Jump to content

SCIENCE IS AN AMAZING WORK WHOS PURPOSE IS TO EXPLAIN GOD'S CREATIONS.


zorro
 Share

Recommended Posts

But is the troll label appropriate if they are sincere and genuinely think that way? I suspect not.

 

If you think about the whole "Let go and let God" approach to Christianity, it must feel great to trade worship for being allowed to be human, to be forgiven for all those nasty things we do like having unmarried sex and envying your neighbor's jet ski. On the other hand, you have to be taught that those things are sins (if you're oh so lucky enough to live in a place where they preach one of the 9000 sects of Christianity), and I think it's very powerful when someone teaches you that you're basically bad and also teaches you how to be forgiven. Classic stick/carrot.

 

Genuine belief based on feelings, which some call faith, can make people seem a bit like trolls because they offer nothing but wishful thinking and supernatural explanations. The books this faith is based on show no knowledge of the world greater than that of the people of the time who wrote them. But I think being absolved for all those sins you were taught that you committed is such a pleasurable release that many overlook how their religion often ignores reality.

 

I think zorro misplaced an apostrophe in the title. "Science Is An Amazing Work Whose Purpose Is To Explain Gods Creation" at least shows that science is in the business of reality. If you're looking to create gods, religion has many tricks, and science can explain an ever-increasing number of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking to create gods, religion has many tricks, and science can explain an ever-increasing number of them.

Indeed, and with each new thing we learn about this vast universe through science the need for some vague god conjecture becomes smaller and smaller. The gaps previously filled by god are becoming smaller each day and each moment. "Goddidit" is a hollow placeholder until we find out what actually happened.

 

One problem, of course, is that saying "goddidit" assumes the answer has been found and often tends to end the search for enhanced understanding.

I'd much prefer to just honestly stipulate that we don't know... yet... Instead of saying "goddidit," but YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you think about the whole "Let go and let God" approach to Christianity, it must feel great to trade worship for being allowed to be human, to be forgiven for all those nasty things we do like having unmarried sex and envying your neighbor's jet ski. On the other hand, you have to be taught that those things are sins (if you're oh so lucky enough to live in a place where they preach one of the 9000 sects of Christianity), and I think it's very powerful when someone teaches you that you're basically bad and also teaches you how to be forgiven. Classic stick/carrot.

 

Genuine belief based on feelings, which some call faith, can make people seem a bit like trolls because they offer nothing but wishful thinking and supernatural explanations. The books this faith is based on show no knowledge of the world greater than that of the people of the time who wrote them. But I think being absolved for all those sins you were taught that you committed is such a pleasurable release that many overlook how their religion often ignores reality.

 

I think zorro misplaced an apostrophe in the title. "Science Is An Amazing Work Whose Purpose Is To Explain Gods Creation" at least shows that science is in the business of reality. If you're looking to create gods, religion has many tricks, and science can explain an ever-increasing number of them.

 

Your post is off topic. ....but thanx, the Thiest (not religious) Scientists among us appreciate support in this dogma infested world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What astonishes me is the arrogance of the theist to argue something they really know nothing about. "I've read most or some of the bible" "I know my god doesn't promote violence" and yet there are passages where god demands the deaths of not only armies but the women children and babies of the enemy, god demands the deaths of witches, homosexuals and unruly children. In one passage god tells his people to kill all the men women and male children but to keep the female children for their own pleasure. Another passage tells of god calling two she bears out of the woods to kill several children because they made fun of his prophets bald head... If you are going to argue for theism you should do much more that just read some of it... and then there is the arrogance of assuming your particular god is the only god and having no evidence what so ever to confirm that train of thought. Theism is the height of arrogance based on nothing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What astonishes me is the arrogance of the theist to argue something they really know nothing about. "I've read most or some of the bible" "I know my god doesn't promote violence" and yet there are passages where god demands the deaths of not only armies but the women children and babies of the enemy, god demands the deaths of witches, homosexuals and unruly children. In one passage god tells his people to kill all the men women and male children but to keep the female children for their own pleasure. Another passage tells of god calling two she bears out of the woods to kill several children because they made fun of his prophets bald head... If you are going to argue for theism you should do much more that just read some of it... and then there is the arrogance of assuming your particular god is the only god and having no evidence what so ever to confirm that train of thought. Theism is the height of arrogance based on nothing...

