Lerxst said:
Seems to me like the recipie for lifelong anguish and despair. No?
Why are believers anti-science?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Seems to me like the recipie for lifelong anguish and despair. No?
Unamuno:
"If it is nothingness that awaits us, let us make an injustice of it; let us fight against destiny, even though without hope of victory"
What it says to me is more a message of: live your life nobly, try to be such a good, productive, vibrant person that it is an injustice that you don't get 1,000x more lives.
"If it is nothingness that awaits us, let us make an injustice of it; let us fight against destiny, even though without hope of victory"
superluminal said:
What it says to me is more a message of: live your life nobly, try to be such a good, productive, vibrant person that it is an injustice that you don't get 1,000x more lives.
Ok. That's a good way to look at it. That's how I try to live my own life. 
Lerxst said:
No problem. I see no reason not to ask those questions. And I feel strongly they have already been revealed to us in nature.
Interesting questions, which I believe can be answered through diligent rigorous scientific observation and experimentation.
And, we can make assumptions about some of them. For example, if we were created by some other intelligence, then who/what created that intelligence, and so on. At some point, evolution of intelligence must have come about. So, why not us?
I would disagree that we are a fucked up species, I think it is religious thought over the centuries that has fuck us up. We have yet to experience a truly religion free society. Even communism did not stop people from practicing their religions.
It is the propagation and indoctrination of religion that keeps millions of people in its clutches and the igorance and fear it decrees upon them.
Anything of value within the bible can be found in most sociological settings, and not from devine intervention, as theists would have us believe.
They may not all get answered in our time, but they will eventually get answered in time, through science.
I think it is of the utmost importance as to exactly how he defends his religious ideas.
If you disagree, then you'll never take that first step necessary in understanding nature and getting your questions answered. They will always hang out there.
Uh, ok.
Agreed. I would prefer to be immortal and spend an eternity traveling to the stars. Pretending we are something we're not isn't going to change anything. Of course, there are other alternatives. One member here has brought to our attention a number of people who want to do just that, live forever, based on the technology of science. These are people working towards that goal, with science as their tool, not pie-in-the-sky, wishy-washy, theist drivel.
Agreed. So, are you going to lie to yourself and your kids and fill their heads with silly notions of an afterlife and heaven to appease your despair? I would hope not.
It bothers me too. But I've accepted it and moved on.
I always did like a good challenge. And I'm sure there are things you've overlooked.
That has a Buddhist flavor to it.
I can try. (I've tried buddhism too, you know)Good, it is imperative you put aside those notions in order to think clearly.
Perhaps, but they still maintain their ideals about the supernatural and live their lives accordingly. Their resources are turned towards their gods as opposed to their fellow man.
Religion, as it is defined as a belief in the supernatural controlling human destiny, will never allow mankind to evolve unless it is abandoned completely.
Miller still believes in the same thing as those creatio-nuts, if he didn't, he couldn't call himself a Christian. And if he has decided to carve out his own little niche in Christianity, then can he believe in one god? The same god who would have delivered the same message to all Christians.
(Q) said:
No doubt science will always make progress, and may shed some light on these things, but it would be foolish to expect answers in my lifetime.
Yes - I agree, that is the simplest assumption, and it is my "baseline" view. I expect it is the correct explanation, but I don't KNOW that it is necessarily correct.
But it wasn't the practice of religion within communism that caused the problems - it was the fierce nationalism and the fact that you can get people to commit all sorts of horros in the name of the state, or Mother Russia, or The Fatherland, and you can do it without appeal to gods. It is because there is a strong evolutionary tendency towards xenophobia and racism. Members of other tribes are competitors. It's that simple. Yes, religion makes this worse, but it is not the root cause.
True, it has that effect, but it doesn't have to. Thomas Jefferson was not "in the clutches of religion."
I agree, I mean that I find some passages valuable simply as literature - just like I love to read John Milton's Paradise Lost, even though the story is a myth - it is still good writing. Some of the Bible qualifies in that regard, but it's a subjective personal assessment.
There is really no way to confirm or disconfirm this, you know. I'm a deeply skeptical person, and while I have great confidence in science, I don't have that level of confidence. In some cases science has shown us that nature is fundamentally mysterious. There are things that can't be known, in principle. And I totally agree with Bohr that science isn't about what nature is, it is about what we can say about nature.
