Are you sure, where did you get this valuable piece of knowledge?
Is God evil or Good
- Thread starter Alan McDougall
- Start date
Are you sure, where did you get this valuable piece of knowledge?
There is no evidence for a soul, except as a literary device. No soul is even postulated for lower animals, which function just fine, and are capable of more complex thought than we used to think.
No no, Alan, the real question is where did YOU get that valuable piece of knowledge? LOL!!
It seems to me like the now discredited medical concept of humors. We didn't understand how things work, so we made up a crude model.
The important thing is that at the time people really genuinely believed that they did know how things work... as we do now.
Yet, they continue to embrace those Bronze Age beliefs despite our understanding of how things work. They go so far to kill over those beliefs.
I would normally end of by saying, "Funny that" but it just isn't funny at all.
Yet, they continue to embrace those Bronze Age beliefs despite our understanding of how things work. They go so far to kill over those beliefs.
I would normally end of by saying, "Funny that" but it just isn't funny at all.
What... scientists kill over their beliefs. You deliberately miss my point.
My point is that science then genuinely believed in humors, hundreds of years later they are proved wrong. Now science has different beliefs but in another few hundred years they will be proved wrong too.
Yes I agree there are religious people out there clinging to bronze age beliefs, probably some that look to the humors for help, but that was not my point.
Every teenager thinks they are the only ones to ever have felt the way they do and are convinced they are not going to change when they get older, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Science acts in the same way.
Yet, they continue to embrace those Bronze Age beliefs despite our understanding of how things work. They go so far to kill over those beliefs.
I would normally end of by saying, "Funny that" but it just isn't funny at all.
if you perceive religious beliefs to be such a great threat, are you willing to kill over them?
I really doubt that, many things were a mystery, and they knew their models were not perfect. There were many diseases they could not cure (like the Plague). Now we have science and we can confirm if we really know what we know.
There are many diseases we cannot cure now.. AIDS and ebola being obvious ones.
And are there not still things that are a mystery to us, every new revolution in science turns up a new range of posibilities and opens up new mysteries, as well as overthrowing some old long held ideas.
As I said; despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Science continues to believe its current set of 'known' data is correct and will never change.
We only know what we know….. we don’t know what we don’t know.
No Lori, I would not stoop to the level of the righteously insane, but would much rather they destroy themselves over their gods. If it means the destruction of us all, then maybe that is for the best as I would never want to live in a world where the religious nutjobs control my life.
If somehow mankind does survive it all, perhaps they will learn from their folly and we can move on to build a world around mankind rather than myths and superstitions.
That is entirely wrong. The very foundation of science is to make sure every theory is falsifiable in order to make sure it is correct.
But we know that we cannot cure AIDS yet. We know we have vaccines for polio. Science is the method of finding out whether our hypotheses are valid. We know better than ever before what can be supported by evidence.
This is wrong. Confusing science with scientists.
There are scientists, who because they are human and have egos sometimes really big ones. They want to cling to their position because they don't like to be proven wrong and they may have some financial stake in the status quo.
Which can be a problem for science itself.
But how can you say science will never change ?
When that is one of it's main purposes, to change with the better information.
In fact if it didn't we wouldn't be as far along as we are. One thing that holds it back is the failure of the egotistical scientist.
Yes ok but the point is that it is very probable that in a few hundred years much of what we hold to be true now will be laughable to the scientists of that time. Very few scientists will admit that. That is what I find annoying. I know science does the best it can with what we currently have, but the likelihood on past performance (on past evidence) is that we will be shown to be wrong, science rarely accommodates for this.
Ok you have a very good point here, I am talking of science when I should be talking about scientists. Science is the method – nothing wrong with that. The scientist are the ones who cant see their fallibility.
I am saying that it does change, but scientists cling to today’s truths as if it won’t.