Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Delphiki]

Time will tell. Eternity will show whether tinkering with physical only state sin caused diseases with things like drugs, trumps everlasting happiness and life and love and laughter, and pleasure, and knowledge, and beauty, and music, and fun, and health, and joy, and fulfillment...

Time will tell... but what's more apparent is time has already told.

Talk about disease? If you get a rash, would you rather apply Levitican law or a treatment developed by scientific means?

So your argument, now, is that science makes people unhappy? Oh, please.

Why do you think our life spans are longer? Why do you think we have cures and treatments for disease? Why do you think we're now more familiar with the cause of our emotional states? You don't think the complexity of the universe as we now understand it is beautiful? Why do you think we can travel to any spot on the planet within hours to have fun anywhere we want?

I can tell you it wasn't some book that tells you everything you want to do, any amount of fun or indulgence you desire, any happiness you seek, will damn you to an eternity of suffering. It wasn't that book of yours that tells you how to think and what to pray to. It wasn't that book you read about the god who is supposedly just and merciful, but commits human exterminations throughout the same book. It's god is one who says he loves every one of us, but would be quick to damn us to eternal suffering for following our instincts or seeking empirical knowledge.

You want to talk about happiness, fulfillment, beauty, and knowledge? The bible brought us none of these things. The bible breeds war and hate just like the Quran, especially the old testament.

Nearly every war, even fought with weapons that wouldn't have been without science, is fought in the name of religion. It's not science doing the fighting. It's the religious doing the fighting with the tools they stole from science.

Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies planes into buildings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nearly every war, even fought with weapons that wouldn't have been without science, is fought in the name of religion. It's not science doing the fighting. It's the religious doing the fighting with the tools they stole from science.

Thomas Malthus would disagree.

According to the Malthusian Doctrine, war is nature's way of maintaining a balance between the population and the earth's resources.

Notice too in Dicken's, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge says, "They [the poor] had better do it now [die], and decrease the surplus population".

In Dicken's time, scientists must have been teaching the earth was overcrowded.

Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies planes into buildings.

And science also provides justification (and the tools) for -- (assuming 3000 died on 9/11) -- 500 times that many per year in America alone.

 

[Delphiki]

Thomas Malthus would disagree.

According to the Malthusian Doctrine, war is nature's way of maintaining a balance between the population and the earth's resources.

That's a possibility for nature -- but show me one war, not religiously motivated, where the nations were fighting for the sole purpose to control world population. Wars aren't fought in the name of science. You won't see two nations shooting at each other because one thinks the Higgs Boson particle exists and the other doesn't.

Notice too in Dicken's, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge says, "They [the poor] had better do it now [die], and decrease the surplus population".

In Dicken's time, scientists must have been teaching the earth was overcrowded.

You mean you figure this from a fictional character in a book about a Christian holiday written by an Anglican author? Go figure.

Are all your principals and all your knowledge based of fictional Christian literature?

And science also provides justification (and the tools) for -- (assuming 3000 died on 9/11) -- 500 times that many per year in America alone.

Science doesn't justify or condemn anything. Don't you people understand an impartial and unbiased system of learning when you see one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wars aren't fought in the name of science. You won't see two nations shooting at each other because one thinks the Higgs Boson particle exists and the other doesn't.

But what you will see is a dog-eat-dog world of publish-or-perish, where cold wars behind closed doors are the norm.

As I understand it, Bell wasn't the first to discover the telephone, and so on and so forth.

You mean you figure this from a fictional character in a book about a Christian holiday written by an Anglican author? Go figure.

No -- slow down and read what I said.

Charles Dickens -- a real person -- inserted overpopulation rhetoric in a story he wrote; which indicates that overpopulation was a factor being considered back then.

Science doesn't justify or condemn anything.

Yes, it does.

By reducing a human being to the level of "growing tissues", it effectively removes cognitive dissonance from someone wanting to do something they otherwise may have not done.

 

[Delphiki]

But what you will see is a dog-eat-dog world of publish-or-perish, where cold wars behind closed doors are the norm.

As I understand it, Bell wasn't the first to discover the telephone, and so on and so forth.

Are you seriously comparing disagreements between scientists and spats over patents to actual holy wars and crusades where millions of people die? Wow.

No -- slow down and read what I said.

Charles Dickens -- a real person -- inserted overpopulation rhetoric in a story he wrote; which indicates that overpopulation was a factor being considered back then.

So the answer is "yes" - You prefer to get your information from fictional Christian books, and interpret their contents to suit your needs for an argument.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. There is no divine motive behind science. The only thing science intends to accomplish is knowledge.

By reducing a human being to the level of "growing tissues", ...

Not "reducing".. "explaining" or "describing".

...it effectively removes cognitive dissonance from someone wanting to do something they otherwise may have not done.

Maybe for you. Normal people don't require a fear of God to have good behavior. In fact, I'd say if the fear of God or hell is the only reason you're moral, then you're doing so for the wrong reasons.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thomas Malthus would disagree.

He would, but as usual, not for the reasons you claim.

