in biomed doing research on CO[sub]2[/sub] diffusion and elimination in premature infants under high frequency ventilation conditions. Or that I now work designing electronics for the same construction equipment that helps allow third world countries to develop their way out of abject poverty.

Oh well. Nobody's perfect I guess. Except sam.

 

[superluminal]

Nope, I have only what I need (no car)

Sorry. For a second I mistook you for a buddhist monk.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sorry. For a second I mistook you for a buddhist monk.

Buddhist monks are selfish.

Abdicating responsibilities is not life.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam is an island. She has no computer, dosen't eat, has no house. But it's all OK cuz she has no car. So noble.

I do what I can. Refuse, reuse, renew.

If it makes any difference, they were defensive weapons. And of course it dosen't count that I also worked in biomed doing research on CO[sub]2[/sub] diffusion and elimination in premature infants under high frequency ventilation conditions. Or that I now work designing electronics for the same construction equipment that helps allow third world countries to develop their way out of abject poverty.

Oh well. Nobody's perfect I guess. Except sam.

Very compassionate of you.

Be sure to attach happy faces to the weapons used in your "defensive" wars.

I hear that a preemptive nuclear strike on nonnuclear countries qualifies as defensive.

 

[superluminal]

Be sure to attach happy faces to the weapons used in your "defensive" wars.

The guys launching them do that for us.

 

[S.A.M.]

The guys launching them do that for us.

Those messages don't look so happy to me

 

[iceaura]

It depends on what authority I choose.

e.g. is it right that some companies should make profit if it means that poor farmers will starve and die?

Empirical observation is meaningless, scientific method clueless. Survival of the fittest is amoral and inhumane.

Religion tells me it is wrong, that this earth belongs to everyone, no one has a right to more than they need, if their greed deprives another of their needs. I should love my neighbor, share my bounty, give of my plenty.

Religion "feels" right, science feels cold and lifeless.

So I accept religion over science, in this matter.

How did the religious stuff in there come to be presented to you as in some kind of conflict with "science" ?

How did the choice come to be between two authorities in conflict, rather than two aspects of a reality in agreement ?

Nowhere in science is there any discouragement of loving one's neighbor, for example. Religion is a bit spottier, in that regard.

I hear that a preemptive nuclear strike on nonnuclear countries qualifies as defensive.

It's hard to talk sense into fundies, especially when they are fighting other fundies.

 

[(Q)]

Nope, I have only what I need (no car) and I avoid investing in any industry that imposes on human rights.

And belong to a cult that does away with human rights. How appropriate.

 

[(Q)]

Hahaha

Without religion, science is blind.

So, without turning to an invisible and undetectable entity for guidance, science is unable to see... whatever it is supposed to see. :shrug:

No,no, without religion, science is able to accomplish and provide YOU with practically everything. :thumbsup:

 

[S.A.M.]

No,no, without religion, science is able to accomplish and provide YOU with practically everything. :thumbsup:

How like you to ignore valid contributions just because they do not fit your bias.

When we look at the history of science, we see that in fact it owes an immense debt to the religious world. In the early Middle Ages - a time when Christian Europe turned away from scientific thinking - the science, mathematics, and astronomy of the ancient Greeks was kept alive in the Islamic world, where it was further developed and enriched by Moslem scholars. In the thirteenth century when this scientific heritage began to filter back into Western Europe, it was originally taken up by Christian monks and theologians.

Throughout the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, most scientific leaders were men of the church, They included the great medieval champion of mathematical science Robert Grosseteste (Bishop of Oxford, and the man who reinvigorated the science of geometric optics); the medieval champion of experimental science Roger Bacon (a Franciscan monk, sometimes known as the medieval Galileo); the fifteenth century proto-physicist Nicholas of Cusa (a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church and the man who first championed the idea of an infinite universe); and Nicholas Copernicus (a canon at Frauenburg Cathedral, and the man who more than any other introduced the idea of a sun-centered cosmos.)

Up until the eighteenth century, most of those in Europe studying science were indeed men of deep religious faith, many of them formally schooled in theology. In part that was because the church controlled the institutes of higher learning - particularly the universities, which had originally been set up as training grounds for the clergy and other church functionaries.