It might be, but unless we get him on this board, we are not going to know, and I am tired of speculating about it.
Not sure what this really means.
I am all for that kind of pursuit, I think it is a worthy goal for science. But why does it have to be either-or? I could pursue a scientific immortality and still hedge my bets.
And sorry to sound selfish here, but I doubt science is going to unlock immortality in MY lifetime, so it doesn't address my specific problems. I still think it is worth to work on it for the sake of our children's children, etc., though.
I'm not lying to myself or them - I don't have beliefs. But if I did have the beliefs, I wouldn't hold them if I thought I was lying to myself. On the other hand, I'm not going to tell my kids that it is a FACT that they will die and go into oblivion. That is a horrific thing to tell a child. So I tell them the truth - that I personally don't know. And I am not lying to them when I tell them that I hope there is an afterlife. I'm not particularly optimistic about it, but I hope for it anyway. That occurs completely outside my conscious choice.
I honestly don't think that is true across the board, there are many Christians that do a lot of charity work.
I honestly don't know if that is the case. I rather see both man and religion evolving together.
The only thing they have in common is that there is a God and Jesus was his embodiment and that you can be saved. That is it. And none of that has anything to do with geology, cosmology, or biology.
[quote="TOR']So I put it to you that science is a religion of sorts with maths as your God and you reject anything outside of that, so when you ask why do religious people do this, you know the answer, it is inside yourself.[/quote]
You should put it away, then.
The scientific method is not axiomatic; the fact that it has been essentially the same for some 300 years doesn't mean it hasn't been questioned or tested, it means that it works, is objective, and is open to review- unlike any religion.
...
"Science asks questions which may never be answered, Religion provides answers which may never be questioned."
You should put it away, then.
The scientific method is not axiomatic; the fact that it has been essentially the same for some 300 years doesn't mean it hasn't been questioned or tested, it means that it works, is objective, and is open to review- unlike any religion.
...
"Science asks questions which may never be answered, Religion provides answers which may never be questioned."
Querty Mob, you say science is objective....is it though?
quoted from web:
"Is Science Objective?
David A. Plaisted
The question arises, why do so many scientists support evolution, if the evidence for it is so weak? There are a number of answers for this. One is that science is so complicated that no one individual can be an expert in everything and so most people rely on the opinions of others and on accepted scientific theory. Another reason is that for one who rejects a belief in God, evolution (or extraterrestrial intervention) is the only possibility. Add to this the fear among scientists that creationists have a political agenda to take over society. Furthermore, a scientist who openly espouses creation may be placing his or her career at risk. Another problem is that it is difficult for one who is not accepted by the establishment to obtain sufficient technical fluency to be able to handle all of the complex issues involved in the discussion, so it is difficult to mount an effective response to evolution. We should not be surprised, therefore, at the naivite of some creationist arguments (such as that the earth expanded, or that a solid ice canopy once surrounded the earth). Finally, one who is not a part of the establishment is less likely to be accepted by the public. Despite all of these problems, many Bible believing Christians do believe in a recent creation of life. The eagerness with which the scientific community and, to some extent, the public accepted early evidences for evolution (such as the Piltdown fraud) does give reason to question whether the scientific community today is completely objective. My interaction with talk.origins and the tremendous hostility to creation shown there has also caused me to question the objectivity of the scientific establishment. It is not that individual scientists are (for the most part) deliberately falsifying the evidence, but the whole system tends to bias its interpretation in favor of evolution."
I'm not saying I agree with the above, just that it occurs to me both sides enjoy bias
quoted from web:
"Is Science Objective?
David A. Plaisted
The question arises, why do so many scientists support evolution, if the evidence for it is so weak? There are a number of answers for this. One is that science is so complicated that no one individual can be an expert in everything and so most people rely on the opinions of others and on accepted scientific theory. Another reason is that for one who rejects a belief in God, evolution (or extraterrestrial intervention) is the only possibility. Add to this the fear among scientists that creationists have a political agenda to take over society. Furthermore, a scientist who openly espouses creation may be placing his or her career at risk. Another problem is that it is difficult for one who is not accepted by the establishment to obtain sufficient technical fluency to be able to handle all of the complex issues involved in the discussion, so it is difficult to mount an effective response to evolution. We should not be surprised, therefore, at the naivite of some creationist arguments (such as that the earth expanded, or that a solid ice canopy once surrounded the earth). Finally, one who is not a part of the establishment is less likely to be accepted by the public. Despite all of these problems, many Bible believing Christians do believe in a recent creation of life. The eagerness with which the scientific community and, to some extent, the public accepted early evidences for evolution (such as the Piltdown fraud) does give reason to question whether the scientific community today is completely objective. My interaction with talk.origins and the tremendous hostility to creation shown there has also caused me to question the objectivity of the scientific establishment. It is not that individual scientists are (for the most part) deliberately falsifying the evidence, but the whole system tends to bias its interpretation in favor of evolution."
