Science: Keep out?

[Mycernius]

For my last post in this section of the forums
"A cat responds to the dominant animal around it"
Get a cat

I have two (three at the beginning of the year), plus a dog. I have always had cats and dogs in my life.

Do you know what will happen on the day when God will write his name with the stars on the sky for all non belivers ?
The sciantists will go out on CNN and say " Well because of some besare and strange astro phenomena, a couple of stars recently changed their position.For some people the new possitions of the stars write the name God Allmighty, but others say that it looks more like a pig.We are researching this phenomenon and rest asured that you will know it first on CNN when we come up with explenation"

Cute Joke, but to over analysis; what will that name be, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why do assume that all atheists are christian haters?"
Please quote me the line where i sayd " All atheists are Christian haters"

I admit I did assume, as I have had this thrown at me before. If a mistake was made then I apologise.

 

[Chi65]

But God said it was flat!! Why would he lie to us?

Which God? Surely a manmade one, because that one clearly is not allknowing thus(!;-))

 

[Doc]

I admit I did assume, as I have had this thrown at me before. If a mistake was made then I apologise.

Just remember that most people on both sides don't feel that way about 'atheists vs religious' and vice versa. The problem lies with a few key idiots on both sides who like to make a big deal out of things just to do it.

-Doc

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Science and religion are of course, irreconcilable. Trying to fuse the two or somehow reach a perfect agreement is impossible, it's like mixing oil and water.

A better question is whether scientific pursuit and spirituality are mutually exclusive or not, because there is a lot of religiosity out there that's devout yet void of true spirituality. I would say they're not exclusive. Spirituality does not require any specific paradigm of thought, therefore there is no violence done to science. Likewise, science does not have to disagree with a spiritual existence, in fact further understanding the world around you through science can increase your level of spirituality and awareness.

 

[Chi65]

Jumping to conclusion a bit quick. It was the Victorians that put about the myth that mediaeval people thought the Earth was flat. Read Dantes divine comedy. He knew the Earth was a sphere. Even when he and Virgil climbed down Satans legs, at the very centre of Hell (which was the centre of the Earth) he knew that when they reached the midway point they would have to turn to climb up, and that was at the turn of the 13th century.

Never mind, it was also metaphorical, since several images in the older east go much further in many points, surprisingly enough. Some meet pretty modern science images nowadays. I say images, because they (science) can "play" it via "measurings and countings" as abstracts etc., but not prove the existence for example of a multiverse, but in the images of old China it appears already, and I suppose, also for Hindus etc. it is nothing really new, once you know what to search for.

By the way, the journey to the center of the earth from Verne later is one of my favourites, and can as well be explained in psychological sense. But there you are kind of thrown out like in a volcano, if I remember right. Well, as good.

The east had far less problems with inside outs or outsides as inside images simultaneously. Later on, "flattenings". . .somewhat lack of imagination and experiences, I suppose.

A fine part of the Karma-game is also, that you may not be able to go further without going backwards first. . .which often means your memory. . .

Do you know the ravens of Odin/Thor, by the way?

 

[centrajapan]

And yes, the ancient Greek's worked out that the Earth was round and its circumference many years before the birth of Christ. Very clever bunch.

Greeks probably used Greek numbers to calculate the equinox. Seems complicated. I don't think there was a number zero 0 then. Egyptians used to calculate equinox too.

I say images,

The human brain aparently store all info converting to images. In religion you often hear in the beginning god wa wa wa. Actually in the beginning humans created an image of god then god wa wa wa.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You look at your cat and your cat mews, your cat understands you, your cat responds to your commands, your cat aperantly speaks with other cats, your cat finds answers of difficult questions and situations with no problem.Yet sciance tells me that my cat is simply operating on instincts, and cats can't speak

Which scientist said that animals don't communicate? And how is the fact that they communicate contradictory to their acting on instinct? My rabbit scratches my leg when he's hungry. That's communicating. That's instinct.

See here

There are Billions of trillions of examples of what people are being teached and made to belive in and how different the reality is.

If there are billions of trillions of examples why not list a few right here?

I also consider any atheist the most lazy person on earth.I was atheist 23 years of my life but i worked hard and now i know how wrong i was.

Generalisations are banned here ;-)

Apart from the logical irregularity of that statement, the evidence just isn't there. The atheists posting here are knowledgeable, thoughtful people, who work hard to back up their claims with carefully reasoned arguments and links to further information.