In popular mythology, the "scientific revolution" of the seventeenth century is commonly said to mark a fundamental break between science and religion. But nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all the great pioneers and founders of the new science were religious men who wanted a science that would harmonize with their faith. All three founders of the new heliocentric cosmology - Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton - saw their new vision of the universe as an offshoot of their theology. Newton. in particular, was a religious fanatic whose whole life work can be seen as a search for God. Even the infamous Galileo was a committed Catholic who wanted nothing more than for the Pope to endorse his vision of the heavens.

Every parents nightmare: an ungrateful child.

 

[(Q)]

How like you to ignore valid contributions just because they do not fit your bias.

The indoctrinated cultist will attempt to demonstrate that since most of the world was enslaved into cultism, that it was in fact the tenets and doctrines of the cults that were responsible for scientific discoveries.

The Muslim propagandist, one of worst liars of the lot, will attempt to demonstrate that Islam was responsible for everything from sliced bread to particle accelerators. They will ignore the fact that Muslims stole the ideas and concepts of those they conquered and took credit for it themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

They will ignore the fact that Muslims stole the ideas and concepts of those they conquered and took credit for it themselves.

Where did they take credit for it?

In fact, all the work preserved by Muslims is cited for the original, which is the only reason the sources are known. The works were completely destroyed in the western world if you remember.

OTOH, no credit has ever been given to Muslim scholars for their contributions.

So much for your "theory"

And oh thanks for acknowledging the role of religion in the development and sustenance of the science you cherish.

 

[(Q)]

And oh thanks for acknowledging the role of religion in the development and sustenance of the science you cherish.

Synthesis is always a problem for the indoctrinated cultist, who has lost the ability to reason and cannot possibly move from the general to the particular or shape a complex whole from singular ideas and concepts.

In lieu of synthesis, the cultist will fall back on triggered responses.

 

[S.A.M.]

Synthesis is always a problem for the indoctrinated cultist, who has lost the ability to reason and cannot possibly move from the general to the particular or shape a complex whole from singular ideas and concepts.

In lieu of synthesis, the cultist will fall back on triggered responses.

Does this mean you do not acknowledge the contributions of the above mentioned as significant?

That you hereby declare them as useless and of no consequence to the development of science?

 

[(Q)]

Does this mean you do not acknowledge the contributions of the above mentioned as significant?

That you hereby declare them as useless and of no consequence to the development of science?

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/info.html

The indoctrinated cultist will seek out sources that are cult driven in order to further support their indoctrinated worldviews. The sources, of course, are considered perfectly valid to the cultist as they align with cult thinking.

 

[S.A.M.]

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/info.html

The indoctrinated cultist will seek out sources that are cult driven in order to further support their indoctrinated worldviews. The sources, of course, are considered perfectly valid to the cultist as they align with cult thinking.

I'm asking you about the contributions of the above mentioned.

You can look them up wherever you like, read their biographies if you want.

Do you denounce them as useless and of no significance to science?

 

[(Q)]

I'm asking you about the contributions of the above mentioned.

You can look them up wherever you like, read their biographies if you want.

Do you denounce them as useless and of no significance to science?

Tenets of any cult are by definition doctrines proclaimed as true without proof.

In order for indoctrination to be successful, tenets are ranked high in matters of morals and ethics, so high that they come attached with threats of great rewards or great punishments. When faced with these so-called "choices," reason and rationale can easily be discarded.

Further, the tenets must become part of ones life, as if they were the blood that circulates through the heart or the neurons firing in the brain. Cult thinking assumes the tenets themselves are responsible for the actions of the individual; divine intervention.

 

[S.A.M.]

Tenets of any cult are by definition doctrines proclaimed as true without proof.

In order for indoctrination to be successful, tenets are ranked high in matters of morals and ethics, so high that they come attached with threats of great rewards or great punishments. When faced with these so-called "choices," reason and rationale can easily be discarded.

Further, the tenets must become part of ones life, as if they were the blood that circulates through the heart or the neurons firing in the brain. Cult thinking assumes the tenets themselves are responsible for the actions of the individual; divine intervention.

I'll take that as a yes.