I'm not saying I agree with the above, just that it occurs to me both sides enjoy bias
Yes, you are, and worse, and you are flat wrong.
...
In order to apply the scientific method to some phenomenon, it must be objective and characterizable, and hypotheses which guide scientific inquiry must be testable and/or fit the majority of the observations directly. The results and/or predictions must also be objective and repeatable; and so theories must be falsifiable, or-
It ain't science.
...
You really don't have even a basic understanding of what you (or your sources) are deriding, and it is obvious.
...
In order to apply the scientific method to some phenomenon, it must be objective and characterizable, and hypotheses which guide scientific inquiry must be testable and/or fit the majority of the observations directly. The results and/or predictions must also be objective and repeatable; and so theories must be falsifiable, or-
It ain't science.
...
You really don't have even a basic understanding of what you (or your sources) are deriding, and it is obvious.
Addressed to Querty Mob
Noooooooooo I don't agree with creationism, don't presume!
I wouldn't be interested in Dolphin hands and aquatic ape theory (threads I started) if I was creationist now would I? tsk tsk tsk.........biased are you....seeing what you want to see........????
The link was the show that everyone seems to have valid arguments to suit their biased point of view, them, you........... blah blah blah
I have no scientific understanding and have never said I did. I said I was interested in science and I am.
I am also not a theist / creationsist or any other religious label you may want to hang on me.
I'm just noting what I observe which is that some of you science folk are just as fanatical about science as some religious are about religion.
A lot of people who claim to be religious no diddly squat about religion.
I'm not making any claims, just observations from this thread, which I stand by, you to me appear to be a religious science fanatic.
Noooooooooo I don't agree with creationism, don't presume!
I wouldn't be interested in Dolphin hands and aquatic ape theory (threads I started) if I was creationist now would I? tsk tsk tsk.........biased are you....seeing what you want to see........????
The link was the show that everyone seems to have valid arguments to suit their biased point of view, them, you........... blah blah blah
I have no scientific understanding and have never said I did. I said I was interested in science and I am.
I am also not a theist / creationsist or any other religious label you may want to hang on me.
I'm just noting what I observe which is that some of you science folk are just as fanatical about science as some religious are about religion.
A lot of people who claim to be religious no diddly squat about religion.
I'm not making any claims, just observations from this thread, which I stand by, you to me appear to be a religious science fanatic.
qwerty mob said:
Further more re your quote which ends 'or it just aint science,' shows that you actually DO recognise that there is something outside of science otherwise you may have ended your speech with 'or it just aint real'.
Outside of science is EVERYTHING that IS NOT observable/testable
because as humans we are limited by what we can see/study and observe. Somethings are beyond our ability to observe.
To deny this is to suggest that humans are omnipotent and that nothing exists anywhere that we are not capable of seeing etc etc etc. A very narrow minded, short sighted highly unlikey view of the world.
I have in my life time experienced many things science says are impossible and don't exist cos they can't observe/test/measure, well thats just like a blind person saying there's no such as coulour becuase they can't see it!
We will never agree, so lets just quit rambling.
there is no such thing as absolute objectivity and no such thing as absolute subjectivity neitherqwerty mob said:
and as a matter of interest. if yo are so passionate in defending science, how com you haven't addressed ghost..'s post above. now, i am NOT i assure you coming from a creationist viewpoint not the darwinist viewpont neither, HOWEVER his post offers some objections to Darwinist teory,yet not a one o the 'scientists' here have even mentioned it.
Why?
Duendy, Ghost believes we will all burn in hell if we're not christian, maybe his views are just a little er 'unrealistic?'
