Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
or, rather, if.....
Do You Believe in Science?
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Ah, then you're a hypocrite? You must be if you're using a computer, an internet connection. Why aren't you living in a cave with your religion? Why do you benefit from science, yet shun it?
It already has, on many occasions.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Scripture says the earth is flat.
The earth is flat: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Matthew 4:8 (Jesus is on a mountain so high he can see "all the kingdoms of the world," which is possible on a flat earth, impossible on a spherical earth.)
The earth is flat and square or rectangular (i.e.,has four corners);
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth . . . " Revelation 7:1
". . . and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12
The earth is flat and circular: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . . " Isaiah 40:22
The earth is flat: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Matthew 4:8 (Jesus is on a mountain so high he can see "all the kingdoms of the world," which is possible on a flat earth, impossible on a spherical earth.)
The earth is flat and square or rectangular (i.e.,has four corners);
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth . . . " Revelation 7:1
". . . and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12
The earth is flat and circular: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . . " Isaiah 40:22
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Then, why did you ask for an example?
A more interesting question would be to ask scientists if they believe in metaphysics and philosophy.
But again, that is not science alone. The dangerous kind that develops nuclear weaponry and biological weapons is science driven by government.
I do not personally have a problem with the development of anything. It is going to be developed somewhere, at some time, so why try to curb it in your own backyard?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Q,
do you really not see how you messed up by assuming things?
You assume that since I believe in God some of my beliefs must be in conflict with scientific theories.
This surprises me. I don't know how you know this about me. So I ask for an example. IOW why is Q so sure?
Then you come back with quotes from Jewish scripture assuming, I guess, that I am either Jewish or Christian and fundamentalist.
I point out that I am none of these things.
YOu made a claim. I asked for an example. Your example was not a good one.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Science is never alone. IOW there is what I would call a relgions out there (tends to be godless) that says if we can do something we should, especially if it makes money. This is rarely seen as a religion - by atheists - because their is no God in it. To me this is beside the point. The point is we have an irrational belief - or more neutrally an intuitive one - that is having huge effects on the world.
Safety, moral concerns....and with gene modification, my backyard, is everybody's.
So, let's hear your version of a god so we can find appropriate examples of conflict?
Q, I'll go ahead and give you my version: influential intelligence.
Any conflictions there? No? Exactly.
Simon, I'd agree with you if you said "experimenting on innocent people"...but remember we're talking about criminals, not actual people. The experiments mean that the criminals can repay society for their crimes and benefit us in the knowledge gained and perhaps even save lives.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Oh, come on Q. You must know of scientists who believe in God. Deists, pantheists, non-fundamentalists of a wide variety of stripes, as a few examples off the top of my head, find nothing in science to say their God cannot exist.
Why does belief in God necessitate that one must not believe in Science?
What is contradicted automatically by being a theist?
Guess what, nothing.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Here's the context.Oh, I see now. You're being a dickhead because I technically stated they were your beliefs and you decided to use that loophole, so you could be a dickhead.
I write (in a thread about our personal beliefs, ie. do we believe in science)
You quote that and say....
which is a reasonable question and one that everyone, including non-theists must look at...
I say I will let you know when and then correct to if that happens.
Then you say it already has.
What, did you think I was answering FOR ALL THEISTS or something?
What made you think I was answering for more than just myself? Which would be very strange given the wide variety of religious beliefs out there.
So take your dickhead and shove it up your ass. There was no need to call me that.
*************God is a condition of science.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1
M*W: Exactly!
*************
M*W: I would also include astrophysics, astro-theology, and astrology.
But whose morals are we talking about? What are they driven by? Society or religion? I'm sorry, but I don't believe science should be bound to a moral code. Too much is to be gained to be held to some sort of antiquated moral standard. Look at what has happened with stem cell research. Do you agree with Bush's ruling on that? To allow your "morals" to prevent the research of potential cures for debilitating diseases?
It must be an archetype of the religious to want to peg any practice or philosophy that is not their own as "religion", but it isn't. Science is not a religion, nor are the scientists who study it and work with it. There may be different philosophies, but there are no religions. It's such a weak argument, and I think it's beneath you.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Democratically arrived at morals - not that I would necessarily agree with whatever was voted on. We have limitations on scientific reserach all over the place. Restrictions on how animals can be used and humans. Restrictions on how the experiments affect the environment. Liscencing, inspections, prohibitions.
these are impossible to separate. But non-religious people have moral concerns also when it comes to science.
Oh, I am sure you do. The Nazis use of prisoners for experiments. Don't you want the FDA to restrict and carefully control drug trials. How about experiments that affect nature?
Well, some old moral standards are good ones.
No, I answered that elsewhere, I think in a response in a post to you.
Our morals.
I never said it was. I did point out that it is, now, generally controlled by the profit motive. IOW experiments are done and technology is introduced because it will make someone money, even if the risks are, what I would call immoral. That is what I meant by science is not alone. There are always people and worse companies involved and their morals affected how a neutral methodology and its products are being used.
I think atheists have this idea that if you take away religion you take away unnecessary morals and irrationality and people will be nice to each other. I see absolutely no evidence of this. Science right now is being used by a variety of people/groups with a variety of moral codes. Some theist, some not. As far as I can tell almost everyone thinks there should be restrictions, except certain maniacs and certain corporations who think - and notice it is a moral stance - if it can be done it SHOULD be done.
They are few and far between, and they obviously do not use critical thinking.
They are clearly deluded.
It doesn't. Why do those theists constantly berate science while taking advantage of everything science has to offer?
It is contradicted by critical thinking.