Posts: 16882
Threads: 461
Joined: March 29, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 7:26 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 7:28 am by Fake Messiah.)
(January 16, 2016 at 7:20 am)yukapuka Wrote: http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-d...panek.html
"All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter."
here is God in scientific defintions
It's god of the gaps and then when dark matter starts to be more understood dumbasses like you will organize inquisitions to torture those heretics or organize suicide bombers against scientists that demystify something you think it's god.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 7:38 am
(January 16, 2016 at 7:24 am)robvalue Wrote: Physicists are not an authority on saying whether stories written in books, with no supporting evidence, are true. In fact, no one is.
This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science.
It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.
If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine.
The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.
"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 7:51 am
(January 16, 2016 at 7:38 am)Brian37 Wrote: (January 16, 2016 at 7:24 am)robvalue Wrote: Physicists are not an authority on saying whether stories written in books, with no supporting evidence, are true. In fact, no one is.
This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science.
It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.
If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine.
The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.
"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.
What do you mean liberals treat science and religion as separate but equal?
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 8:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 9:07 am by Whateverist.)
Just read me some Yuki. Made me want to pukey.
More power to those of you trying to reason with the tool. There may be an actual human being in there somewhere but I can't get past the foul, angry nut job that greets you at the gate.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 8:16 am
(January 16, 2016 at 7:51 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: (January 16, 2016 at 7:38 am)Brian37 Wrote: This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science.
It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.
If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine.
The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.
"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.
What do you mean liberals treat science and religion as separate but equal?
Let me clarify, far too many liberals. Ok, and not just atheists, but liberal theists as well. I am very staunch about agreeing with Stenger in his position that there is no splitting the baby. The harsh fact is science is and has always been religion independent.
Far to many liberals allow their evolutionary sense of fairness to confuse human rights with being the same as weight of a claim in a scientific setting.
You do have liberals if you talk to enough, including scientists say "Science explains one thing, religion explains another", we end up having to deal with crappy threads like this as a result.
Not all claims are equal, and things are not true by proxy of utterance by default. That is a pragmatic issue outside of law and government and human rights. You never assume going into a claim if you want to test it and verify it that it props your bias up. I have seen people from all the major religions worldwide make this mistake. And even if not all, far too many well intended liberals unwittingly give this bad tactic cover.
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 8:32 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 8:34 am by Mr.wizard.)
I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play? I'm also trying to figure out what this has to do with liberalism considering that there are plenty of religious conservatives who would like to see religion taught in science classes.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 8:37 am
(January 16, 2016 at 8:32 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play?
I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.
Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.
It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 9:03 am by Mr.wizard.)
(January 16, 2016 at 8:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: (January 16, 2016 at 8:32 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play?
I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.
Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.
It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.
What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it?
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 9:10 am
(January 16, 2016 at 9:02 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: (January 16, 2016 at 8:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.
Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.
It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.
What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEncdhmJhHM
Just being silly, in all seriousness, I am talking AVERAGES of what I run into, not all. The important thing is "splitting the baby" is not a good argument. I see that as coming from the good side of our species and liberals reflect morso that empathy for others than RWers of any religion. The downside is that it confuses the issue of rights and ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith
January 16, 2016 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 9:13 am by Brian37.)
(January 16, 2016 at 9:02 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: (January 16, 2016 at 8:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.
Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.
It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.
What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it? FUKC! sorry for the double post, see prior post.
|