 

You are way off topic now. Theist or not, Science is Clarifying God's nature but hasn't fully discovered or not God yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are way off topic now. Theist or not, Science is Clarifying God's nature but hasn't fully discovered or not God yet.

 

 

Do you believe they ( " some scientists, or science as a composite institution " ) are converging on or diverging from

 

 

 

 

" Clarifying God's nature " ?

 

mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you believe they ( " some scientists, or science as a composite institution " ) are converging on or diverging from

 

 

 

mike

 

Converging slowly. ....We have just begun. And little time in which to do it.

IMHO ..... I think that natured starts in a simple form for what its worth :

 

1. Spherical mass and Gravitational fields and

2. Spinning Mass and Electoral / Magnetic forces (or a spinning gravitational field)

 

....... and then everything is built from there as energies flow into masses and vice versa; and distances are shared as the Universes expands. rolleyes.gif

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Converging slowly. ....We have just begun. And little time in which to do it.

IMHO ..... I think that natured starts in a simple form for what its worth :

 

1. Spherical mass and Gravitational fields and

2. Spinning Mass and Electoral / Magnetic forces (or a spinning gravitational field)

 

....... and then everything is built from there as energies flow into masses and vice versa; and distances are shared as the Universes expands. rolleyes.gif

 

How do you see DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY fitting in to all this ?

 

What proportion of scientists do you think are currently Theistic Scientists worldwide ( even if secretly , not openly) ?

 

1 % 5 % 10 % 25 % 50 % ?

 

 

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Converging slowly. ....We have just begun. And little time in which to do it.

IMHO ..... I think that natured starts in a simple form for what its worth :

 

1. Spherical mass and Gravitational fields and

2. Spinning Mass and Electoral / Magnetic forces (or a spinning gravitational field)

 

....... and then everything is built from there as energies flow into masses and vice versa; and distances are shared as the Universes expands. rolleyes.gif

 

Assuming God doesn’t make him any more likely to exist; there probably won’t be any convergence, but why the time limit? Your clumsy attempts at explaining nature is worth nothing, BTW, nature is what it is and depends on no-one’s belief.

P.S. No more red please...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How do you see DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY fitting in to all this ?

 

What proportion of scientists do you think are currently Theistic Scientists worldwide ( even if secretly , not openly) ?

 

1 % 5 % 10 % 25 % 50 % ?

 

 

.

 

hello mike:

 

This is not my fields of expertise. Maybe you could OP new threads. .... I would like to know also. << zorro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are way off topic now. Theist or not, Science is Clarifying God's nature but hasn't fully discovered or not God yet.

 

 

 

Quite the contrary I think i am dead on topic, the idea of presupposing that science is discovering god is arrogant beyond belief. If Science is discovering anything it is discovering that god is irrelevant to any discussion of science and has no place in the natural world.

 

You have every right to your own beliefs but you do not have any right to your own reality, God is not an answer to anything, the concept of god has no evidence much less the concept of any particular god. If science is revealing god then which god? Krishna? Adrianna, Allah? Xenu? Why assume something that has no detectable effect on anything and is functionally no different than assuming angels push the planets around the sun...

 

If science is revealing or explaining anything it is explaining why god is not necessary to existence, and that god serves no purpose other than allowing a few to control many with lies and deceit...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Assuming God doesn’t make him any more likely to exist; there probably won’t be any convergence, but why the time limit? Your clumsy attempts at explaining nature is worth nothing, BTW, nature is what it is and depends on no-one’s belief.

 

P.S. No more red please...

 

thanx for the extraneous waste of our time. evil.gifdoh.gif

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you’ve fallaciously attempted to divert/subvert any meaningful discourse, throughout this thread, shows you to be little more than a town center preacher shouting his/her self deluded message to an un-listening, unwilling and, somewhat, fearful audience. As such this thread deserves nothing but the trash IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What astonishes me is the arrogance of the theist to argue something they really know nothing about. "I've read most or some of the bible" "I know my god doesn't promote violence" and yet there are passages where god demands the deaths of not only armies but the women children and babies of the enemy, god demands the deaths of witches, homosexuals and unruly children. In one passage god tells his people to kill all the men women and male children but to keep the female children for their own pleasure. Another passage tells of god calling two she bears out of the woods to kill several children because they made fun of his prophets bald head... If you are going to argue for theism you should do much more that just read some of it... and then there is the arrogance of assuming your particular god is the only god and having no evidence what so ever to confirm that train of thought. Theism is the height of arrogance based on nothing...

