Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Ok ... Time to engage

The origins board appears to be the acceptable place to discuss the impact of religion on science and society so here are a couple of beauties from today's news:

Here's one Christian that Blacknad said can be ignored:

SELMER, Tennessee (AP) -- Matthew Winkler had been the minister at the Fourth Street Church of Christ for just over a year, and the congregation loved his straight-by-the-Bible sermons and his quiet wife, Mary.

"We've known from the beginning that she was either a suspect or a victim," said Jennifer Johnson, spokeswoman for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations.

And then there is this heart warming story about religion. I can't figure out why this guy doesn't throw himself onto a sword and become a martyr.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

Doesn't he believe?

What was missing from the news, probably some insidious censorship, was any mention of a scientist attacking another scientist with a brick for publishing a paper that contradicted his belief in cold fusion.

It highlights the need to reach to conclusion in time before some throws another brick.

I'm betting the Tennessee case will reveal that the minister used the Bible to keep his wife in submission to his whims. Whether beatings were involved, or assorted head games were his method remains to be seen. She cracked and ran.

The Afghan Christian will probably be taken into the US as a refugee, unless he's outside the influence of the Mayor of Kabul. They might save a little face for the Islamic theocrats by having him officially exiled.

Here are my pre-conclusions. Lets see how many are correct.

1. The wife had a damned good reason to fear him hurting her and/or the children.

2. His parishioners will all talk about how wonderful he was and how they didn't have a clue.

3. Those that knew them will talk about how they seemed like the perfect happily married couple.

4. All of the people in other parishes will say ... what a terrible tragedy but our minister is nothing like that.

Well 2 and 3 are already happening in the news so you're 50% correct and it's only been one or two days.

Number 4 is correct based on previous issues with pedophilia in the Church so that leaves number one.

I give it 2 weeks at the most and we will know the whole sordid story.

Aren't people wondeful? Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I have said in past posts:

"Christians sin."

"The church is full of failing people - Jesus said 'I have come for the sick, not the well'."

"There are standards by which the Christian can be judged."

"There are many people who call themselves Christians but do not follow Christ."

"There are many people who call themselves Christians but are nominal and it is more of a badge than a reality".

"When evil is comitted by people who say they are Christians - they are either not real Christians or are corrupted Christians in obvious error".


I will say here again:

"Christians sin".

"Christians commit evil acts."

"On balance I believe that Christians do more good than bad."

"Your perception of Christianity and how it behaves is not the full picture - you are only interested in the self evident failures."

"You do not get to see Christians devoting their lives to doing good, because much of it is done quietly. You only hear (and are only interested in) the salacious, news-worthy actions."

This is evidenced in this pathetic thread, which proves exactly nothing, and is using the suffering of two people to score cheap shots.

Dan wrote - "Why doesn't he fall on his sword?"

- What has this guy done to deserve your contempt? He faces either death or dismemberment by the looks of it. And you want to use his predicament to score a pointless cheap shot.


Chaoslillith wrote - "I give it 2 weeks at the most and we will know the whole sordid story."

- Why wait two weeks, you already know all the facts, have judged all involved, and seem to revel in it.


The Bible has a more balanced view of Christian frailty:

- Heb 5:2 Of the Christian:

"He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. "


Well I am now taking SAGG out of my favourites and will no longer bother you. It has been a good source of science news and I have learnt much and enjoyed the people here. But I am now getting tired of reading posts and feeling insulted as the thing that is central to my life is trampled underfoot on almost a daily basis.

I think the following was the last straw and if it was intended to hurt and get Christians down then it was certainly successful in my case:

"Evicted, I presume, because god out father was a louse like so many fathers. Always blowing up in a rage, known for violent temper tantrums. Probably also a drunk."


This has nothing to do with reasoned debate.

Goodbye all.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Has nothing to do with judging and everything to do with incidents in the past repeating themselves.

I only revel in hypocrisy, all hypocrisy. The religious folks are just the most glaring examples of it especially when those who commit the heinous acts get self-righteous.

