Nice Letter
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Science is being used to try to disprove God, when frankly it has just the same ability to prove His existence as well.
Which is none. The scientific method can neither disprove nor prove the existence of gods.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Hence, why the debate even exists.
The debate as to the existence of god certainly predates the scientific method. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God!'" Psalm 14 - Attributed to David circa 1010-970 BCE (2 B PC) Early evidence of Atheists. :)
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
ict558 wrote:
Which is none. The scientific method can neither disprove nor prove the existence of gods.
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
ict558 wrote:
The debate as to the existence of god certainly predates the scientific method.
Agreed. But the point was just that if a concrete proof existed, it wouldn't be a debatable subject.
-
I wrote:
The first hospitals (formalized places of medicine) were founded by churches. But in the end, the notion of a hospital was popularized and expanded via Christians. "It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from 331 ce when Roman emperor Constantine I (Constantine the Great), having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to the members of the community, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church."
I haven't changed my position. Yes, other places may have been tending to the sick, but the Christian faith made hospitals what we know of them today. You know humanitarian - prior to HMO's and the like.
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
You're confusing Catholic dogma (which isn't Christianity), but current church 'rules' if you will.
Really? Certainly Catholicism falls under the umbrella of Christianity. And as far as I know Catholicism is based on the idea that the Pope and only the Pope is allowed to determine what the faith represents. And Pope does not allow the use of condems. Thus it is in fact part of the faith of Catholicism that condoms are not allowed. And since Catholics are close to if not over 50% of all Christians in the world and since there are other Christians that do not allow them then one can certainly generalize that Christianity doesn't favor condoms. On the other hand your definition of a 'rule' would seem to fit more closely with the Catholicism view of priests having sex with children.
My statement is purely that the Pope determined this 'rule'. Based on what is found in the Bible, you cannot state that God is for or against condoms.
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Yes, other places may have been tending to the sick, but the Christian faith made hospitals what we know of them today
Certainly Catholic churches are what they are today - those that limit medical choices based on religious dogma.
Well, it is their choice, much like it is your choice to have a disdain for them and other faiths.
-
Are you suggesting people would not help other people without science?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Are you suggesting people would not help other people without science?
"Humanitarian aid" doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean you helping your neighbor because they broke their leg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_aid[^] It represents a organized, larger scale effort to help those that are not directly related or known to one individual. And without science. 1. There would be no way to provide such aid. There would be no modern transportation, no modern agriculture, no modern medicine, no modern disposal income. All of which allows for "Humanitarian aid". 2. Because of the lack of all of those individual lives would be more fraught with peril and more people would live day to day. Thus they would be incapable of providing the resources necessary to support "Humanitarian aid". Desire to do good is simply not enough.
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Actually, medicine was as a result of Christianity
Nonsense. There are many factors that lead to all scientific disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, alchemy patronage, wealthy indulgence and sheer luck. That statement also completely ignores other religions which also had an impact. And religion has taken an active role in many times and places in suppressing all forms of science which has probably had more impact than any other at slowing research. And that still continues.
Follow the threads down, I've had with others. You'll see that I've expanded on my original statement.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Are you suggesting people would not help other people without science?
"Humanitarian aid" doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean you helping your neighbor because they broke their leg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_aid[^] It represents a organized, larger scale effort to help those that are not directly related or known to one individual. And without science. 1. There would be no way to provide such aid. There would be no modern transportation, no modern agriculture, no modern medicine, no modern disposal income. All of which allows for "Humanitarian aid". 2. Because of the lack of all of those individual lives would be more fraught with peril and more people would live day to day. Thus they would be incapable of providing the resources necessary to support "Humanitarian aid". Desire to do good is simply not enough.
Quote:
It doesn't mean you helping your neighbor because they broke their leg.
Sure it does. Read the dictionary definition, not some post some fulano de tal put on wiki. having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.[^]
Quote:
larger scale effort
That is often how it is referred to, but it does not have to be large scale.
Quote:
And without science. 1. There would be no way to provide such aid.
Not true. Yes, science has helped, but people were helping people long before science was a part of it.
