Author Topic: Science versus Sin  (Read 1882 times)

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2016, 05:05:32 AM »


Science always starts with a question.  "What is that", Could this be", "What if", etc.  Science is the PROCESS of measuring and evaluating questions.  There always has to be a question first.  People who think that it is correct to decide on an answer and seek proof afterwards are called "theists"  or sometimes "biblical scientists" (which is a real travesty of the word).
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2016, 06:48:40 PM »
To paraphrase ... science doesn't evolve by providing answers, it evolves by replacing old questions with better new ones (notice better, new by itself doesn't count for much).  The evolution of these questions are guided by empirical and quantifiable evidence.  Though there is a dialectic between what is measured and what is theorized.  With "voltage" for instance, it came about as the solution to a chicken/egg problem.  Before Volta, nobody knew there was a voltage to be measured.  Once they realized there could be, and they measured it, then they knew they knew something.
שלום

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2016, 07:03:27 PM »
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.
Yeah, as long as he's not a damned mathematician!


 :arghh:
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2016, 07:24:47 PM »
Yeah, as long as he's not a damned mathematician!


 :arghh:

Pythagoras has polluted the spring of naturalism, from its inception (though Thales beat him to it).  This is the intellectual level game of Plato vs Aristotle.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2016, 03:28:48 AM »
Here is a list of scientific discoveries religion has disproved...

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2016, 12:19:10 PM »
Here is a list of scientific discoveries religion has disproved...
That many??!!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2017, 04:14:06 AM »
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.



Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2017, 07:54:18 AM »
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.

It is considered the job of the Catholic Church to decide what one should or should not believe ;-)  That doesn't require proof or disproof, it is a part of history,  The rotation of the Earth wasn't decisively proven until the Foucault pendulum was built in 1851.  The Copernican system is in fact wrong, as shown by Kepler in 1609.  Both Ptolemy and Copernicus had to use epicycles ... in addition to pure circles to "save the phenomena".  Galileo wasn't always right ... he rejected the Moon as a cause of tides.  Kepler, also in 1609 said without good theory, that the tides were caused by the Moon ... but this wasn't given a good theory until 1687 by Newton.  Until 1687, there wasn't a good theory to explain the solar system, including the Earth's daily rotation, its progress around the Sun, or tides on the Earth.  And per Einstein in 1916 ... Newton is wrong.  So science disproves science.
שלום

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2017, 09:37:25 AM »
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
Religion does not ask anyone to prove or disprove anything.  Religion operates on the belief/faith system.  Proof, critical thinking and reasoning is not required, and mostly discouraged or called sinful.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2017, 11:23:27 AM »
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
It's not, but some religious people try their hand at disproving the latest scientific discovery and get burned every time.

“People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.”
― Martin Luther

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2017, 12:55:20 PM »
Religion does not ask anyone to prove or disprove anything.  Religion operates on the belief/faith system.  Proof, critical thinking and reasoning is not required, and mostly discouraged or called sinful.
Not considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.

peace

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2017, 01:19:41 PM »
Not considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible.  Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view.  Let me know how that works out.

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2017, 01:39:25 PM »
Not considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.

peace
This is not an unusual christian thought: "What Paul is saying here is that if you are not sure whether eating meat is wrong and you think it might be, but you go ahead and eat it anyway instead of denying yourself to avoid what you think might be sin, then you are condemned, that is, guilty of sin. The reason he gives is that such eating is not from faith and whatever is not from faith is sin. "

Maybe Pops you need to read your bible--again.  And let the scales fall from your eyes so you do not read in ignorance as you are want to do.  Faith is the driver of religion; without it there can be no organized religion.  And like you, the most faithful are the most ignorant.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2017, 03:48:15 PM »
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible.  Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view.  Let me know how that works out.

All human society operates by group-think and enforced conformity, more or less.  In fact, as an individual, your own habits constrain you, sometimes dysfunctionally (these are called neuroses).  I am disagreeing with Pops here.  However not all things are by faith, my right hand for example.  That is why I consider that, to be proof of G-d (even if my hand isn't designed intelligently ... I have no reason to believe that G-d is love or intelligent).  Cows are stupid, but that doesn't mean I don't think they exist.  I also know from personal experience, that people are not intelligent (and not just as some faith in Socrates).
שלום

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2017, 09:46:29 PM »
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible.  Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view.  Let me know how that works out.
What? Try saying it differently please, I don't get what that had to do with the topic.

If I go to the uhm church I went to last, I am quite certain none there would attempt to refute any sound science, and would in fact reiderate the same point I have attempted to make here. That point being that faith or belief in GOD and/or religion must not and do not go against sound science.

Check the tenets of the Baha'i faith. And yes I can still claim to be Christian as well if I so choose.

peace