Politics.690 - WHO DUMBS WHO ?

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum. Posts should not exceed 100 lines. Copyrighted material from other sites must contain credits and links to the original site.

Politics.690
WHO DUMBS WHO ?

{Politics.690.139}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:09:55 EDT (HTML)

And that's why god is meaningless.

{Politics.690.140}: Chaz {colo9er} Wed, 01 May 2013 18:27:18 EDT (2 lines)

God is meaning less to you, but one day he won't be, and I pray it
is before you draw your last breath.

{Politics.690.141}: Bloviation T. Cornpone {oldman} Thu, 02 May 2013 05:47:17 EDT (3 lines)

Meaningless = Incomprehensible

The difference is in the belief.

{Politics.690.142}: Shmuel Kuper {sami} Thu, 02 May 2013 07:14:31 EDT (HTML)

True that incomprehensible is the right word to describe an attitude of one who was never educated to comprehend neither studied what people (and I mean Jews in this context) know and have to say about God.

But that's not the case with Steve. He repeatedly has affirmative sayings about those things which his lack of knowledge in them can allow a rational man to speak only in the negative: I don't know.

{Politics.690.143}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Thu, 02 May 2013 10:53:28 EDT (HTML)

Everything you know about god is made up, Sami.

{Politics.690.144}: Richard Clark {cardo} Thu, 02 May 2013 12:00:44 EDT (1 line)

Everything that anyone knows about "God" is made up.

{Politics.690.145}: Steve Lacey {masked} Thu, 02 May 2013 13:00:06 EDT (2 lines)

Come on, guys. Reality is a state of mind. Therefore everything we
all know about everything is made up. No need to single out God.

{Politics.690.146}: Richard Clark {cardo} Thu, 02 May 2013 13:27:05 EDT (3 lines)

Some things are fact-based and verifiable.  Other things are not.

Big difference.

{Politics.690.147}: Bloviation T. Cornpone {oldman} Thu, 02 May 2013 19:32:59 EDT (5 lines)

Once upon a time there were these facts, see.

All the textbooks said so.

"http://www.newscientist.com/special/rewriting-the-textbooks"

{Politics.690.148}: Richard Clark {cardo} Thu, 02 May 2013 23:40:52 EDT (HTML)

Are you by any chance suggesting that someday science might discover facts that will prove the existence of God?

{Politics.690.149}: Bloviation T. Cornpone {oldman} Fri, 03 May 2013 04:50:59 EDT (6 lines)

Some things currently asserted as truth by science have no more, or
less, validity than God.  Similar validations of God's existence are
just not acceptable for some reason.

The whole God/No God matter is about channeling belief into political
power.

{Politics.690.150}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Fri, 03 May 2013 10:50:36 EDT (HTML)

The Process.

{Politics.690.151}: Richard Clark {cardo} Fri, 03 May 2013 11:51:59 EDT (4 lines)

<<< Some things currently asserted as truth by science have no more,
or less, validity than God. >>>

Examples please.

{Politics.690.152}: Bloviation T. Cornpone {oldman} Fri, 03 May 2013 15:48:02 EDT (7 lines)

Not so long ago these were 'facts.'
"http://www.newscientist.com/special/rewriting-the-textbooks"

Somehow I doubt that many other scientific facts will survive rigorous
examination in the future.

What are they?  I can guess but lack the credentials to discuss.

{Politics.690.153}: Shmuel Kuper {sami} Sat, 04 May 2013 17:39:45 EDT (HTML)

Karl Popper said that a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.

Thus he defind what science is: not a claim for ultimate truth but a theory based on empirical observation aimed to find practical apllications.

The attempt of those who susbscribe to liberal secularism agenda - to turn science into a secular tehology, is the oposite of science - ut's boorish mythology.

{Politics.690.154}: Chaz {colo9er} Mon, 06 May 2013 15:43:55 EDT (3 lines)

and for many science is their religion, just look how zealous they
are to try to prove evolution and man made global warming. You can't
tell me that psuedo-science isn't a religion.

