Members LithiumZero Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Oh whatever guys. There is not a whole lot of practical difference between believing in something and having reason to believe in something. Scientists aren't better because they think they have a "reason" to believe in something. You guys are a bunch of corksniffers.pwnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members damnuandurdog Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 " Science does not 'pretend' to be anything. Science isn't some weird nebulous individual chilling out saying how things work. It's a collection of methods used to prove theorems. There is no reason to say (some) scientists believe in a 'greater being' because belief has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members damnuandurdog Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Oh whatever guys. There is not a whole lot of practical difference between believing in something and having reason to believe in something. Scientists aren't better because they think they have a "reason" to believe in something. You guys are a bunch of corksniffers. 'Belief' and 'faith' are not a part of any scientific methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Samnite Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Oh whatever guys. There is not a whole lot of practical difference between believing in something and having reason to believe in something. Scientists aren't better because they think they have a "reason" to believe in something. You guys are a bunch of corksniffers.And you're incapable of understanding what it is you're trying to argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fly135 Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Oh whatever guys. There is not a whole lot of practical difference between believing in something and having reason to believe in something. Scientists aren't better because they think they have a "reason" to believe in something. You guys are a bunch of corksniffers.Back to the stone age we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fatfat Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members silverfacechamp Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 And you're incapable of understanding what it is you're trying to argue about. Precisely what I've been saying the whole thread.....Although you were nicer about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nautaki Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Most TOP scientists and mathematicians historically have been believers in god. Sorry dude, that's a fact.You're not a scientist, and far from being a historically recognized figure, you're a student:cop: And I never said anything about belief informing anyone's science. I just pointed, out of hand, out the simple truth that the top guys, nearly all of them get to the peak and go "Damn, this so beautiful, only a god could create it." I find that strange, since I don't believe and literally would take an in-person visit to sway me. I would like to just point out that many top scientists where not Christian. Nothing wrong with being one but there where many who where Jews, Muslims or even going back to ancient Greece, Dodekatheists. Moreover, and just to use England as an example, until the early 19th century with the establishment of the secular University College in London the rest of the universities i.e Cambridge and Oxford were only admitting members of the Church of England as students and staff. This is just to point out that there has been a historic bias concerning religion and a relative secularism has only been around since the 19th century. It is really tempting to establish a connection between this fact and the tremendous progress there has been in physics, chemistry, medicine and biology since then but it could also be just a coincidence. Now apart from the issue of scientists being religious or not, which is down to each individual, I am really surprised with all this borderline hate some people display towards science. Of course it is rather very convenient to do so in 21st century comfort where everything is taken for granted but it is also a display of ignorance because in the end I don't think that many people realise that the same principles that are behind GPS, mobile phones, their computers ( that so effortlessly use to post comments around here and elsewhere ), their CD players, diagnostic techniques in medicine like x-rays, scintillators and even clothing like Michael Phelp's swimming suit are exactly the same behind phenomena like fusion and nucleosynthesis in stars and the origin and expansion of the universe. Now I am not saying that what we think might have happened in the past, in a cosmological sense, is what exactly happened, but this is not because we are purposely wrong, but because we do not yet have ways of testing or explaining things. The more experiments are performed then the more pieces of the puzzle will start falling into place. Our lack of understanding though gives absolutely no credit to concepts like intelligent design and creationism whatsoever, if there is something that is not understood already then it will be in the future through the same process that explained why the day is bright and why we get a tan and not through hocus pocus. If we where discussing the same subject in 1800s would you say that after all this progress that has happened since then ID and creationism is wrong? Then why should it be valid now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dark Angel Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I would like to just point out that many top scientists where not Christian. Nothing wrong with being one but there where many who where Jews, Muslims or even going back to ancient Greece, Dodekatheists. Moreover, and just to use England as an example, until the early 19th century with the establishment of the secular University College in London the rest of the universities i.e Cambridge and Oxford were only admitting members of the Church of England as students and staff. This is just to point out that there has been a historic bias concerning religion and a relative secularism has only been around since the 19th century. It is really tempting to establish a connection between this fact and the tremendous progress there has been in physics, chemistry, medicine and biology since then but it could also be just a coincidence. Now apart from the issue of scientists being religious or not, which is down to each individual, I am really surprised with all this borderline hate some people display towards science. Of course it is rather very convenient to do so in 21st century comfort where everything is taken for granted but it is also a display of ignorance because in the end I don't think that many people realise that the same principles that are behind GPS, mobile phones, their computers ( that so effortlessly use to post comments around here and elsewhere ), their CD players, diagnostic techniques in medicine like x-rays, scintillators and even clothing like Michael Phelp's swimming suit are exactly the same behind phenomena like fusion and nucleosynthesis in stars and the origin and expansion of the universe. Now I am not saying that what we think might have happened in the past, in a cosmological sense, is what exactly happened, but this is not because we are purposely wrong, but because we do not yet have ways of testing or explaining things. The more experiments are performed then the more pieces of the puzzle will start falling into place. Our lack of understanding though gives absolutely no credit to concepts like intelligent design and creationism whatsoever, if there is something that is not understood already then it will be in the future through the same process that explained why the day is bright and why we get a tan and not through hocus pocus. If we where discussing the same subject in 1800s would you say that after all this progress that has happened since then ID and creationism is wrong? Then why should it be valid now? Believers in Hocus Pocus that have literally defined most of modern science, just off the top of my head:Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Tyco Brahe, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle, Gauss, Bessel, Leibniz, the Bernoulli clan, Euler, and Einstein. Again, I'm not debating there is a god, nor am I even a promoter of intelligent design. I'm an atheist, but it cracks me up that "small brain" atheists get all bent out of shape about things the big brains in history all held to be true, thinking that it will keep more big brains from becoming. As long as nobody is striking down theory on the basis of religious ideas that can't be supported, that's just hogwash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Believers in Hocus Pocus that have literally defined most of modern science, just off the top of my head:Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Tyco Brahe, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle, Gauss, Bessel, Leibniz, the Bernoulli clan, Euler, and Einstein.Again, I'm not debating there is a god, nor am I even a promoter of intelligent design. I'm an atheist, but it cracks me up that "small brain" atheists get all bent out of shape about things the big brains in history all held to be true, thinking that it will keep more big brains from becoming. As long as nobody is striking down theory on the basis of religious ideas that can't be supported, that's just hogwash. The earlier scientists you mentioned would have been killed if they stated they were anything other then believers in the prevalent religion of the time. Einstein's personal beliefs are debatable. While he did publicly state a belief in god, his personal notes question the intelligence and morality of man holding true to religious beliefs in the face of science. That said, a belief in god or any other spiritual belief has nothing to do with this conversation. This debate has to do with the incorporation of ancient fictions written by man into texts and teachings pertaining to science. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members damnuandurdog Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Believers in Hocus Pocus that have literally defined most of modern science, just off the top of my head:Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Tyco Brahe, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle, Gauss, Bessel, Leibniz, the Bernoulli clan, Euler, and Einstein.Again, I'm not debating there is a god, nor am I even a promoter of intelligent design. I'm an atheist, but it cracks me up that "small brain" atheists get all bent out of shape about things the big brains in history all held to be true, thinking that it will keep more big brains from becoming. As long as nobody is striking down theory on the basis of religious ideas that can't be supported, that's just hogwash. The textual diarrhea you just posted has nothing to with ID being taught alongside Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.