According to the Malthusian Doctrine, war is nature's way of maintaining a balance between the population and the earth's resources.

Nothing natural about it -- war is man's way of doing it. If war fails, we can always count on God to do the job right:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61


God is and has always been a far better engine of population control than man -- although with the invention of the atomic bomb, we could do the job if we so chose.

How fortunate, then, that no sane scientist would ever push the button. Religious types, however -- who knows what they're thinking? Some of them would probably push the button in a heartbeat if they thought it would bring on the End Times -- which it would, but not what they expect.

Notice too in Dicken's, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge says, "They [the poor] had better do it now [die], and decrease the surplus population".

Quite so -- Dickens was throwing Malthusian Doctrine back in the faces of the people who bought into it (remember, Dickens wasn't righting for scientists, but for the common people).

In Dicken's time, scientists must have been teaching the earth was overcrowded.

Well, Malthus was, anyway. He proposed that population control as key to a utopian society. Put simply, people had more power to multiply than the world had the power to take care of.

In case you're missing the point -- and as usual, you are -- Malthus was one man, not "scientists." Nice broad brush you're painting with there, as usual.

And science also provides justification (and the tools) for -- (assuming 3000 died on 9/11) -- 500 times that many per year in America alone.

Science provides justification, AV? Don't you mean religion and politics? Most of the Conservative Christians we've got in this country would happily back up Scrooge's words.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, it does.

By reducing a human being to the level of "growing tissues", it effectively removes cognitive dissonance from someone wanting to do something they otherwise may have not done.

What are you blathering about?

 

[AV1611VET]

He would, but as usual, not for the reasons you claim.

QV please: Neo-malthusianism.

Neo-malthusianism was originally used to mean population limitation by birth control and/or abortion.

 

[Delphiki]

What are you blathering about?

He's basically saying that learning the physical nature of things takes away from the spiritual understanding of things.

He also doesn't understand that I probably understand him a lot better than he thinks I do. He's just wrong most of the time.

 

[Split Rock]

By reducing a human being to the level of "growing tissues", it effectively removes cognitive dissonance from someone wanting to do something they otherwise may have not done.

LOL! So before modern science, people never carried out abortions, massacres, wars, etc. You really do live in a fantasy world where sceintists are responible for all of humanities ills, while still being "God's gift" to mankind. No wonder you are so confused...

 

[dad]

LOL! So before modern science, people never carried out abortions, massacres, wars, etc. ..

Of course they did. But the ability to do it was somewhat less.

 

[dad]

Good point, let's wait until we're all dead to find out whether we could have improved our lives.

Most people have no wait for that. They need to wait till they get life.

 

[dad]

I have admitted multiple times that we don't know where the fundamental forces come from,

OK, fine. But there are those that insinuated that we do. For example that the qed theory nails it for one of the nuclear forces.

and even that we will never know the details of the most fundamental thing we understand.

Good start.

That does nothing to take away from what science does know and has done. That is why your response was, sorry to say, stupid.

So how does that work? Not knowing and admitting not ever being able to know somehow adds to science? Unbelievable.

Direct observation of an event is not the only way to understand an event.

Apply that to God.

For example, courts are built around this idea. Should a judge or jury only convict someone if they were present during the crime?

If they want to convict God of lying about creation, they better know something of what they are talking about, unlike now.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course they did. But the ability to do it was somewhat less.

The only difference is the technology to kill lots of people. Other than that, there is no difference in behavior.

 

[dad]

Time will tell... but what's more apparent is time has already told.

Remember you don't even know what time is. Careful about what you think it told you.

Talk about disease? If you get a rash, would you rather apply Levitican law or a treatment developed by scientific means?

Show me a cream that came from your singularity that contained the universe , or the first lifeform,and Bob's your uncle.

So your argument, now, is that science makes people unhappy? Oh, please.

Why do you think our life spans are longer? Why do you think we have cures and treatments for disease? Why do you think we're now more familiar with the cause of our emotional states?

Oh?? Like that people lust after their mother, or some Freudian nonsense? Or that no mental afflictions are spiritual in some part? Get serious.

You don't think the complexity of the universe as we now understand it is beautiful?

I don't think you understand it. That is the problem. The imaginary scenarios science embraces are Satanic in nature, anti intelligence, anti God, anti bible. The stars are pretty, yes. Nothing to do with science.

Why do you think we can travel to any spot on the planet within hours to have fun anywhere we want?

Off topic. Present nature isn't under discussion.

It's god is one who says he loves every one of us, but would be quick to damn us to eternal suffering for following our instincts or seeking empirical knowledge.

I disagree. I don't see Him as the trigger happy monster you do.

You want to talk about happiness, fulfillment, beauty, and knowledge? The bible brought us none of these things. The bible breeds war and hate just like the Quran, especially the old testament.

Hiroshima and Dresden and 42 million murdered babies a year, and a polluted planet, and etc etc hardly have brought utopia. Sin breeds war. The bible addresses sin.

Nearly every war, even fought with weapons that wouldn't have been without science, is fought in the name of religion.

Most men have had beliefs that have been in the sin wars. Irrelevant.

It's not science doing the fighting.