Quote:
Desire to do good is simply not enough.
Ironic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I wrote:
The first hospitals (formalized places of medicine) were founded by churches. But in the end, the notion of a hospital was popularized and expanded via Christians. "It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from 331 ce when Roman emperor Constantine I (Constantine the Great), having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to the members of the community, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church."
I haven't changed my position. Yes, other places may have been tending to the sick, but the Christian faith made hospitals what we know of them today. You know humanitarian - prior to HMO's and the like.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
the Christian faith made hospitals what we know of them today. You know humanitarian
Healing was practised in Temples dedicated to Asclepius (God of Healing). So, not much difference between them and hospitals attached to Churches. The Temples were not closed because of the treatment provided, nor for their want of humanity, but merely because they were pagan. Illness thus became a matter for the Church because it always had been a matter for the religion du jour. Sick people turn to their gods for succour, make offerings to their Temples or Churches.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
:( How about a frown? Seriously though...any organization of man is bound to be corrupt to some degree by the very fact man is in it. We are corrupt/fallen beings. Do I believe that religion should be tossed aside because of a few bad eggs? No. See the whole baby with the bath water dilemma.
mark merrens wrote:
a cult predicated on a lie.
Watch it now, your faith is starting to show. ;)
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Do I believe that religion should be tossed aside because of a few bad eggs?
I do: they're not just bad, they're rotten to the core.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Watch it now, your faith is starting to show.
Impossible: I don't have any.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
the Christian faith made hospitals what we know of them today. You know humanitarian
Healing was practised in Temples dedicated to Asclepius (God of Healing). So, not much difference between them and hospitals attached to Churches. The Temples were not closed because of the treatment provided, nor for their want of humanity, but merely because they were pagan. Illness thus became a matter for the Church because it always had been a matter for the religion du jour. Sick people turn to their gods for succour, make offerings to their Temples or Churches.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
ict558 wrote:
Illness thus became a matter for the Church
Actually, it was important to the Church, since the Christian faith is built upon compassion for others - especially those who normally wouldn't receive care.
-
mark merrens wrote:
12 out of the hordes that have existed?
I did say start didn't I? :D And with that, we'll just leave that thread dead, unworthy of further banter.
mark merrens wrote:
faith has nothing to do with science.
<Tongue in cheek>It does take a bit of faith though to say that there are X number of dimensions we cannot see and cannot prove, but just trust me that they are there.</Tongue in cheek> We all have faith in something, it just depends on your world view what exactly that is - faith in the existence or lack there of of something that has yet to be proven.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
We all have faith in something, it just depends on your world view what exactly that is - faith in the existence or lack there of of something that has yet to be proven.
No we don't: you're making the error of ascribing your beliefs to everyone else because you think that everyone is like you. They're not. And it isn't faith to postulate that there may be more to the universe than we currently know. Faith is saying that it is all supernatural and can't be rationally explained.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
We all have faith in something, it just depends on your world view what exactly that is - faith in the existence or lack there of of something that has yet to be proven.
No we don't: you're making the error of ascribing your beliefs to everyone else because you think that everyone is like you. They're not. And it isn't faith to postulate that there may be more to the universe than we currently know. Faith is saying that it is all supernatural and can't be rationally explained.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
No we don't: you're making the error of ascribing your beliefs to everyone else because you think that everyone is like you.
I'll use words that won't invoke as much negative emotion then...belief. We all have a belief in something, it just depends on what your world view is.
mark merrens wrote:
Faith is saying that it is all supernatural and can't be rationally explained
Faith isn't limited to supernatural things. Faith, as defined by Google: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something[^] It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Do I believe that religion should be tossed aside because of a few bad eggs?
I do: they're not just bad, they're rotten to the core.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Watch it now, your faith is starting to show.
Impossible: I don't have any.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
I do
I'm sorry you do, then.
mark merrens wrote:
Impossible: I don't have any.
See our other thread. ;)
-
mark merrens wrote:
No we don't: you're making the error of ascribing your beliefs to everyone else because you think that everyone is like you.
