Creationism... again.
-
I don't have a problem with religion it's what people do in the name of religion. Technology would probably be a lot further along if the church hadn't silenced/persecuted scientists of the time.
Mike Hankey wrote:
Technology would probably be a lot further along if the church hadn't silenced/persecuted
scientists of the time.:thumbsup:
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
-
I've never considered that I might be a liberal Christian. LOL. :) I am Christian, go to church every Sunday, lead the church's youth group and yet, I love science and believe it can coexist. There's more than enough proof of evolution that we can't deny it. As for being Christian, it's how I choose to live my life, and don't force my views on anyone else (what a boring world that would be), and don't talk religion unless someone else starts it. Even then, I always put in the clause "this is what I believe, and I could be way wrong". I'm not into converting people. I find it very frustrating the bad name "Christians" have given Christians. :) It's supposed to be about the love, and all it seems to be anymore is nothing but a religion of hate. :(
Caydence wrote:
I find it very frustrating the bad name "Christians" have given Christians.
It's because reasonable Christians, like yourself, understand it's counterproductive (and obnoxious) to go around loudly proclaiming you're right and everyone else is going to hell. So of course we don't hear much from you. Then there are those that believe it is their god appointed duty to be obnoxious, condescending and as loud as possible about their religion. Guess who gets noticed more.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Caydence wrote:
I find it very frustrating the bad name "Christians" have given Christians.
It's because reasonable Christians, like yourself, understand it's counterproductive (and obnoxious) to go around loudly proclaiming you're right and everyone else is going to hell. So of course we don't hear much from you. Then there are those that believe it is their god appointed duty to be obnoxious, condescending and as loud as possible about their religion. Guess who gets noticed more.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
David Kentley wrote:
Then there are those that believe it is their god appointed duty to be obnoxious, condescending and as loud as possible about their religion
You're talking about Dalek Dave? He's seems to be as much a true believer as the ones who are sure that God told them to eat with their right and wipe with their left.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
If you do a jigsaw and there are gaps, you can still tell guess at what the picture is.
FTFY
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Bacon was an Atheist
It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others.Of Atheism - Francis Bacon Are you sure he was an atheist?
ict558 - a Coward and a Fool. Dalek Dave & Hokum (Therefore it must be so, alas.)
ict558 wrote:
Are you sure he was an atheist?
I can say that he is a dribbler, fuck me that hurt my head to read that snetence.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
It might also have something to do with the fact that openly being an Atheist, or even having a less radical opinion that deviated from the norm, could cost your career as a scientist. I know Newton was very religious, not so sure about the others (also due ignorance on my part). But, we take free speech for granted, so we're not likely question whether someone is honest about his religious views. Maybe some of them just wrote something improve their image, so he could focus on his work. But if lying could mean the difference between being a highly respected citizen, making a living by doing groundbreaking research and live in poverty as a hermit, like Nietzsche and Tesla. I would probably lie too.
Giraffes are not real.
0bx wrote:
not so sure about the others (also due ignorance on my part).
They all beleived in God, that was part of my point. Mendel was a monk in the 19th century and Lord Kelvin was pretty condsidered fairly religious even by late Victorian standards. That was half the point, the other half being that they all weren't stupid and dangerous which is the way DD tends to tar such people, and what I was taking issue with. As for being agnostic/atheistic restricting career prospects, we need look no further than Darwin. He started on the road to becoming an Anglican clerrgyman, and became agnostic (after the death of his daughter IIRC) in later life, this didn't harm his career. OK for some of the eariler scientists free speech would have been a problem, but not so the later ones. Not only that, the ones I cited were known to be religous when just paying lip-service to religion would have been sufficient, so if they were liars as you suggest they were pretty stupid ones.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Dalek Dave wrote:
Scientific Methodology cannot be subject to dogma.
Except when it comes to Global War --- arrrrg!
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
I knew it was a sockpuppet account, that level of monomania had to be made up... :)
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
David Kentley wrote:
Then there are those that believe it is their god appointed duty to be obnoxious, condescending and as loud as possible about their religion
You're talking about Dalek Dave? He's seems to be as much a true believer as the ones who are sure that God told them to eat with their right and wipe with their left.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
This is curious, I've never spoken to an out and proud number 7. Even Prof Dawkins describes himself as a 6.9.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
I knew it was a sockpuppet account, that level of monomania had to be made up... :)
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]What do you mean? Simply because I can point out that in 1972 Professor Ezra T. Blowhard made a prediction that London would be buried under a glacier and in 2002 the same Professor made a prediction that -- arrrgh -- London would -- grrag . . . I miss him.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Hardly an argument. They were in a world dominated by Religion. Galileo was under the cosh, Bacon was an Atheist, and Copernicus was silenced for quite a while. Scientific Methodology cannot be subject to dogma.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Scientific Methodology cannot be subject to dogma.