You, on the other hand, make sweeping judgments and provide no evidence to back up what you say. Another thing that's been bugging me, and seems to suggest some laziness on your part: the word 'science' is spelled with two 'e's. Your first misspelling was forgivable, but despite almost everyone on this thread using the word countless times you still insist on spelling it incorrectly.

And i can't even start typing the Physics proffesionals and so on proffesionals which i met in my life who found out how big and full with empty space is the balloon of sciance world.

Please start typing them. Give us a few names we can Google to verify what you say.

Also Sciance is exceptions intollerant.

Actually, science is exceptions hungry. Falsifiable hypothesis is the first course of bricks in the edifice of Science, the foundation being observation.

Exceptions go in a dark black corner never to be seen.

No. Exceptions are sometimes hard to accept at first because people are understandably reluctant to admit that all their hard work was in vain. But exceptions eventually lead to new hypotheses.

I guess if you read how some "revolutionary" discoverys in the sciance world came to be you will find that it was a battle on life and death betwean the homogen sciance sociaty and the unlucky person that found out somethign is wrong.

Since you don't back up this claim with any evidence I'll help you out. A couple of examples spring immediately to mind:

1) We all know that Copernicus discovered scientifically that the solar system is heliocentric. There's a lot of hype concerning the rejection of his theory. Actually, at first there was just some muted interest - from both scientists and churchmen - and he was encouraged to do further study. His work was published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed. He died of a stroke in 1543.

Censorship came only well into the next century, long after Copernicus' death. It's my understanding that this criticism came entirely from the church, since heliocentrism contradicted scripture.

See here

2) What about Darwin's On the origin of Species?

The biologist Richard Owen is almost as famous for his opposition to Darwin as for his coining of the word 'dinosaur', but even his criticisms were more theological than scientific. He was concerned that descent from apes would 'bestialise man', and he believed that comparative anatomy showed 'archetypes in the mind of God' rather than evidence for natural selection.

True, Darwin was pained by the criticism he did receive, but I just don't see that that opposition came from the scientific establishment. Even the famous debate at the British Association in 1860 was seen at the time as a debate between science and religion - with both sides claiming victory.

See here

If those examples don't illustrate the so-called 'life-and-death battle' you had in mind, please feel free to provide your own

Sooner or later if you have the curage to be honest with your findings and accept them as they are you will no doubt about it find out some very very interesting things

Why not try a taste of your own medicine? ;-)

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Just for fun ;-)

I am against sciance because it applys the principle of Comunists.

LOL! OK, just for fun I looked up the Communist Manifesto, just to see if those principles are applied by science.

Planks of the Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

Just think how far science could have gotten if that were the case! Unfortunately, precious little public money goes into scientific research, which is why so much of it funded by charities or private companies.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

LOL! Scientists don't earn enough to pay high taxes

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Hmm, one of the most criticised areas of science right now is its growing ability to control what we inherit ;-)

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We might have a brain drain, but as far as I know if a scientist leaves their native country they can still take all their stuff with them

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Actually, I think it's scientists who were the first to speak out for the preservation of rural areas, at least in the 20th century.
See here

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.

OK, maybe scientists would go for that one, but really, who could argue with that?

 

[karlyboo]

For my last post in this section of the forums

Ah the great art of not-debating.

Here's a reference for you to consider.

If you can't back up anything you're saying other than with sweeping generalisations (which mostly seem to have been plucked out of the air) what, really, is the point? I think I'm not alone in being reasonably aware that you think Science is a dumb pack of lies; if you have nothing else to add shall we move on?

 

[Chi65]

The human brain aparently store all info converting to images. In religion you often hear in the beginning god wa wa wa. Actually in the beginning humans created an image of god then god wa wa wa.

Which is why, exactly, shake hands ;-)

 

[Haruspex]

The first three letters of his name are very true for Dimitree.
Principle of communists? Fighting science bears the principle of stupidity.
How the heck can one even wage a war on science and BS happily about it using a computer - the fruit of science? PA-RA-DOX.

 

[Mavrek]

I will go in favor of Science because it is based on the facts and figures.On the other hand I don't see any proven base in the religions.They have created just the stories.I am sorry ifI hurt any one on this forum.