Why are believers anti-science?

[charles cure]

Charles Cure: You imply that communism does not work in practice because people mess up a good concept.

The horror that was the USSR was a logical consequence of applying communist principles.

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. It sounds noble if you read it quick and do not think.

The fundamental principle of communism is a promise to steal from the best and the brightest. Expect them to produce to the limits of their abilities, but do not pay them based on their accomplishments. That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

The other half of the principle is an invitation for those skilled at whining and begging to work the system for as much as they can get without contributing.

To make such a system work, you need a vast bureaucracy and the coercive force of a police state. Furthermore, you have to close your borders lest the best and the brightest go elsewhere.

Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.

trust me, i know all about it, i read atlas shrugged too ok. the point i was making has less to do with communism in practice as it does with communism as an ideal. read the communist manifesto. nowhere on earth has communism ever been implemented correctly, because it is a myopic and utopian theory that expects the BEST out of humanity. the progenitors of communism however, misjudged humanity. they did indeed expect that people would do their part, regardless of how disproportionately, in order to provide for the basic needs of society as a whole. this theory depends on everyone working and no one freeloading. the concept of communism does not automatically steal from those with ability and give to those with inability, it expects a level of effort and ability from everyone that some are unwilling to provide when it is put into practice. thats where human nature comes in as a subversive element.
all of what you are saying in your post is true. i am arguing that the reason it is true is because humanity does not desire the implementation of morality, but seeks to further the interest, whether moral or immoral - of the individual. self-interest inevitably leads to suffering, inequality, injustice, violence...etc. thats all well and good, im no supporter of communism, but as a theory it is more morally positive than capitalism despite its inability to be practically applied.

 

[(Q)]

A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.

So, on one hand he criticises Intelligent Design, yet is a Christian who should support Intelligent Design, if indeed he is a Christian.

That would be called a hypocrite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

 

[charles cure]

A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.

whats BeHe?

 

[Gustav]

*If you can't be bothered to write in structured manner, why the **** should I be bothered to read it. Edit the bloody thing.

*If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole,

rantingasusualehoafymustyousuffersoopenlyemotionsareforchildrentrytounderstandthat

 

[Mythbuster]

Bullshit.

Selected papers of Kenneth R. Miller, Biology professor at Brown University and Christian. Also author of Finding Darwin's God, one of the best defenses of evolution ever written for the layperson:

Meyer, T. H., Ménétret, J. F. , Breitling, R. , Miller, K. R., Akey, C. W., and T. A. Rapaport (1999) The bacterial Sec Y/E translocation complex forms channel-like structures similar to those of the eukaryotic Sec61p complex. Journal of Molecular Biology 285: 1789-1800.

Hanein, D., Matlack, K. E. S., Jungnickel, B., Plath, K., Kalies, K., Miller, K. R., Rapoport, T. A., and C. W. Akey (1996) Oligomeric Rings of the Sec61p Complex Induced by Ligands Required for Protein Translocation. Cell 87, 721-732.

Wiest, P. M., S. S. Kunz, W. D. Bowen, and K. R. Miller (1994) Activation of proteinkinase C by phorbol esters disrupts the tegument of Schistosoma mansoni. Parasitology 109: 461-468.

Bassi, R., A. Magaldli, G. Tognon, G. M. Giacometti, and K. R. Miller (1989) Two-dimensional crystals of the Photosystem II reaction center complex from higher plants. Eur. J. Cell Biology 50: 84-93.

Hinshaw, J. E., and K. R. Miller (1989) Localization of Light-Harvesting Complex II to the Occluded Surfaces of Photosynthetic Membranes. J. Cell Biology 109: 1725-1732

Lyon, M. K. & K. R. Miller (1985) Crystallization of a membrane protein in situ. J. Cell Biology. 100: 1139-1147.

Jacob, J. S., & K. R. Miller (1983) Two-dimensional crystals formed from photosynthetic reaction centers. J. Cell Biol. 97: 1266-1270.

Miller, K. R. (1979a) The Photosynthetic Membrane. Scientific American (October) pp. 102-113.

Miller, K. R. (1979c) The structure of a bacterial photosynthetic membrane. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76: 6415-6419.

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question.

 

[Gustav]

Pardon, but when I really get into a subject, I hear no sentence structure, nor see it. I guess a couple paragraphs or three would make it more legible.

bless you my brother
the spirit works in mysterious ways

Praise Him

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

i would have to conflict with that,

not bieng rude or negative here. but i think alot of the scientists are rude to religious people,


but not all ofcourse,

and this subject would hold different points, there might be many reasons, not just a single one, it would depend,

and the religious people who are offended by science, maybe they are insecure and think it conflicts witht here faith,


when science dosent actually conflict with religion, it conflicts with the holy books, and they are not "god", they are written books of man,


peace.

peace.