Every single human endeavor is subject to the whims, fancies, prejudices, pre-conceived notions and out right stupidity of humanity as a whole. "Science" is no more exempt from that than anything else. One might even suppose that basic research is even more subject to that than other types because it is really unlikely to fund itself.
-
Yeah, I know, Dave... I want to move in that direction, but I force myself not to. I have friends who are religious (My best friend still goes to church every Sunday)... There's just an unspoken arrangement that we don't discuss their religion or my lack thereof... Granted, if they started basing their life choices on it, I'd have to intervene... Me, I tend to follow my paternal grandfather's "religion"... He paraphrased Thomas Paine in saying, "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's it. No sky pixies, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no temples, fasts, child-molesting priests, or praying... And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Me, I tend to follow my paternal grandfather's "religion"... He paraphrased Thomas Paine in saying, "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's it. No sky pixies, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no temples, fasts, child-molesting priests, or praying... And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever.
So what objective criteria do you use to measure whether you are in fact doing good?
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
and finally man
Got to take issue with that. Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product. And certainly there are species that have evolved after Homo Sapiens started wandering around.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product.
I doubt that. Certainly not currently. For evolution to occur there needs to be a net positive impact on propagation over time due to some factor. I doubt any such factors currently exist.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Me, I tend to follow my paternal grandfather's "religion"... He paraphrased Thomas Paine in saying, "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's it. No sky pixies, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no temples, fasts, child-molesting priests, or praying... And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever.
So what objective criteria do you use to measure whether you are in fact doing good?
The simplest rule of morality in existence. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product.
I doubt that. Certainly not currently. For evolution to occur there needs to be a net positive impact on propagation over time due to some factor. I doubt any such factors currently exist.
jschell wrote:
I doubt that. Certainly not currently.
Oh? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm[^]
-
I'm going to throw the 'Liberal Christian' take into this. I believe the Bible, it is a very good analogy of early world history. Take Genesis 1, there was nothing, then light [big bang], the earth formed, land and sea separated [forming the continents], all the plants and animals, and finally man. It did happen that way, just not in seven days. All these numpty dumpties forget that Darwin was a clergyman before being a scientist. There is no conflict, for me at least, between biblical teaching and scientific fact. FFS half the breakthroughs used to question religion where made by very religious people. [No I can't be fraked to list any more] Take the religion out of what the Bible, or Koran for that matter, teaches and it's good common sense with a strong moral overtone of looking after everyone. Just my penny's worth.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
All these numpty dumpties forget that Darwin was a clergyman before being a scientist.
Nobody forgets, it's just that it's largely irrelevant.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
There is no conflict, for me at least, between biblical teaching and scientific fact.
Take, say, evolution. Sure you can believe that God 'uses' evolution to achieve his ends, but then why would God choose to do it through the only possible method that doesn't require his existence?
-
Tut tut tut. Nope, not letting you get away with this one. I take it you mean such stupid people as : Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck and (arguably) Einstein. All beleived in the sky-pixie. Even ignoring the pre-modern ones the list is impressive and this is just the scientists. Mendel is interesting, his work filled many of the gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution, to do with inheritance and the passing on of traits. He was also a monk. Of course it could be argued that the society we live in is the result of the rennaisance (which lead to the Enlightenment), itself started in the context of Christian religous thought.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Tut tut tut. Nope, not letting you get away with this one. I take it you mean such stupid people as :
Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck and (arguably) Einstein. All beleived in the sky-pixie.The only reason why religion was invented was to stop the human race from going mad. Think about it for one minute. If people didn't believe that they would go to a better place after a life of servitude what would be the point of life itself? So, some bright spark boss thought 'oh shit I better come up with something to keep my workers working otherwise they'll all just sod off once they realise this is all there is.'
You do trust me, don't you? IF EVERY nation gets the leaders it deserves, what in God's name have we done to deserve Francis Urquhart?
-
The simplest rule of morality in existence. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
That isn't objective. It isn't measurable. And it is unlikely that what you want is what everyone else wants.
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
You said "And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever." If it is neither objective nor measurable then if you think you are in fact doing "good" (also what you said) it is self-delusional. Proving that is as simple as finding something who also claims that they are doing good yet whose actions you find abhorent on some level.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
You said "And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever." If it is neither objective nor measurable then if you think you are in fact doing "good" (also what you said) it is self-delusional. Proving that is as simple as finding something who also claims that they are doing good yet whose actions you find abhorent on some level.
That's not contradictory at all. That person is doing what they think is good, and I do what I think is good. I'm not deluding myself, and neither is he. The golden rule has nothing to do with how OTHER people behave. Your example only becomes valid if there's an objective definition for "good", which is exactly the point under debate here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)
