pop morality

[Angrboda]

In a way Drich is right. Science has nothing to do with god, science deals with things that exist and as has been proven by the theists total inability to even make a reasonable case for the possibility of a god. God only exists in the realm of fiction.

Actually close but still no.

Science deals with demonstrable theory. Their are many things said to exist in science that we do not know if they exist. For instance 'black holes', or Higgs/Boson Particle to name just two. Where these theories differ from God is that 'science' wants to believe, because it has formulated theories on how the universe works based on these (and other) unproven theories. Science needs these theories in order to separate itself from God. Granted the logic behind it is a little juvenile "If we can explain a natural process then somehow that negates a creator/God must always remain unknowable/unknown."

That said these theories are 'demonstrable' because science can indeed control or manipulate the process in which the theories themselves are vetted. God by definition is not subject to said control. therefore God can not nor ever will be quantified by 'science.' As Science will never ba able/allowed to manipulate God in such away as to have the control needed to be 'approved' by science.

[loganonekenobi]

"No.
What I'm saying is for me their isn't any right or wrong value in any action. That under Christ all actions are neutral. Meaning one can not earn the right to Heaven through action nor can one loose it though action."

So if I'm not looking to go to this heaven for which there is no proof of then I don't have to be concerned with what Jesus (words written by goat herders) said. Right?

I'm getting the impression that the only reason you try to do the right thing is to make it to Heaven/ avoid hell by listening to the Bible.
this is understandable if you take on the whole faith idea.

That's fine...for you. For me I make my decisions, however flawed they may be, based on observation and mostly careful thinking. These decisions will inevitably effect the world around me. From this I can, for the most part, clearly observe the outcome and there by make a more informed decision the next time. I'm okay with this system. It's not perfect but I feel that it is better than holding fast to the past decisions of men (for it is men who wrote and Bible not a god.)

Mathew 28 proves once again that the Christian would rather be alone in the world instead of making positive change in it. Why? because this life means nothing to them, only the after life counts. I am suspect of any moral argument from any one who follows such a death cult.

It is also clear that you are not hear to make a positive difference but instead to practice arguing.

After understanding this last point I can walk away.

[KevinM1]

ITT Drich once again proves he knows nothing about science, yet impotently rages against it anyway.

[Drich]

"No.
What I'm saying is for me their isn't any right or wrong value in any action. That under Christ all actions are neutral. Meaning one can not earn the right to Heaven through action nor can one loose it though action."

So if I'm not looking to go to this heaven for which there is no proof of then I don't have to be concerned with what Jesus (words written by goat herders) said.  Right?

I'm getting the impression that the only reason you try to do the right thing is to make it to Heaven/ avoid hell by listening to the Bible.
this is understandable if you take on the whole faith idea.

That's fine...for you.  For me I make my decisions, however flawed they may be, based on observation and mostly careful thinking.  These decisions will inevitably effect the world around me.  From this I can, for the most part, clearly observe the outcome and there by make a more informed decision the next time.  I'm okay with this system.  It's not perfect but I feel that it is better than holding fast to the past decisions of men (for it is men who wrote and Bible not a god.)

Mathew 28 proves once again that the Christian would rather be alone in the world instead of making positive change in it.  Why? because this life means nothing to them, only the after life counts.  I am suspect of any moral argument from any one who follows such a death cult.

It is also clear that you are not hear to make a positive difference but instead to practice arguing.

After understanding this last point I can walk away.

It's not a Heaven or Hell think It's about spending eternity with God thing. And your right, I am not here to make a positive difference because the word 'positive' and it's definition are subject to manipulation. just look at how you are trying to hold my actions against what YOU deem positive and what You Deem Negative. That is the Danger of pop morality that I have been harping on since the OP. In that if you put your self value in a system that has no absolutes and these values are constantly subject to change then you can be manipulated to justify/Look at any action as 'Positive.'

For example Is Killing babies to you, making a 'positive difference' on society?

For me Killing a baby no matter how old, is always wrong. That if I were to assign a 'moral value' on one who willingly and knowingly kills a child because it is simply unwanted or the mother does not want to give birth and part with it, is got to be one of the most selfish things one can do.. That is again if you were to ask me to put a moral value on this act while looking at that specific set of reasons.

But what do you say? where does 'Making a positive difference' with your 'morality tell you to think about killing babies Ie Abortion?

Now again, to you is killing a baby a "positive" thing?

How are your actions (support in killing a baby) Not a 'death cult/culture' act that has been multiplied over 1.5 billion times since 1980, and The singular death of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago the thing that makes Christianity a Death cult?

Do you see how foolish people like you sound when they are blinded by their own hypocrisy? You live in a society who condones the killing/Murder of billions, yet Christian who has a command against killing anyone, and does not require anyone to be killed is supposedly the 'death cult."

That's the danger of 'morality.' It blinds you to your own evil. Makes you think your are a positive/moral person when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

[Drich]

ITT Drich once again proves he knows nothing about science, yet impotently rages against it anyway.

Then please oh great Learn-ed one, demonstrate my lack of knowledge by setting me straight. Turn turning that AdHom into a real rebuttal with a little verifiable substance.

[downbeatplumb]

In a way Drich is right. Science has nothing to do with god, science deals with things that exist and as has been proven by the theists total inability to even make a reasonable case for the possibility of a god. God only exists in the realm of fiction.

Actually close but still no.

Science deals with demonstrable theory. Their are many things said to exist in science that we do not know if they exist. For instance 'black holes', or Higgs/Boson Particle to name just two. Where these theories differ from God is that 'science' wants to believe, because it has formulated theories on how the universe works based on these (and other) unproven theories. Science needs these theories in order to separate itself from God. Granted the logic behind it is a little juvenile "If we can explain a natural process then somehow that negates a creator/God must always remain unknowable/unknown."

That said these theories are 'demonstrable' because science can indeed control or manipulate the process in which the theories themselves are vetted. God by definition is not subject to said control. therefore God can not nor ever will be quantified by 'science.' As Science will never ba able/allowed to manipulate God in such away as to have the control needed to be 'approved' by science.

We know that both the higgs boson and black holes exist. Science is the opposite of what you think it is, science is looking at the facts in as dispassionate away as possible, removing all preconceptions. What you were thinking about is religion, where people have tried to prove their pet idea that there is a god for millennia, failed and decided  that because it can't be found it must be "outside of science". The answer should have been to throw out the idea.

[Drich]

We know that both the higgs boson and black holes exist.

Ah.. no. Not even close. They are both still theories. Google it. Black holes Eg: a Gravity well/What sci-fi depicts has this massive whirlpool in space sucking in everything including light, have never been witnessed, probed or even identified. All we have are long ranges pictures of unexplained darkness where we think their should be light. therefore we created 'blackholes.' then someone does that math and it is possible (on paper if 1/2 a dozen other unverified theories hold.) Then we begin to build on them and before long people like you insist on believing in them when in reality their is only as much poof of a black hole, as their is of God. For you, you have closed the gap between verifiable proof of a black hole, and just trusting that 'science' is right with the same exact faith we have in God.

Either way the claim you made that 'science is only about things we can document and verify' is so far off the mark it is not even funny. In the case of black holes I'd be almost willing to bet the farm that you nor I will ever come close to seeing the 'scientific proof' of a black hole. Yet here you are can't distinguish the difference between scientific theory, Science fiction and reality.

Science is the opposite of what you think it is, science is looking at the facts in as dispassionate away as possible, removing all preconceptions.

Then explain the hadron supercolider?
Scientists didn't start out building this multi billion dollar pig in a poke, they started out with several smaller versions, all looking for the illusive 'higgs/boson' or the 'god partical.'
Problem is all the info they collected said it did not exist, which was reinterpreted to say "our equipment is not sensitive enough to record the partical decay." So what did dispassionate science who only looks for facts do? It petitioned several different goverments as well as private and corperate sources to provide funding for the multi billion euro pig in a poke 'supercolider.'

So what did they find after 3 or 4 years of running this POS?

The Same exact thing they found with the smaller particle colliers. They just dressed it us as 'new info' but if you actually read/are aware of what they already have, it is more of the same.

If you don't think Money is not the Primary driving force in science they you are obscenely naive, and deserve to live under a government who funds studies for 'science' to provide you with the catalyst needed for Government to rule over every single aspect of your life.

'Science' may have started out as you say, but those days are long, long over.

What you were thinking about is religion, where people have tried to prove their pet idea that there is a god for millennia, failed and decided  that because it can't be found it must be "outside of science". The answer should have been to throw out the idea.

Open your eyes sport this same measure of Control people used "god" as the supreme authority and control has already been replaced by your god 'science.'
'Science' is the new religion. Look at how it is used to manipulate the things we eat, the products we buy or the products we stay away from. Governments use it to try and even tell us the sky is falling, and the only way to free ourselves from is is to pay a 'Carbon tax.'

You have traded one mind controlling religion for another.

[downbeatplumb]

We know that both the higgs boson and black holes exist.

Ah.. no. Not even close. They are both still theories. Google it. Black holes Eg: a Gravity well/What sci-fi depicts has this massive whirlpool in space sucking in everything including light, have never been witnessed, probed or even identified. All we have are long ranges pictures of unexplained darkness where we think their should be light. therefore we created 'blackholes.' then someone does that math and it is possible (on paper if 1/2 a dozen other unverified theories hold.) Then we begin to build on them and before long people like you insist on believing in them when in reality their is only as much poof of a black hole, as their is of God. For you, you have closed the gap between verifiable proof of a black hole, and just trusting that 'science' is right with the same exact faith we have in God.

What you have done there is to "not know how to science". Black holes explain the data and the physics that say what they are has been proved time and again. 

Here is a video of a black hole devouring a star.

[video=dailymotion]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q3yk7KzYA&ebc=ANyPxKoCYVYlwqo-LC_lFOSxi3gd69e3WIqpKGrbzUipXGS0sUbi5ut1ciTCXSYv4f85lGWTxwx6ab6C7PCCMOATRqqMrhtF_Q[/video]

The data that was needed to prove with the higgs boson was discovered.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-higgs-boson-was-found-4723520/?no-ist

Either way the claim you made that 'science is only about things we can document and verify' is so far off the mark it is not even funny. In the case of black holes I'd be almost willing to bet the farm that you nor I will ever come close to seeing the 'scientific proof' of a black hole. Yet here you are can't distinguish the difference between scientific theory, Science fiction and reality.

Black holes have been proved to exist, now can I have your farm?

Science is the opposite of what you think it is, science is looking at the facts in as dispassionate away as possible, removing all preconceptions.

Then explain the hadron supercolider?
Scientists didn't start out building this multi billion dollar pig in a poke, they started out with several smaller versions, all looking for the illusive 'higgs/boson' or the 'god partical.'
Problem is all the info they collected said it did not exist, which was reinterpreted to say "our equipment is not sensitive enough to record the partical decay." So what did dispassionate science who only looks for facts do? It petitioned several different goverments as well as private and corperate sources to provide funding for the multi billion euro pig in a poke 'supercolider.'

You want me to explain why scientists want more sensitive equipment! really this is a thing I have to explain to you! Can't you work it out for yourself? I mean think about it real hard, you can do it. I'll wait for you to catch up.

So what did they find after 3 or 4 years of running this POS?

They got some very good results from tests. reached the end opf what they could do with that technology then got a better one. This isn't hard stuff to figure out D.

The Same exact thing they found with the smaller particle colliers. They just dressed it us as 'new info' but if you actually read/are aware of what they already have, it is more of the same.

Because you are a qualified particle physicist who can evaluate complex data of the sort you are rubbishing, no then STFU.

If you don't think Money is not the Primary driving force in science they you are obscenely naive, and deserve to live under a government who funds studies for 'science' to provide you with the catalyst needed for Government to rule over every single aspect of your life.

Money may be the driver in some of science Laboritoire garnier I'm looking at you but there is a lot of science for science sake as well and good science done well is what our whole society is based on.

'Science' may have started out as you say, but those days are long, long over.

You are wrong.

What you were thinking about is religion, where people have tried to prove their pet idea that there is a god for millennia, failed and decided  that because it can't be found it must be "outside of science". The answer should have been to throw out the idea.

Open your eyes sport this same measure of Control people used "god" as the supreme authority and control has already been replaced by your god 'science.'
'Science' is the new religion. Look at how it is used to manipulate the things we eat, the products we buy or the products we stay away from. Governments use it to try and even tell us the sky is falling, and the only way to free ourselves from is is to pay a 'Carbon tax.'

You have traded one mind controlling religion for another.[/quote]

Science is not about what is believed but what can be proved and that is a vital difference that makes it infinitely superior to the mind retarding nature of religion.[/quote]

[KevinM1]

ITT Drich once again proves he knows nothing about science, yet impotently rages against it anyway.

Then please oh great Learn-ed one, demonstrate my lack of knowledge by setting me straight. Turn turning that AdHom into a real rebuttal with a little verifiable substance.

I already set you straight months ago regarding the Higgs.  Or do you not remember me pointing out how you misinterpreted what the sigma actually was and what it meant?

Regarding black holes, there's a veritable ton of observation on them.

That you cling to your own misguided notions of science (e.g., science wants to believe, as though it's an anthropomorphic entity with desires) is your problem, not mine.  It's not my fault you didn't pay attention in high school.

EDIT: a 2 second internet search on black holes -

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-led-stu...servations
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies...130227.htm
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/06/o...to-hiding/

But, no, they don't exist. Idiot.

[drfuzzy]

Did Drippy Doodle ACTUALLY call the LHC a POS???  Did I read that correctly?  The largest machine in the world, possibly the most respected scientific institution in the world, a globally interconnected group of scientists responsible for some of the most impactful and impressive new discoveries in particle physics - - he called it a piece of shit?   Just . . . how . . . ignorant . . . and . . . deluded . . .           

Oh.  Waitaminnit.  It's Drippy. He's one o' dem preechurs who tells folks not to go to college because then they'll think they're smarter than gawd. (I actually had a preacher tell me this, when I was going off to college.)

A brain is a terrible thing to waste.   



I had a preacher tell me this too.  He said that we should use "thee" and "thou" when we prayed because that's the way Jesus spoke.