|
doombybbr (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@DJockovic1 correction:science has things against religious teachings, such as the ones that say the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.
jimnpatcavell (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@Aelendris People were burned alive not just for contradicting the "Holy Word" but they were also burned alive for having a copy of the Bible written in the English language.watch?v=DmFYpuYh6w0 is a debate where the above fact was stated by Fry and not disputed by either of the two Catholic participants.
DJockovic1 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@Aelendris 1. What about the law? Does it make our lives better? Does it rest on scientific proof? I suggest not.2. Science hasn't rejected God, it has very little top say on the subject. Some scientists on the other hand, have rejected God, but that is mainly in their personal lives, and has very little to do with their science. 3. You entirely miss the point of the fish analogy. 4. I didn't say science proved the world didn't exist. My point was that it hadn't. 5. Marijuana.
Aelendris (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@DJockovic1 And what on earth are you smoking when you say that science proved that the World didn't exist? Science is a self correcting process, and it's only job is to help us describe reality in the most reasonable and logical manner possible. That's why religion is opposed to it - because Religion is dogmatic. Why do you think the church burned people alive for contradicting the "Holy Word"?
Aelendris (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@DJockovic1 Because Scientific proof is the proof that actually makes our lives better. If you think it's not useful and acceptable, then stop going to the hospital when you're injured or ill. To use your ridiculous analogy, the scientific proof for the existance of fish is that fish manifest themselves in reality, we can touch, smell and even eat them. God is a man made concept and does not manifest itself in reality in any way. Why do you think science has rejected the God hypothesis?
scienceandmusiclover (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@MsPerduta Part 3:What you do is a disgrace to the mental potential of mankind.It is also an inmoral double standard.You have solved all the mysteries of the universe, life, and purpose, but those with I.Q's over 160 often create a problem for your beliefs.Unfortunately many of them are atheists which further aggrivates you.Your solution is simple. Call them wrong, and do your own science to prove them wrong. Use parts of their science to prove the rest wrong. Foolish.
scienceandmusiclover (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@MsPerduta Part 2.As in part 1, You love the failures.You know what you want science to be. You know you want science to fail in any manner that pertains to your own stubborn bias; therefore, you cherry pick.You dig thru science to find something to prove beyond all doubt certain scientists are incompetent, and certain science is wrong. You would never pick on anything that works for you, just protect your narrow-minded views by professing to find errors in light speed etc.
scienceandmusiclover (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@MsPerduta What's your point?That's easy to answer.For science it is humble honesty that makes science so great. It is an open admission to the world that science is not perfect. This attitude protects us against junk-science so we don't go to a hospital, for example, and get a quck cure for many diseases. This imperfect science gives us a treatment in medicine that is respected enough to take the chance it will work. Somteimes it fails.You love the failuresYou trolls use
DJockovic1 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Here's a clue: people, apparently, used to think the world was flat, then along came science and proved the world didn't exist. Oops, sorry, along came science and proved that the world (which does exist whatever it is) was not flat. What's the difference between the two? Why one and not the other?
DJockovic1 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Where is it written (other than in the atheist/pseudoscience manual) that the only acceptable proof is scientific proof? What is scientific proof? There is no scientific proof that fish exist! The question of whether fish exist having been answered long before there was any science and consists pretty much in the following observation: those things there are called fish. What on earth could science have thrown up to change our mind on that? Learn how ontologies are constructed = see the proof. |