This is all so incredibly fascinating. But it seems the last of the religious zealots have departed so lets get back to pure science.

I so dedicate myself until the next batch of faith-based zealots comes along. See you in the serious science forum.

Zealotry of any kind is a bad thing. When someone leaves because of another member's bashing it looks bad for the forum. We ought to be cultivating diversity, not running people off. A bit more respect for the right of others to play in the sandbox would seem to be in order.

I agree Rose. But diversity in ideas in a science forum should not mean that we pretend to have a science-based discussion of intelligent design or whether Jesus died for our sins. It is not the same thing as a discussion of whether hydrogen will be a primary source of power (note that Al and I agree to disagree) or whether clays are capable of catalyzing the formation of RNA.

What we had was an intentional assault by Christian fundamentalists, with no interest in science, pushing their religion. It started that way and it ended that way.

What looked bad, from where I sit, was the tolerance of the moderators for postings that were clearly unrelated to science ... and as I have a bit of integrity ... I will acknowledge that they were both theirs and mine.

If the site was kept to science. If nonsense was not tolerated from anyone (including me) I wouldn't feel compelled to point out to lurkers and children that intelligent people think faith-based pseudo-science is a form of psychosis.

My views shouldnt't be much of a surprise to you. Al posts his "you are an idiot" message and I challenge them, point-by-point on their lack of rationality.

If you don't like it ... and I can't imagine why you would. Then my recommendation would be to either kick me out or convince Kate and Rusty to try, for say 90-120 days dumping all theological content as soon as it is posted. Personally I would applaud you if you stop threatening to delete my posts and actually did so. Some of them were way over the top and intentionally so in the hope that something would be done.

I like SAGG conceptually. People with questions about science topics need a place to ask questions. But allowing the repeated hijaacking by religious zealots serves no useful purpose.

And again Kate, if you need the money, just ask. The bottom of this page where I am typing is still offering Beautiful Christian Singles. What the heck. I think I'll sign up. ;-) I'm a real beaut.

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it--within bounds. Hitting on people (insults, name calling, etc.) has no place in this forum. If you have a complaint about a post, use the whistle and report it. Don't just respond to junk posts. Unbelievable as it may seem, I do have other things that I do besides moderate this forum. I do read everything that is posted and I do follow nearly every link posted (PDF's are the exception, my version of Acrobat is messed up and doesn't work properly) so I keep close tabs on what is going on here. A certain degree of respect for others here might be in order. I have not seen very much respect for others here lately. Please remember that people come here to ask outlandish questions and post outlandish theories; let's not pillory the questioner or the theoretician. One of you might one day be in the same position; offer some respect for others.

Amaranth.

Thanks Rose, you took the words right out of my mouth!

The Origins Forum is a place to discuss, well, origins; where we came from and the theories that people may have about that. It will almost certainly attract posts about religion/faith/belief systems etc. That was why it was created in the first place!

A preacher beating up his wife is not a relevant topic for this forum. Just as a scientist beating up her husband wouldn?t be relevant in the other forum. I don?t believe tabloid type news stories that are tenuously related to the forum topic have any place in any of the forums here.

Rose made two very good points.

1)Common courtesy - yes please! Rude and ill-mannered posts will not be tolerated.

2)I don?t know how many times I have to say this - if you don?t like a topic, then don?t post to it! Believe it or not, you don?t need to respond to *every* topic. Listen up to this advice. Just ignore them, and yes, they will go away, rather than being bumped up continuously by asinine replies about how useless/stupid/uneducated the original poster is. The time that you save from not posting to every topic can be used to play with your dog, wash your car, clean the kitchen, or any number of other worthwhile pursuits.

Thanks for your attention!