 

[Gustav]

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question.

ask me, heathen

 

[Mythbuster]

ask me, heathen

Science is marvellous, because it helps us understand the world and how to prevent ourselves from dying so quickly and how to wash white clothing and colours without them turning bright pink. But Science admits it's designed to help us to udnerstand the world and universe, but it doesnt claim anything to the spiritual nor the paranormal... AGH GHOSTS!

So if your science tells you, that glucose does this this and this, and demonstrates adding an alkaline metal to water causes an explosion due to the reaction caused with the hydrogen and oxygen in the water so dont put it in your wine glass. You'd better do as he says! Because that is science! Yes science.

Do your faith/pray and BOOM ! Your dead.
WEEEEEEEEEE LOOK AT ME.... IM FRYING LIKE AN ANGEL

 

[Dinosaur]

Charles Cure: Ignore Atlas Shrugged & Ayn Rand's other writings. Study history.

There was a good approximation to Laissex Faire capitalism for perhaps 200 or more years ending sometime in the first half of the 20th century. I personally claim that it ended in about 1913, while others claim that it ended earlier or later, while others still call the US a capitalist system.

Compare the ordinary worker of 1900-1910 to an ordinary citizen under the feudal system which capitalism replaced.

A 1909 Sears Roebuck mail order catalogue lists inexpenisive 100 piece sets of dishes for under $5, better 100 piece sets for under $10, and imported 100 piece Haviland China sets for $19.98 to $27.50. It lists pianos for under $100 and violins for $1.95 to $22.45. It lists all sorts of jewelry, watches, clocks, sporting goods, furniture, clothes, shoes, tools, phonographs, fire arms, binoculars, and many other items.

All of those items would be considered well made by modern standards. Most people would judge an 1876 colt revolver to have been be manufactured in the 20th century if it had been carefully maintained and seldom used. I have seen such items at auctions and antique shows.

That catalogue was used by average Americans. It indicates that a typical worker could afford the items advertised. In 1909, labor unions were not strong; There was little social legislation, little or no welfare, and hardly any government control of business.

Yet a typical worker could afford items undreamed of prior to the industrial revolution and capitalism. From 1890 to about 1910, it was common for ordinary people from Philadelphia to spend weekends in Atlantic City, a seaside resort 60 miles away. Many families rode bicycles, while most used trains.

Imagine the life of those ordianry people in about 1900-1910 compared to the ordinary people 300 to 500 years earlier. For their amusement, they could buy musical instruments, phonographes, sporting goods, and take weekend vacations. They could afford to buy china, furniture, clothes, tools, binoculars, and other manufactured items.

Capitalism did not do such a bad job for the worker in spite of the alleged oppression by the robber barons. Child labor under bad conditions was mostly history by that time because the adults made a good enough living to support their families. Increased productivity did more to eliminate child labor and bad working conditions than either unions or government legislation.

Yet it is claimed that capitalism is bad and communism/socialism is good. History says otherwise. Today, advocates of communism claim that it was theoretically a great idea that failed due to flaws in human behavior. Some claim that the USSR was not really an example of a communist system. Yet the academic community and the believers in communism extoled the virtues of the USSR and its communist system until several years after WW2.

Again, I state that the USSR was the logical consequence of an attempt to apply communist principles.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.

there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.

-MT

 

[Mythbuster]

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.

there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.

-MT

Science is our religion, when things are correct, that means we are on the right way

 

[The Devil Inside]

Don't talk crap. If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole, who can't take a moment or to to properly formulate their thoughts, I rather doubt those thoughts are of much particular value.

In fact, I just spent ten minutes wading through your prose, correcting the spelling, amending the grammar, and giving it some structure. I just came back to post it from Word and found the above waiting me. So, go fly a kite, sonny, and hang your philosophy off the end of it.

actually, he was only refuting a blanket statement laid on him by someone that doesnt even know him.

if we are going to be the grammar police, ill be watching closely from now on to deride anyone that doesnt write the way i prefer.

btw: i am a religious person, i fully believe in the truth that science can offer, and i recognize the role it can play in furthering our knowledge about the universe.

to me, studying science has very little to do with traditional religion. i see more and more the alienation of spiritual people on this forum, but i dont see any of these spiritual people standing up to defend themselves at all. regardless of particular belief, we shouldnt have to deal with people making statements like "believers all hate science, or they dont understand it if they accept it".

just because you call a duck a dog, doesnt necessarily make it a fact.

in fact, i see more preaching and cramming of beliefs down throats coming from NON religious folks here, than the opposite. if you are so concerned with religious people not living up to your standards of interests....why dont you take on the job of educating them in a fashion other than "you are stupid. i am smart." i mean...if its that important to someone to take time from their life to make negative statements about people that dont share their interest, it must really bother that person.......why not educate, instead of ridicule?

im sure we can learn alot from your "all knowing" position.