{Politics.690.155}: Steve Lacey {masked} Mon, 06 May 2013 20:04:04 EDT (2 lines)

As I've said before: believing in Science is the same as believing in
Religion.

{Politics.690.156}: Shmuel Kuper {sami} Wed, 08 May 2013 06:39:26 EDT (HTML)

It's not the same. Science per definition is a working tool for man. Religion is per defintion a set of values to guide man in moral behavior, i,e it tells man what's the purpose of life and how to acheive it.

When one confuses a tool which is means, with a goal, and believes that science is meant to have a saying in moral conduct - he displays total misundersatnding in the per definition differences of the two.

{Politics.690.157}: Bloviation T. Cornpone {oldman} Wed, 08 May 2013 07:41:30 EDT (22 lines)

Religion has far too many definitions.  For example:

re·li·gion  (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

Even worse, there are other definitions as well.  It may well be a
sign that most of us haven't a clue and are woefully ill equipped to
figure out who might have a clue.

Unless you are zealous about your own take on religion.  :)

{Politics.690.158}: Steve Lacey {masked} Wed, 08 May 2013 11:29:40 EDT (30 lines)

I don't dispute the definitions. I don't dispute the difference in
purpose between science and religion. And I don't accept without
question the superiority of Religion over Science or vice versa.

What I say is that _believing in_ Science is the same as _believing
in_ Religion.

There are so many who believe that a thing is true because their
religion says it is true, not because they think carefully about it
themselves. There are so many who believe that a thing is true because
science says it is true, not because they think carefully about it
themselves. There is no difference between such beliefs.

Squealer, the propaganda pig in Orwell's "Animal Farm," is a perfect
example. He uses Science as a magic word to convince the "lower"
creatures on the farm that what the pigs are doing for their own
comfort and to the detriment of the others is actually legitimate:

"'Comrades!' he cried. 'You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are
doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us
actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole
object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and
apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances
absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig.'"

Many times in our lives we see the same appeal to Science as if
merely naming it is the absolute answer to everything. Believing that
something is true because "this has been proved by Science, comrades"
is no different from believing that something is true because "this
has been proved by the Holy Writings, comrades."

{Politics.690.159}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Wed, 08 May 2013 12:02:44 EDT (HTML)

>What I say is that _believing in_ Science is the same as _believing in_ Religion.<

I would say that's a bit off. "Believing" in science not only allows, but demands a state of mind that accepts a change in reality almost daily, with new discovery replacing old and expanding understanding adding to the base of knowledge. Religion doesn't even come close to such molding and shaping of the understanding of what is real.

{Politics.690.160}: Chaz {colo9er} Wed, 08 May 2013 16:55:21 EDT (6 lines)

I agree Steve there are certain scientific things that if you
disagree you're called names, the believers in that scientific thing
are zealous in showing how sinful you are for not believing they way
they do.

Just as some religious folks are about their religion  and/or God(s)

{Politics.690.161}: Tom Austin {taustin} Wed, 08 May 2013 17:39:04 EDT (12 lines)

Steve and Steve are both right.   TRUE science involves continual
skepticism,  demands repeatability, and is always replacing one theory
with a better one.


however,  the other Steve is also correct that there are many non-thinking
people who uncritically believe something because "science says so."



however, that is not science's problem.  if stupid people misunderstand
science and treat it like a religion, that is the stupid peoples' problem.

{Politics.690.162}: Chaz {colo9er} Wed, 08 May 2013 17:42:53 EDT (2 lines)

with the same logic how is it religion or God's fault when people
misunderstand or misinterpret his book?

{Politics.690.163}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Wed, 08 May 2013 17:44:01 EDT (HTML)

For one, there is no his book. It was written by men with all their fictional glory.

Forum Guidelines

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café