KM

Goodbye Blacknad,

You will be missed. You added so much interaction to this forum. I'm sorry this place is not more caring. I know how it feels to spend time with people and really start to care about them only to find out they don't care much at all about you; they post insults even as you leave. You're not a Zealot for goodness sake.
From your posts you seem a kind and good father and husband. Sensitive, brilliant and concerned about the people around you. It takes great strength to stand in defense of your personal beliefs and you've been dodging thrown stones for such a long time to the point of verbal abuse. I hope I catch ya around in a kinder sandbox! Unfortunately, most of the sandboxes are exactly like this one when it comes down to what is important. All these forums give people license to be arrogant and cruel and in a constant verbal punching match. There are a few out there that are safe places to really get to know people. Good luck on your journeys...I think you are an incredible person. I have a feeling that in real life, your friends and family know how lucky they are to know you. You outshine people in many ways.
Bye!

Blacknad:

You may have guessed that I am not very heavy into religion and I do not favor any particular variety. OTOH I am quite heavy against those that want to rant against things they are unable to comprehend or understand or appreciate. The very essence of science is the pursuit of learning and that means that the substance of the issue, any issue, must get reasonable consideration if it is to be considered, ridiculed, denied, rejected or treated with disgust. Some individuals on this Forum have such heavy backpacks that twist their ?scientific approach? that they are incapable of impartiality and for that reason demonstrate they are not of the scientific bent but rather pretend to have an interest so instead to play the plagiarists, the misinterpreters and the degraders bent on the spread of doubt, confusion and worst of all, hatred and ignorance. Let them enjoy the game.

So Blacknad, all you will accomplish by leaving is to suggest that they have won. Your science offerings rate with any of the others. Do not let pagans and infidels rule your life.

From my standpoint I have recently decided to ignore the self endowed judges in all things.
I am almost finished on my current book and that is a lot of fun requiring no ego non-sense.
JJW

jjw004 ... impartiality does not mean abandoning the scientific method any more than a jurist is asked to abandon common sense.

I ask nothing of those that have difficulty with the question. The "scientific method" was not, as I know of it, intended to be a lesson in denial. Impartiality might have some merit in it.
jjw

The scientific method demands certain things.

I trust you will have no problem using this defintion:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

When the articles of faith meet these criteria I'll be on my knees too.

But not a damned second before then.

And neither should any other sentient being.

DA challenges with a web site on the ?Scientific Method?

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:"

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

Scientist:
I see a large space full of matter to a point beyond measurement.

Creationist:
I see a large space beyond measure all of which is subject to God?s will.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

Scientist:
We had something, or possibly nothing, from which the Universe was born as a result of a ?Big Bang?, for which we have not defined a cause or of a means but which, any way, has caused all the matter we see now to be expanding from a central point which has not as yet been determined or discovered or within our ability to define.

Creationist:
God, a sublime powerful entity caused the creation of matter and caused it to disperse throughout the Universe to create an infinity of creations.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Scientist:
I predict this creation of the Big Bang will continue to expand and of it?s own continue to create ?stars?, possibly some with planets, and that theses systems may be found some day to have life in them and all of this has no underlying purpose that is comprehensible to humans.

Creationist:
God created all we see for his purpose which is not revealed for mortal understanding. God provided the mechanics that every star by its means of creation will have planets and it was God?s plan, in part, to have life flourish everywhere.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

Scientist:
The Big Bang of creation evolved separate collections of matter called Galaxies for which we have no immediate explanation. We do not think that all stars have planets but we are looking for them. We do not believe that life exists everywhere in the Universe and we challenge the possibility of life unless it conforms to our carbon standard. In this part of our theory we predict nothing of importance because our views must change daily.

Creationist:
Common sense and logic compel the conclusion that if my theory provides for an all powerful creator then all we see and learn about the Universe and the Stars and the planets are within his/her ability to provide. Even science falters when trying to explain the alleged lack of planets for which they search when at the same time arguing that planets formed on their own from large dust/particle clouds which would automatically provide the material for residual planets. Creation is perfect and uniform everywhere as shown by your discovery of Gods gravitation.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Scientist:
We are still learning and seeking answers to things that elude us. Our theories are truly hypothesis seeking proof. Our scientific method is designed to thwart efforts of rebuttal.

Creationist:
Gods work is complete and accounts for all we see and all that remains unseen. the stars and the galaxies and the life forms are where they were intended to be.

"When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made."

DA you make me work against some of my personal beliefs, but that was at one time part of my professional life so I made a stab at it. There are some things that are so contradictory about scientific thought it makes a guy like me question it. Not mathematics or physics or those items that are self evident, just the way of it.
I recommend the book ?FORBIDDEN SCIENCE? to all.
JJW

jjw04 wrote:
"1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

Scientist:
I see a large space full of matter to a point beyond measurement.

Creationist:
I see a large space beyond measure all of which is subject to God?s will."

I am going to ignore your other nonsense as this first item constrains enough insanity to stand on its own.

Do you see any problem with your two statements? Of course not as you are wallowing in willfull ignorance. So I'll paint the picture for you.

Scientist:
I see a large space full of matter to a point beyond measurement.

The scientist can call together a group of researchers: A Christian, a Moslem, a Jew, a Buddhist, a deist, an atheist, and a video camera. All will agree that they saw the exact same thing.

Now lets look at your second statement with the same group of observers:

I see a large space beyond measure all of which is subject to God?s will."

The Christian, the Moslem, the Jew, and the deist see the same thing. The Buddhist, the atheist and the video camera do not. Not one of them see's anything subject to "God's will."

Are you really incapable of thinking things through or do you just choose not to?

I knew this was a pointless game from step 1.

You were offered statements consistent with alternative viepoints and, per "DA's scientific method" you level not on alternative views but argue that alternative theories will not be accepted by you if religion gets to peek.

You avoid the rest of the scientific theories because it upsets you to see such a "holy" presentation of science present offerings.

It's OK DA. I should not have accepted your "test", even in fun.
JJW

I am not playing games here. What I am doing is subjecting you to what is called critical thinking.

Science, and the scientific method, are based upon a couple of very simple premises. One of these premises is that physics is the same for all observers. Gravity does not affect Christians differently than atheists.The melting point of water ice is not subject to the belief system of the observer.

Your second statement:
"I see a large space beyond measure all of which is subject to God?s will."
is by definition going to produce different answers depending on the observer. An Earth man and a Martian will agree on the index of refraction of a diamond. You can not obtain an agreement between an atheist and deist that anything is subject to God's will.

Thus your second statement is based on theology and faith ... not science. Are you incapable of seeing the difference?

DA you are missing the point.

The "difference", IS the point.

jjw

jjw004 wrote:
"The "difference", IS the point."

Q: Why does a mouse when it spins?
A: Because the higher the fewer!

Your statement and mine ... equally meaningful. There is no point in what you wrote. Just words strung together in a fashion emulating a sentence.

Mr Morgan. All thinking is subject to pre-existing values held in the head of the thinker. Value free critical thinking is illusory whether it is performed by philosophers, theologians, scientists or drug addicts. Each thought is filtered through a whole maze of hard wired perceptions and assumptions. Your thinking may be more reliable when it comes to hard science...as it is testable, but still not 100% trustworthy. When you stroll into the realm of philosophy and theology you join hands with rest of the crack addicts whos underlying drives, fears and desires drive them to rationalise what they're doing. It's the humble of thought who will bring progress. It's the opinionated that we should fear. No dictator has kicked off genocide by stating..."Now I may well be mistaken about this but...".

Easy.

Easy Life wrote:
"Mr Morgan. All thinking is subject to pre-existing values held in the head of the thinker."

Mr. Easy. All communication requires that all parties to the communication understand it.

You are correct that the realm of philosophy and theology runs by different rules. Though I wouldn't go so far as to label all of them crack addicts. But the last time I checked the URL was scienceagogo.com not lookattheprettycolors.com

Morgan.. are you telling people how to define/use scientific method, post some of your writings, give us some EXAMPLE on how YOU conduct scientific study(s) .. should we look at the surgery and prayer "STUDY" that you deemed scientific and pure, beyond questionable?? ROFLMAO.. stop, my ribs hurt!

DA, I will get a little serious for a moment.

I am not some dummy that is serious about your beliefs, or gives a damn about your beliefs. It is your constant bombardment of other people?s views that gets me involved with your postings.