I'll use words that won't invoke as much negative emotion then...belief. We all have a belief in something, it just depends on what your world view is.
mark merrens wrote:
Faith is saying that it is all supernatural and can't be rationally explained
Faith isn't limited to supernatural things. Faith, as defined by Google: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something[^] It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
We'll have to differ here. Recall, you're the one using faith in a religious context; you can't then apply it to everything else as well to make your point work.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
That makes no sense.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
mark merrens wrote:
I do
I'm sorry you do, then.
mark merrens wrote:
Impossible: I don't have any.
See our other thread. ;)
Andrew Rissing wrote:
I'm sorry you do, then.
Please don't: I'm perfectly happy with my non-belief; it is you that I feel sorry for: shackled and enslaved to the cult of religion.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
See our other thread.
Oh boy; can't be asked: you'll just have to have faith that I mean what I say.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Andrew Rissing wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
We'll have to differ here. Recall, you're the one using faith in a religious context; you can't then apply it to everything else as well to make your point work.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
That makes no sense.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
My comment merely to those who believe in things that cannot be seen, such as string theory. They have faith in their theories - as someone had defined elsewhere - faith is belief in the supernatural. 8+ dimensions that are not visible or testable seems rather supernatural to me. :omg:
mark merrens wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
I'm merely stating that their faith in string theory is what is sustaining their continued work in it - in the face of no clear proof.
-
My comment merely to those who believe in things that cannot be seen, such as string theory. They have faith in their theories - as someone had defined elsewhere - faith is belief in the supernatural. 8+ dimensions that are not visible or testable seems rather supernatural to me. :omg:
mark merrens wrote:
It isn't faith that postulated it, but it is faith that sustains it.
I'm merely stating that their faith in string theory is what is sustaining their continued work in it - in the face of no clear proof.
I am willing to bet that if you asked one of them if faith had anything to do with it they'd say no (unless, of course, they believe in a god). Their theories are usually (and I'm happy to be corrected here) supported by the math. So, whilst they may not be able to see n dimensions they can postulate that they exist and provide a mathematical framework to support that hypothesis. Read this; you might find it interesting: Calabi–Yau manifold[^]. It is wrong to assert that science is predicated on faith in the religious sense: the whole notion of science is reason and observation and experimentation; almost anti-faith.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ict558 wrote:
Which is none. The scientific method can neither disprove nor prove the existence of gods.
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
ict558 wrote:
The debate as to the existence of god certainly predates the scientific method.
Agreed. But the point was just that if a concrete proof existed, it wouldn't be a debatable subject.
Andrew Rissing wrote:
Debatable, honestly. It is a matter of opinion and perspective - in either light.
So provide a proof.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I am willing to bet that if you asked one of them if faith had anything to do with it they'd say no (unless, of course, they believe in a god). Their theories are usually (and I'm happy to be corrected here) supported by the math. So, whilst they may not be able to see n dimensions they can postulate that they exist and provide a mathematical framework to support that hypothesis. Read this; you might find it interesting: Calabi–Yau manifold[^]. It is wrong to assert that science is predicated on faith in the religious sense: the whole notion of science is reason and observation and experimentation; almost anti-faith.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
What I think the problem is you cannot detach the notion of faith from religion. I'm by no means an expert in string theory, but what I do know of it, it seems to be far from fully accepted due to a lack of evidence. My statements are merely that they have faith (not to be confused with faith in God), but a faith regardless. Either way, I'll just let this discuss end here. We're not heading towards a conclusion any time soon and only spamming CP. So, agree to disagree. You can reply if you like, but I shall leave it as such.
-
What I think the problem is you cannot detach the notion of faith from religion. I'm by no means an expert in string theory, but what I do know of it, it seems to be far from fully accepted due to a lack of evidence. My statements are merely that they have faith (not to be confused with faith in God), but a faith regardless. Either way, I'll just let this discuss end here. We're not heading towards a conclusion any time soon and only spamming CP. So, agree to disagree. You can reply if you like, but I shall leave it as such.
Ah, ye of little faith.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me