Crazy Bible Stories

[steve_bank]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

 

[Learner]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

I get ya, you mean science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist?

(I jest)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

I get ya, you mean science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist?

(I jest)

You misspelled ‘wasted Steve’s time’.

 

[Learner]

Steve can let me know.

Thanks for your time.

 

[steve_bank]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

I get ya, you mean science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist?

(I jest)

This gets into science and philosophy of knowledge. Humans do not have a priori knowledge, but our brains have y capacity to observe and deduce. God not required.

We can not know a prior the totality of existence is. We have no way if and when we knew everything.

And that leads into how science evolves. A thread for science and philosophy.

Some categorical say your god can not exist. I say the evidence presented for god based on the bible, personal experience and history does not prove the case. Religious faith is a belief not based in objective proof. If you need proof then you do not have faith.

Science is proven by objective repeated demonstration subject to review, falsification, and critique. Not all proposed theory and experiment in science pass muster. We see only the successful science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

I get ya, you mean science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist?

(I jest)

This gets into science and philosophy of knowledge. Humans do not have a priori knowledge, but our brains have y capacity to observe and deduce. God not required.

We can not know a prior the totality of existence is. We have no way if and when we knew everything.

And that leads into how science evolves. A thread for science and philosophy.

Some categorical say your god can not exist. I say the evidence presented for god based on the bible, personal experience and history does not prove the case. Religious faith is a belief not based in objective proof. If you need proof then you do not have faith.

Science is proven by objective repeated demonstration subject to review, falsification, and critique. Not all proposed theory and experiment in science pass muster. We see only the successful science.

You are overlooking the necessary conspiracy theory component of religious addiction/fascination, namely that this universe we experience everyday all around us is not real. This universe as we experience it with all its physicality, pain, joy, death, injustice, love, struggle, only happened because we had lunch with a talking snake in a magic garden when everything was happy, happy, happy all the live-long day. It's precisely that perfect, pretend, magic, sophomoric reality of religious fantasy and emotion that is the real reality.

When you die you will not be dead, and you are going to be automatically, magically reunited with that singular perfection. Never mind toothpaste and underpants anymore.

Steve, how can you be so blind to the religious reality that things like Sandy Hook and Lunar landings are all unimportant and immaterial fakes? Wake up!

 

[Learner]

This gets into science and philosophy of knowledge. Humans do not have a priori knowledge, but our brains have y capacity to observe and deduce. God not required.

There's a lot one can't deduce when there's zilch knowledge in the areas unknown. Why do things behave the way they do, fixed and predictable behaviours that you can set your watch to? so to speak, God may be required.

We can not know a prior the totality of existence is. We have no way if and when we knew everything.

And that leads into how science evolves. A thread for science and philosophy.

Some categorical say your god can not exist. I say the evidence presented for god based on the bible, personal experience and history does not prove the case. Religious faith is a belief not based in objective proof. If you need proof then you do not have faith.

Science is proven by objective repeated demonstration subject to review, falsification, and critique. Not all proposed theory and experiment in science pass muster. We see only the successful science.

God is not anti-science. Anyone can do science and scientific conclusions changes from time to time, and even scientists don't always agree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God is not anti-science.

Correct. Religious apologists are the anti-science crowd.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God is not anti-science.

And science isn't anti-god.
But some of the godbotherers keep insisting on truth being a choice between what they think God says and what they think science says.

 

[skepticalbip]

This gets into science and philosophy of knowledge. Humans do not have a priori knowledge, but our brains have y capacity to observe and deduce. God not required.

There's a lot one can't deduce when there's zilch knowledge in the areas unknown. Why do things behave the way they do, fixed and predictable behaviours that you can set your watch to? so to speak, God may be required.

We can not know a prior the totality of existence is. We have no way if and when we knew everything.

And that leads into how science evolves. A thread for science and philosophy.

Some categorical say your god can not exist. I say the evidence presented for god based on the bible, personal experience and history does not prove the case. Religious faith is a belief not based in objective proof. If you need proof then you do not have faith.

Science is proven by objective repeated demonstration subject to review, falsification, and critique. Not all proposed theory and experiment in science pass muster. We see only the successful science.

God is not anti-science.

Science is not anti-god. Science says nothing about god. Creationists however are extremely anti-science and scientists generally are anti-ignorance.

Anyone can do science

Indeed so. But few are willing to put forth the effort.

and scientific conclusions changes from time to time,

Absolutely true. Science is a continuing struggle to question, correct, and improve our understanding. Nothing in science is written in stone and immune to questioning.

and even scientists don't always agree.

True again. Scientists are humans and humans don't always agree.

Now if only the religious would be as curious and question their beliefs.