 

 

Embarrassing as it is i have to apologize, I posted this in the wrong thread, amazingly it is still relevant to this thread, so I stand by my post number 37 but this post was a mistake and i apologize for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Quite the contrary I think i am dead on topic, the idea of presupposing that science is discovering god is arrogant beyond belief. If Science is discovering anything it is discovering that god is irrelevant to any discussion of science and has no place in the natural world.

 

You have every right to your own beliefs but you do not have any right to your own reality, God is not an answer to anything, the concept of god has no evidence much less the concept of any particular god. If science is revealing god then which god? Krishna? Adrianna, Allah? Xenu? Why assume something that has no detectable effect on anything and is functionally no different than assuming angels push the planets around the sun...

 

If science is revealing or explaining anything it is explaining why god is not necessary to existence, and that god serves no purpose other than allowing a few to control many with lies and deceit...

 

Thanx for another melancholy lecture.

 

Your kind named it the God Particle and the Big Bang.

I suggest that you not Blaspheme. I am sure that your God has instituted the First Commandment also.

 

Let us know when you hear of an A-thiestismo Particle.

Good Science will always consult God; not religions as the Jim Jones, A=theists. Lost Christianity, Wikkka ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanx for another melancholy lecture.

 

Your kind named it the God Particle and the Big Bang.

I suggest that you not Blaspheme. I am sure that your God has instituted the First Commandment also.

 

Let us know when you hear of an A-thiestismo Particle.

Good Science will always consult God; not religions as the Jim Jones, A=theists. Lost Christianity, Wikkka ......

 

What part of the Higgs was so difficult to find they called it the god damned particle did you not understand? You suggest I not blaspheme? I suggest you get a clue... Good science will always ignore god and the no true Scotsman argument is silly no matter how hard you try to hide it... and since I hold no belief in any god the first commandment is irrelevant to me...

 

btw the word you were looking for was wicca...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

hello mike:

 

This is not my fields of expertise. Maybe you could OP new threads. .... I would like to know also. << zorro

 

 

A post of mine from an old thread:

 

97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?"

http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html.

 

 

So a rough estimate in the UK and the US puts the number of scientists who believe in some form of personal God at 3% and 7% respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A post of mine from an old thread:

 

 

 

So a rough estimate in the UK and the US puts the number of scientists who believe in some form of personal God at 3% and 7% respectively.

 

That is an unreliable Source.

 

The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is an unreliable Source.

 

The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

 

 

The 7% figure comes from a peer reviewed article in the Publication Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

The 3% figure comes from a peer reviewed artilce in the journal Intelligence. http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al.pdf

 

The sources are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The 7% figure comes from a peer reviewed article in the Publication Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

The 3% figure comes from a peer reviewed artilce in the journal Intelligence. http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al.pdf

 

The sources are fine.

Hello Bio.

 

NO No, they are unreliable also. in that clicking on the links goes dead thus hidden Rev 1

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

 

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. .......

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

thanx for the extraneous waste of our time. evil.gifdoh.gif

Aaaaaand that's the end of the discussion. To me you are one of those whiny kids that go "LaLaLa I can't hear you" while putting their fingers in their ears like some.... let's stay civilized...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanx for another melancholy lecture.

 

Your kind named it the God Particle and the Big Bang.

I suggest that you not Blaspheme. I am sure that your God has instituted the First Commandment also.

 

Let us know when you hear of an A-thiestismo Particle.

Good Science will always consult God; not religions as the Jim Jones, A=theists. Lost Christianity, Wikkka ......

 

!

Moderator Note

I thought we had dealt with this: it was named the God particle by the publishing industry, not scientists. Straw-man arguments, especially repeated, are against the rules.

 

thanx for the extraneous waste of our time. evil.gifdoh.gif

 

!

Moderator Note

Being dismissive of a legitimate question that was posed is also not going to fly.

NO No, they are unreliable also.

!

Moderator Note

Explain why the numbers are unreliable. Bald assertions are not evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is an unreliable Source.

 

The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

 

They appear to be based on different questions: a "personal god" (whatver that means) versus "a higher power". The latter concept is so warm and fuzzy that I am not surprised a larger proportion supported it. I have seen various figures between these extremes. I'm not sure why it is important, though. <shrug>

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO No, they are unreliable also.

 

 

Peer reviewed science is wrong because you found a newspaper article in which a survey asked a different group of people a different question, which discovered a different result.

 

Rightio then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.