Science makes the WOMD possible, and the F-15s, and space weapons and missiles, etc. It facilitates the sin wars.

Science flies us to the moon.

Science wastes trillions on ego trips, so? It also claims the moon magically came to be from the puff cloud of a magically appearing planet that magically hit earth just right, and somehow coalesced into a beautiful moon, or some such tale.

Religion flies planes into buildings.

Jesus didn't. Neither did the prophets or apostles. There is a difference in religions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Most people have no wait for that. They need to wait till they get life.

If you're considering getting a life, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Remember you don't even know what time is. Careful about what you think it told you.

We're certainly not going to learn anyhting about it from the likes of you.

Oh?? Like that people lust after their mother, or some Freudian nonsense? Or that no mental afflictions are spiritual in some part? Get serious.

if you're lusting after your mother, that's your issue -- mental or spiritual; seek help.

I don't think you understand it. That is the problem. The imaginary scenarios science embraces are Satanic in nature, anti intelligence, anti God, anti bible. The stars are pretty, yes. Nothing to do with science.

Right -- because there's absolutely nothing scientific about stars, right?

I disagree. I don't see Him as the trigger happy monster you do.

Might I recommend glasses?

Hiroshima and Dresden and 42 million murdered babies a year, and a polluted planet, and etc etc hardly have brought utopia. Sin breeds war. The bible addresses sin.

The Bible invented sin.

Science makes the WOMD possible, and the F-15s, and space weapons and missiles, etc. It facilitates the sin wars.

And religion invents, inspires, and encourages those wars.

 

[dad]

The only difference is the technology to kill lots of people. Other than that, there is no difference in behavior.

Sin wars go way back. Science doesn't make it better.

 

[Delphiki]

Remember you don't even know what time is. Careful about what you think it told you.

Oh, you did the whole "he said the word 'time', so lets debate what time is even though it's not the subject of the sentence" thing.

Ok.. I'll derp it down for you without using the word "time": Throughout history, science has proven itself, where religion has failed us. There's no reason to believe the trend will reverse direction in the future.

Show me a cream that came from your singularity that contained the universe

, or the first lifeform,and Bob's your uncle.

I don't believe medications were formed in the big bang. I believe advances in science allowed man to make such things. Remember, you're the guy that thinks stuff just pops into existence from nothing, not me.

As for lifeforms, I've already explained what pieces of abiogenesis we can actually demonstrate in a lab. There is not one piece of divine creation that can be or has even been demonstrated -- ever.

Oh?? Like that people lust after their mother, or some Freudian nonsense? Or that no mental afflictions are spiritual in some part? Get serious.

Oedipus complex existed well before Freud. He neither discovered it, nor coined the term. He merely studied it.

Also, I wouldn't say that no mental afflictions are spiritual, even though there's no reason to think such a thing (again -- no evidence for spirits) -- But I would say that an obsession with spiritualism could definitely be a mental affliction.

I don't think you understand it. That is the problem. The imaginary scenarios science embraces are Satanic in nature

Prove it. Show me a science journal that thanks, or even mentions Satan.

anti intelligence,

Stealing a term I've been using to describe your position and trying to put it to your own use against me, eh? How creative of you.

anti God,

No, the subject of God is irrelevant in science.

anti bible.

Such is the nature of actual reality.

The stars are pretty, yes. Nothing to do with science.

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of appreciation for what's allegedly your God's creation.

Off topic. Present nature isn't under discussion.

No, on topic. Don't dodge. Reason why it's on topic: Modern transportation is an achievement of science - not religion.

I disagree. I don't see Him as the trigger happy monster you do.

Which is what's disturbing. I wonder who else can order the deaths of millions of people and get away with it just because they turn around and say "but I'm still a good entity".

Hiroshima and Dresden and 42 million murdered babies a year, and a polluted planet, and etc etc hardly have brought utopia. Sin breeds war. The bible addresses sin.

And still, these acts were not committed in the name of science, but were carried out in what can be seen as an abuse of scientific knowledge. You know, like how abortion bombers abuse their religious knowledge to commit atrocities.

Most men have had beliefs that have been in the sin wars. Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. Wars have been fought in the name of religion and in the name of God. ...Never in the name for science.

Science makes the WOMD possible, and the F-15s, and space weapons and missiles, etc. It facilitates the sin wars.

Same thing as previously stated.

Science wastes trillions on ego trips, so? It also claims the moon magically came to be from the puff cloud of a magically appearing planet that magically hit earth just right, and somehow coalesced into a beautiful moon, or some such tale.

Trips to the moon were not ego trips, but actually helped toward discovering it's origin, composition, and nature. Also, gravity is not magic -- I think that explains the title of this thread.

Jesus didn't. Neither did the prophets or apostles. There is a difference in religions.

Jesus didn't have airplanes available at his disposal. And, there's only a difference in semantics in religions. They're all meant to do the same thing; keep people like you in complacent control -- because you wouldn't have any morals without it.

 

[sandwiches]

Of course they did. But the ability to do it was somewhat less.

You should really educate yourself a bit more there, sport: History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia