Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
dkv, understand this:

Science has been spectactularly successful experiment in itself for humanity. Religion, for all its pomp and blather, has been, continues to be, and for all we see into the future, WILL continue to be among the most abysmal of failures.

It is only natural that religionists would be jealous of science - cast aspersions, change the subject, claim the laurels - anything but straighten up its own act.

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Religion, for all its pomp and blather, has been, ...among the most abysmal of failures.
Get a clue. No society have been able to survive without religion yet!

e :rolleyes: s

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
[Quote]Originally posted by extrasense:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
[qb] Religion, for all its pomp and blather, has been, ...among the most abysmal of failures.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by extrasense:
Get a clue. No society have been able to survive without religion yet!


Come on, give humanity a chance. We are historicaly barely out of the religious Dark Ages.
Prehaps you have failed to notice that most all Countrys that had been previously governed/ruled by religion, have been forced to step down from being the rulers, in favour of adopting a non religious democratic elected Parliementary system of rule.

Mohammadism, has yet to evolve and adopt this new non combative favourable ruling system. However, being the newest religion, I imagine they will need many, many, more years before coming to their senses.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
It fascinating to note that up until only a hundreds or so years ago the fastest way for a human to travel on this planet was on the back of a horse.

Electricity wasn't discovered that long ago.

Penicillin barely before I was born and before that there were no antibiotics.

These "children" have no perspective. They live in a world where there has always been radio, TV, microwave ovens, refrigeration, computers, calculators, local anesthesia, manned flight, etc. and they can't even conceive of how thin the line between where we are and the caves in which we lived no that long ago.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
ES: Why limit the issue to "scientists"?

I am an old fellow and I have heard complaints and recited failings about all styles of living creatures in all services and intelectual endevors.

Lawyers are usually #1. Doctors place a close second. Many forms of academics have no reasonable bsais for existence as parasites on the rest of us. To avoid getting too deeply into the issue I will some what follow up on the idea that your ideas may have met with some reluctant views by "scientists".

There is a great example of science that you are using to argue against the value of science- your computer. A fantastic tool, a living proof of the benfits of science. It is not prejudiced against anything. There are no prohibited words or ideas and you can take advantage of the great mathematical gifts this friend has to offer and prove to the world that you have something good to share. Just the facts guy. Show your stuff.

Jim Wood

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
"Why not just stop all research because it's "God's will"?" -Amaranth Rose

I am confused on the goal of a "theory of everything" Because if everything can be explained through a mathematical formula then is there "free will"? What is the point of researching anything if it is fruitless because of scientific predeterminism?

Does a "theory of everything" support the idea of predeterminism? Such to mean as everything we do or do not do matters not because it is mathematically predestined?

Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Kremer:
Come on, give humanity a chance.
Until and unless philosophy has been created and accepted and a society formed based on it - a philosophy which is able to substitute for religion - the humanity without religion has no chance.

e cool s

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
The Father's great experiment is Universal (Catholic) Humanity.
That sounds like an unjustified religious statement in a science forum.
IMO, no. According to Sir Isaac Newton, "The Universal Ruler" (from Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Book III: The System of the World), and Encyclopaedia Britannica (Catholic from Greek katholikos, "universal"), Sir Isaac Newton's "The Universal Ruler" is "The Catholic Ruler" in etymology.

Please correct me if I am wrong dkv, but was not Sir Isaac Newton a great scientist?

http://www.britannica.com

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I wonder what Newton would say if he were alive today and in possession of what we know today? The man is not alive to defend himself. He was doing the best he could with what he had to work with in the time he lived. Remember that he had to get along with the orthodox bureaucracy of his time. How much of what he wrote then would he write today in a more liberal, religiously free era? He may have believed in what he wrote, but would he believe it today?

Somehow I think not. Science builds on the foundations of men like Newton, but it does not pay homage to the effigy; it moves onward and forward in thinking and practice. Newton would be amazed at the progress we have made, much based on his foundation. To quote his religious beliefs is to dishonor the scientist he was, IMHO. He can't defend himself today. He was a great scientist IN HIS TIME but this is today and we know things he did not. Quit using him as a cudgel and get your perspective rearranged; he is a foundation of modern science, not a theologian. You're as bad as the Inquisition trying to enforce Ptolemy's view of the universe when you do that.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
Why limit the issue to "scientists"?Jim Wood
Jim,

you apparently concede that science have gone pseudo.

Why not do something about it?
The good science will not badmouth religion too.

ES

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
I wonder what Newton would say if he were alive today and in possession of what we know today? The man is not alive to defend himself. He was doing the best he could with what he had to work with in the time he lived. Remember that he had to get along with the orthodox bureaucracy of his time. How much of what he wrote then would he write today in a more liberal, religiously free era? He may have believed in what he wrote, but would he believe it today?
Hey Isa, would ya?

"Yea"

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Es:

I try to keep some harmony in my ways so instead of saying "rant after all professionals because you are not focused anyway" I offer you what I see as a way for you to see where I think you are. I can not get uptight about your various posts because I do not understand them. Are you making a case for religion or are you making a case for scientists lacking communication skills. A not close friend of mine once offered that he "had never seen a picture of Einstein with his hair combed", every now and then I still wonder if that was a phylosophical comment that i failed to grasp a meaning of or simply a casual statement of fact. I conclude non-sense.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
Are you making a case for religion or are you making a case for scientists lacking communication skills.
I am making a case for religion as the only way humanity have found yet to ennoble human spirit and condition.
And at the same time I am making the case that "scientists" that badmouth religion are halfwits, in science itself in the first place.
They use the topic to get the importance that they do not deserve for their nonexistent scientific achievements.

E wink S

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
ESless:"I am making a case for religion as the only way humanity have found yet to ennoble human spirit and condition."

Enoble human spirit and condition? Bwa ha ha ha ha! Show me one major religion (excepting buddhism maybe) where the adherents didn't have to sacrifice something by killing (symbolism included) to indulge the omnipotent object of their beliefs.

Heck of a way to enoble one's spirit and condition. Good one, ESless!

ESless:"And at the same time I am making the case that "scientists" that badmouth religion are halfwits, in science itself in the first place."

Well, I know of someone, who shall remain unnamed laugh , who is badmouthing science, and who is also a halfwit "in science itself in the first place". And in this case I can see how religion would be the only thing that could eventually make you feel good about yourself(i.e. enoble your spirit).

But more important, are you by any chance arguing that only those scientists that are anti-religion are "corrupt"?

ESless:"They use the topic to get the importance that they do not deserve for their nonexistent scientific achievements."

ESless, when was the last time you prayed for a Blackberry and your prayer became through?

And BTW, don't you realize how well what you said applies to you? you are the perfect illustration of what you said. Really a noble spirit!

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Probably Newton really believed what he said. He was surrounded by religious influences. Would he believe it today? Probably not.

The closest thing we had to a Newton was Richard Feynman. He was an atheist. OTOH, while Newton was a brilliant person, I think his accomplishments have been exaggerated and that he was, frankly, not a very nice guy. If he's an xian, then the xians aren't near so xian as they profess.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Pasti:
Enoble human spirit and condition? Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Clearly, you think the science you know do not care about such nonsence.
Ability to sacrifice is nothing to such science, but it is necessary for the humanity you claim to care about. Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?

Quote:
are you by any chance arguing that only those scientists that are anti-religion are "corrupt"?
Not "only", yet those who are "anti-religion" are corrupt. One thing to be an atheist, but they are anti-theists. It is a bigotry of the worst kind, and anti-constitutional too.

e cool s

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Probably Newton really believed what he said.
He was surrounded by religious influences.
Would he believe it today?
Even though his reputation rests on his scientific work, science occupied Isaac Newton?s interest for a relatively short period of his life. Even while he was finishing his monumental Principia at age 28, he had grown tired of science and became engrossed in interpreting the book of Daniel which had fascinated him since his youth. Over the remainder of his life he would write over 1,300,000 words on religious subjects with prophecy his principal focus.

His consuming interest in prophecy stemmed from three fundamental beliefs:

1. The book of Daniel was a pre-written history of the world and to interpret it would unlock a treasure of understanding.
2. The book had been sealed (Daniel 12:4) and Newton believed the appointed time had arrived to break the seal.
3. God had chosen him to interpret it. This remarkable fact surfaced from recently discovered manuscripts of his.

He was haunted all his life by this calling.

http://www.historicist.com/newton/title.htm

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
He was secretary of the Royal Society for 25 years and had an influence on the developing new science that is difficult to imagine today.

To the extent that he produced good science, he was successful and produced benefit to all humanity. To the extent that he 'investigated' Daniel - well, it's not benefitted anyone.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
ES:"Clearly, you think the science you know does not care about such nonsense."

I have no idea where you learned "to do science", so to speak, but you seem to have missed the entire point of doing it, and of learning it.

I don't know if you have ever noticed, but not all scientists are Leo Szilard or Ernst Mach. Science at the personal level is supposed, at least according to the old school to enoble your spirit, and to develop your conscience. If this doesn't happen, then there is nothing religion could do more. But have you done science as you claim, you would have known this thing.

ES:"Ability to sacrifice is nothing to such science, but it is necessary for the humanity you claim to care about. Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?"

You need religion to teach you human values? I don't belive that. This is not a popularity issue, it is a personal quest, and each person should be able to develop his own personal values.

Learning them in a flock organized manner has the effect of very few understanding these values, and very many following rules they do not understand, and have no ideea how to apply them. There is no substitute for individual thinking, and religion is not yet ready to accept this kind of truth.

But I am happy that you agree with someone teaching you such values. You have just endorsed the crusades,the inquisition, as well as the modern jihad. Had you used your own thinking, I believe you would have thought twice before making such an argument for the obvious reason

ES:"Not "only", yet those who are "anti-religion" are corrupt."

All of those that are anti-religion are corrupt, that is what you want to say? Hm, this sounds very much like bigotry from your part. To me at least. Maybe you should look for a tutor in religious matters, because it seems that the spirit enoblement part has eluded you.

ES:"One thing to be an atheist, but they are anti-theists. It is a bigotry of the worst kind, and anti-constitutional too."

Well, you seem to also need to brush up on your constitutional skills too. Just in case you didn't know, atheists, anti-theists, believers and anti-science zealots have the same rights under the Constitution. They also should respect each others beliefs, and this is the part religion has a very hard time understanding. Oh, and also the freedoom of speach issue.

In your oppinion, as stated above, you just want atheists and anti-theists to mind their own business, while the various religions do what they always did. Namely medling into things where they have no right to do so ("teaching" others the "right things to", right?). I.e. not respecting the other oppinions and beliefs (or lack of, for that matter), because they already know all the "right" answer. This is what you claim above.As I was saying, the sprit enoblement part has eluded many such religious people. Not to mention the meaning of the term bigot. So very sad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
extraNONsense wrote:
"Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?"

Are you so morally bankrupt that it takes threats of burning in hell and eternal damnation to get you to be decent to others?

Are you so lacking in conscience and civility that if god and the devil don't exist you are going to commit murder, rape goats, and steal children's lunch money?

I worked as a life guard for many years while in high school and college. Do you think I threw myself into the water to rescue people because "someone" was watching? Disgusting.


DA Morgan
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5