Then you don't see jack shit right, and there is ample evidence in this thread alone to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. I've made no presumptions or remarks mischaracterizing you as a creationist, a theist, or anything else; you are wrong again. I was letting you off the hook as being simply wrong, but now you are taking 'being wrong' to a whole new level- that of being deliberately wrong, and knowing it.
Stand by your "observations" all you wish at your own peril, because you don't really wish to force my hand at quoting you from this very thread.
...
If you don't see that either, you'll deserve the consequences, and no one will be surprised at just how nakedly wrong and worthless your assessments are; from science "being a religion" to "science not being objective" to "science enjoying bias" to your contrite opinions of me personally.
That you believe you are exempt from censure for making idiotic slurs merely because you don't dare defend them is revealing. Revealing of a child-like character whose purpose isn't to pontificate but to antagonize.
...
Besides, even if you obfuscate into solipsism, and "no observations outweigh others," then I observe that you are simply full of shit, and projecting your dim self worth onto others.
"Don't presume"?
Take your own advice.
Hurriedly.
Stand by your "observations" all you wish at your own peril, because you don't really wish to force my hand at quoting you from this very thread.
...
If you don't see that either, you'll deserve the consequences, and no one will be surprised at just how nakedly wrong and worthless your assessments are; from science "being a religion" to "science not being objective" to "science enjoying bias" to your contrite opinions of me personally.
That you believe you are exempt from censure for making idiotic slurs merely because you don't dare defend them is revealing. Revealing of a child-like character whose purpose isn't to pontificate but to antagonize.
...
Besides, even if you obfuscate into solipsism, and "no observations outweigh others," then I observe that you are simply full of shit, and projecting your dim self worth onto others.
"Don't presume"?
Take your own advice.
Hurriedly.
WTF- so much for your statement of "not making claims, but observations."
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
I am new here, and offer these observations very tentatively, since I don't really want to get into a mudslinging contest. So I'd like to try to keep it objective. At the risk of antagonizing, that's directed to qwerty and Theory.
I haven't posted much , but I have read several threads - from start to finish - how sad is that! I have to agree partly with Theory: there is a tendency for knee jerk reactions from the science types, immediately jumping on ideas they think are unscientific in some way. They may be right, but I've also noticed where another science type will come along a little later and correct them.
What I'm wondering is, qwerty, maybe you are correct about how objective and tested science is, but can you say the same thing about scientists? Aren't they likely to get hung up on prejudices and likes and dislikes, just the same as any other person. Well, maybe not as bad, but the tendency will still be there. Perhaps that is what Theory is seeing.
So, perhaps you are both correct. It's just your perspective that is different.
I haven't posted much , but I have read several threads - from start to finish - how sad is that! I have to agree partly with Theory: there is a tendency for knee jerk reactions from the science types, immediately jumping on ideas they think are unscientific in some way. They may be right, but I've also noticed where another science type will come along a little later and correct them.
What I'm wondering is, qwerty, maybe you are correct about how objective and tested science is, but can you say the same thing about scientists? Aren't they likely to get hung up on prejudices and likes and dislikes, just the same as any other person. Well, maybe not as bad, but the tendency will still be there. Perhaps that is what Theory is seeing.
So, perhaps you are both correct. It's just your perspective that is different.
qwerty mob said:
You and 'ghost' have a lot in common - opposite sides of fence of course but yes LOTS in common. Enjoy your day, oh and quote me all you like, I have no fear of you or ridicule or ..............burning in hell.
Yep u and ghost have a LOT in common.
I have edited this post as no more need to be said following on from above posters observations. I'll keep the mudslinging to a mature minimum. QM, u may continue, it helps my point!
Last edited:
Noooo i'm not on about his religious stuff..i am on about where he presents these quotes fom scientists(?) who refute tenets of evolutionary theory.....noone here espcially querty mob even hasmentioned his presented quotesTheoryofrelativity said:
so....i am askin, why not?
duendy said:
maybe its cos its not thread related?
My squabbling with Qm is to demonstrate that the religious who attack science are same as those scientists who attack religion, if they want to get into religious mind set, they need look no further than their own.
Thread opener
This last sentance now seems laughable after all the 'anti religion ' posts we've had from some members of the science community, no offence Dinosaur!
Dinosaur said:
This last sentance now seems laughable after all the 'anti religion ' posts we've had from some members of the science community, no offence Dinosaur!