 

[James Brown]

Science asks questions that may not be answered.

Religion gives answers that may not be questioned.

 

[Lion IRC]

God is not anti-science.

And science isn't anti-god.
But some of the godbotherers keep insisting on truth being a choice between what they think God says and what they think science says.

Some do.
Not me.
Not Learner.
Let's sit here and wait to see if YOUR version of 'gobotherer' eventually shows up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Now if only the religious would be as curious and question their beliefs.

That would amount to the craziest bible story of them all.

 

[Learner]

God is not anti-science.

Science is not anti-god. Science says nothing about god.

Creationists however are extremely anti-science and scientists generally are anti-ignorance.

Might as well say along-those-lines, that Science doesn't "feel compassion" either.

You got all types of creationists. Funny enough, we hear news stories of countries that are said to be run by religious fundamentalists - who are trying to develope technological advanced weapons e.g. nuclear and chemical weapons. The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

Now if only the religious would be as curious and question their beliefs.

People do. If only it was also noticed, that people outside the faiths who questioned peoples beliefs also become believers themselves.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

Nope. These are people who will make a distinction between Real Science and the science that leads places they do not want to go.
They define the split not because they can find fault in the process or the peer review, just the conclusions. And that's not a scientific objection.
So, yeah, creationists who use computers, or vaccinate, or drive cars, or engineer submarine launched ballistic missile telemetry pod transmitters can still be very obviously anti-science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Might as well say along-those-lines, that Science doesn't "feel compassion" either.

You got all types of creationists. Funny enough, we hear news stories of countries that are said to be run by religious fundamentalists - who are trying to develope technological advanced weapons e.g. nuclear and chemical weapons. The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

One good thing scientific thought enables is to allow us to differentiate between what is emotional and what is rational, to at least make an attempt to separate subjectivity from objectivity. If one is familiar with the scientific method one can begin to unravel how the universe actually works separate from our prejudices, biases and presumptions, and what we may hear or read. Scientific thought empowers the individual because what other people are telling you can be put to the test. The free exchange of information and the individual freedom to test that information is critical to the scientific process.

 

[skepticalbip]

Might as well say along-those-lines, that Science doesn't "feel compassion" either.

You got all types of creationists. Funny enough, we hear news stories of countries that are said to be run by religious fundamentalists - who are trying to develope technological advanced weapons e.g. nuclear and chemical weapons. The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

You seem to be conflating methods of understanding reality and the individuals using those methods.

The method of understanding we call religion involves accepting and not questioning authority. Several different religions have established their story line (presented as reality) which members of the religion are expected to accept.

The method of reaching an understanding we call science involves questioning authority. Individuals are expected to test and confirm for themselves what their text books claim. This is why science classes in schools have labs... students repeat the foundational experiments and verify the findings for themselves.

Now the individuals using these two different methods of understanding are a very different thing. Individuals using either method can help humanity, abuse humanity, or ignore humanity.

Now if only the religious would be as curious and question their beliefs.

People do. If only it was also noticed, that people outside the faiths who questioned peoples beliefs also become believers themselves.

Humans are not as simple as you seem to assume. Some people are religious and also scientists but they compartmentalize... they don't apply their scientific questioning to the parts of their religion they accept... they don't apply their religious blind acceptance to their science.

 

[steve_bank]

Science is composed of theists, atheists, and other things. There is no collective entity of science. Science investigates physical reality. It does not address unicorns, Santa, levitation, telepathy, or gods unless there is objective repeatable evidence that can be evaluated.

Claims that a so called secular science is anti religion is a defensive reaction to scientific evidence of things like evolution.

When I say science I refer to a vast global community of people who offer theories on many areas which are evaluated by global peers. There is no central science authority. When theists say science it is an imagined bogyman that does not exist.

Science is a threat to any who make claims not supported by evidence. From Creationists to Flat Earthers. Over the last 50 years there have Been a number of claims that violate Laws Of Thermodynamics like getting more energy out than in with a machine. All debunked. Th supernatural claims are one of many. Telepathy has been investigated to the point where it is pointless to investigate more.

Individuals have compassion.

There is no ideology of science. In contrast theology has a common ideology. In the case of Christians they feel mandated to convert other sand spread their faith.

 

[Learner]

The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

Nope. These are people who will make a distinction between Real Science and the science that leads places they do not want to go.
They define the split not because they can find fault in the process or the peer review, just the conclusions. And that's not a scientific objection.
So, yeah, creationists who use computers, or vaccinate, or drive cars, or engineer submarine launched ballistic missile telemetry pod transmitters can still be very obviously anti-science.

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

 

[DBT]

Faith and science are two entirely different ways of looking at the world.....