 

[Sarkus]

And what is the creator/birther of 1? 0. You may argue 0 is not a number, same as God...

God is not a number! God is a free man!!

because 0 is nothing. Of course, why do we have 0? It is a non-number, so to speak, to tell us the other numbers exist and we can't have the other numbers without 0. All are birthed out of nothing, in a sense, or as we see as nothing.

You do realise that the Romans did not have a zero in their number system? They seemed to be fine without it - apart from the crumbling of their Empire.

In actuality, it is something and the creator of all after it.

Please explain again how 0 creates the other numbers?

That is just a simple way to prove God exists through math.

You have proven nothing.
But if you feel that you have, I'm happy for you, but you'll probably believe anything.... like in a God.

The universe is ran by calculations. No - it's run by laws. Math is the law of the universe. In every action in it, they can be equated to numerical calculation. Every object can be given a value, a number or numbers, I should say, that when acted upon, judges how and how much to react to the actor it is confronted with. Like how in programming, every object is given properties of what it can or can't do which can be ultimately boiled down to beautiful numbers.

You say that the Universe is nothing but action/reaction - yet claim to believe in a God????
Or are you merely saying that your GOD is nothing other than the "Initial Cause"?

So how do you know what this GOD of yours is like?
You seem to have boiled it down to "the initial cause" and since then, by your own words above, everything else is just cause and effect, governed by mathematics.

So what exactly are you worshipping?
What exactly is your belief in this area?

You seem to be falling down on your knees in front of.... the initial cause.
But that's ALL you can know about your God - that it was the initial cause.
End of story. It can add nothing to our burgeoning quest for knowledge. It can cause NOTHING since the initial cause - since everything, according to your own words, is governed by mathematics.

I am now intrigued as to exactly what it is you claim of your God?
Does it perform miracles and interfere with its own mathematics?

 

[Lerxst]

whats BeHe?

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and proponent of ID. Specifically the idea of 'irreducible complexity' found in cells that somehow implies they could not have evolved. Behe is a major hero in the ID movement.

 

[Sarkus]

Behe is a major hero in the ID movement.

In the same way as the Captain was a major hero on the Titanic?

 

[Lerxst]

So, on one hand he criticises Intelligent Design, yet is a Christian who should support Intelligent Design, if indeed he is a Christian.

That would be called a hypocrite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Christians do not have to support ID or creationism. The fact is, among the liberal sects, many don't.

There are people that view the bible as an ancient, error-prone book of parables and stories and creation myths that could be understood thousands of years ago, with the occasional sublime and wise nugget thrown in, and yet these people also resonate with the moral ideas of one of the main characters, and try to emulate him and have a belief in a creator.

There is nothing inherent in such a worldview that implies that one has to reject particular branches of science. You do not have to be a biblical literalist to be a Christian.

If that makes them hypocrites in your eyes, it is simply because you haven't thought enough about it. More black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. There is a whole world of gray out there you (and others around here) are not seeing, for some reason.

If Miller claimed to be a Biblical Literalist and then defended evolution, then, and only then, would he be a hypocrite.

Kenneth Miller's scientific contributions are judged in the process of peer-review and on the merit of his works, not on whether or not someone on a messageboard thinks he is a 'hypocrite' - he and other believers will go right on contributing to science, no matter how much certain people make idiotic claims that the Venn diagrams of scientists and believers don't intersect.

 

[Lerxst]

In the same way as the Captain was a major hero on the Titanic?

If only the SS IntelligentDesign would sink a little faster, though. It's amazing how long this crap lasts.

 

[Lerxst]

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question.

Maybe you should read Miller's book.

If you look at the major battles right now in religion vs. a secular american society, you will soon realize that individuals like Miller are on our side. In fact he has already likely done far more tangible good for our side than most folks on theis board combined, I'd venture to say.

 

[comisaru]

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.
there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.

Secular atheists ? Dou you mean Copernicus, Galilei or Giordano Bruno. Or Salman Rushdie ? Of course, they didn't have any conflict with any religion.