The major difference between us is that I view and tolerate the views of others and I am capable of seeing their point and you refuse to do so.

When I was working full time the degrees of my adversaries meant zilch to me and, if you answer Archer and list your Phd?s it will not matter a bit to this discussion with me. A good hard working lawyer can spend a weekend focused on the surgery a neurosurgeon performed and study the issue completely so as to competently cross examine that surgeon on each aspect of what was intended, what was done and why the result, or the written opinion, was to be questioned. Science condensed into 48 hours.

I have been going along with your dogma mistakenly thinking that you would respond logically when someone provided answers to your self esteemed maneuverings. I enjoy your consistency but not your failure to ever confront a logical discussion that fails to conform to your religion.

You may not think so but you are the most ?religious? person here. AMEN!
jjw

jjw004 wrote:
"It is your constant bombardment of other people?s views that gets me involved with your postings."

It is not their views. It is their hypocrisy. I keep saying that but you don't like the message.

I too tolerate the views of others. I have risked my life to defend the freedom of others to do things I personally find offensive: Which I might add includes you. This isn't about toleration. It is about hypocrisy.

Simply put. If you believe in your God then act like it. And that doesn't mean prosletyzing. It doesn't mean that with every advance of science you trot out your religious belief and claim evolution never happened. It doesn't mean defending the indefensible such as the Inquisition and the repetition of wars fought between different denominations of your religion.

If someone truly believes in the god of the Old and/or New Testament I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them brainwashing innocent children. I do have a problem with them hypocritically refusing to acknowledge the creation of smallpox. I do have a problem with hypocrisy.

jjw004 wrote:
"You may not think so but you are the most ?religious? person here. AMEN!"

Perhaps. But not the most hypocritical. And that is what matters.

Just once I'd like to see a "true believer" acknowledge that the God he believes in has done evil things: Just once!

Hey DA,

Hecate and the Greek/Roman pantheon did lots of evil things and as Hecate is one of my favorite deities I hope this makes you feel a little better. :p

I don't even worship the ground I stand on. But Machiavelli's Prince had one thing going for him: Integrity. He made no claim of benevolence.

Good Morning DA.

It is a beautifull day here in Palm Desert, California. I decided to ignore your posts on the Origins Board. They do not concern any of my personal beliefs.
JJW

Hey,

I grew up in 1000 Palms, small cyberworld isn't it!!!

jjw004 ... perhaps you should get in out of the sun.

You just wrote:
"I decided to ignore your posts on the Origins Board. They do not concern any of my personal beliefs."

Glad to hear it. If this keeps up we might just be able to get back to a single science board in which science is discussed. Though I'll not be holding my breath.

DA:

One exception. I repeat;
I decided to ignore your posts on the Origins Board. They do not concern any of my personal beliefs."
jjw

Try harder and no doubt you can break yourself of the unclean habit of reading and responding to my posts.

Others have. You can too.

DA:

You do not give your self credit. You are the main stream of the Origins Board yet you wish to refer to it with distain.

Of 35 topics listed DA made 9 original posts.
Of the 35 topics DA currently, today, has made 20 replies. I made one post and one current reply. It looks to me that DA dominates this unworthy board.
jjw

It was too good to be true. Here you are reading my posts and responding again. Have you considered a 12 step program?

I have nothing but disdain for this and would shed no tears if Kate would take science seriously and get rid of this and other similar rubbish.

But until she does I will engage with every hypocritical parrot that perches here and tries to brain wash people with their personal theology by pointing out its inconsistencies, its lies, and if appropriate, its history of hypcrisy.

Now you made a promise and you broke it. You said: "I decided to ignore your posts on the Origins Board" and you didn't. Please try harder. Lying is, after all, a sin.

can't stop clicking ......must tear eyes away from board...auuuggggghhh!!!

(ahh the addiction of forums)

I have a nice 18 year old scotch, some ice cubes, and two glasses. Care to join me?

Never ... ever ... take life too seriously. ;-)