Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Grand DesignFollow

#27gbaji, Posted: Sep 03 2010 at 6:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Spin in your education aside, there are many times more examples in history of organized religion advancing science than discrediting it. When you get past the couple of examples involving people like Galileo, and do a bit of research, you'll find that the institutions of learning in which nearly every single scientific discovery leading to our modern age occurred, were almost always founded, funded, and operated by religious organizations. The idea that science and religion are somehow opposed to each other, or even that religion has somehow historically been an anti-scientific force, is easily dismissed by the actual historical facts.
#28 Sep 03 2010 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nothing in Darwin's work, for example, even remotely dismisses the broad aspects of creationism, yet many people equate Darwin and the Theory of Evolution as somehow in opposition with Creationism.

The Kansas Board of Education, for example.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 03 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
I could ask the same thing about the political left and science. It seems as though a fair number of people on the left go out of their way to make any scientific discovery into a condemnation of faith and religion. I'm pretty sure that people on the left didn't constantly insist that science disproves the existence of god and/or the value of faith, no one on the right would have a problem with it. But instead what we get is statements of the form: "Look at this science! It proves that you crazy religious people are wrong. Nyah nyah nyah!".

I've pointed this out before. Nothing in Darwin's work, for example, even remotely dismisses the broad aspects of creationism, yet many people equate Darwin and the Theory of Evolution as somehow in opposition with Creationism. At some point, atheists decided that science was a great tool to attack religion with, and they've been doing it ever since. Blaming religions people for responding to such attacks is just icing on the cake.
I'm going to be nice and not start off by calling you a moron. Essentially, I've asked "Why do you deny evolution?" to which you replied, "Because some people are mean about it!" I'm talking about reality here. Not an opinion; observable fact.

Besides, even if Stephen Hawking is completely correct, it STILL doesn't dismiss the existence of God. If you'd take two seconds to read any of his work, you'd realize that he doesn't deny the possibility... he simply says that his existence might not be necessary.
#30 Sep 03 2010 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Quadkit wrote:
Besides, even if Stephen Hawking is completely correct, it STILL doesn't dismiss the existence of God. If you'd take two seconds to read any of his work, you'd realize that he doesn't deny the possibility... he simply says that his existence might not be necessary.

So God exists just for the hell of it? Boy, I sure am glad millennia of warfare have been waged on a lark.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#31 Sep 03 2010 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Debalic wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Besides, even if Stephen Hawking is completely correct, it STILL doesn't dismiss the existence of God. If you'd take two seconds to read any of his work, you'd realize that he doesn't deny the possibility... he simply says that his existence might not be necessary.

So God exists just for the hell of it? Boy, I sure am glad millennia of warfare have been waged on a lark.
We haven't disproven the existence of God. I happen to not believe in him, but that doesn't make the possibility of his existence go away.
#32 Sep 03 2010 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Quadkit wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Besides, even if Stephen Hawking is completely correct, it STILL doesn't dismiss the existence of God. If you'd take two seconds to read any of his work, you'd realize that he doesn't deny the possibility... he simply says that his existence might not be necessary.

So God exists just for the hell of it? Boy, I sure am glad millennia of warfare have been waged on a lark.
We haven't disproven the existence of God. I happen to not believe in him, but that doesn't make the possibility of his existence go away.


Sure, as are an infinite number of other things. It's just unreasonable to assume that is the case.
#33 Sep 03 2010 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kavekk the Pest wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Besides, even if Stephen Hawking is completely correct, it STILL doesn't dismiss the existence of God. If you'd take two seconds to read any of his work, you'd realize that he doesn't deny the possibility... he simply says that his existence might not be necessary.

So God exists just for the hell of it? Boy, I sure am glad millennia of warfare have been waged on a lark.
We haven't disproven the existence of God. I happen to not believe in him, but that doesn't make the possibility of his existence go away.


Sure, as are an infinite number of other things. It's just unreasonable to assume that is the case.
Yes. I agree whole-heartedly, and I'm not trying to argue against that thought. However, nothing in science has "also, there is no God" tacked on the end of it. It's put there by people that use it to fit their agendas. This was my point. Agenda or no agenda, fact is fact. What those facts are used for are outside the realm of science. (Which is just a tool for learning about the universe)
#34 Sep 03 2010 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Are you saying that people *don't* use science as a means to attack religion?
No, I'm saying that if people on the left stopped using science to "attack/discredit" religion, some people on the right would still have an issue with it. And you know that's true and that that group is loud.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#35 Sep 04 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, so maybe someone can explain this quote to me.

Quote:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.



How would Gravity exist/work if there was no Matter ( mass) ? It just seems like "cart before the horse" to me. I also can't fathom how or why "nothing" attracted to "nothing" would create "something".


Was the Law of Gravity just sitting around bored in a vacuum and created the entire Universe just so it would have something to do? Joking aside, I really don't get this quote.




____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#36 Sep 04 2010 at 12:48 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
CoalHeart wrote:



Was the Law of Gravity just sitting around bored in a vacuum and created the entire Universe just so it would have something to do? Joking aside, I really don't get this quote.



Perhaps 'Law of Gravity' is Gods middle name?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#37 Sep 04 2010 at 3:12 AM Rating: Good
***
1,094 posts
I hate to sound so mean, but sometimes I really question what in the hell some people are thinking. It's like they don't even try to think. Quotes from the news site.

Quote:
It is absolutely impossible to create something out of nothing.

Quote:
I don’t believe in science…I believe in God. Science can’t heal cancer – God can. Sciene can’t heal a marriage – God can. Science can’t make a broken criminal whole again – God can. I used to believe in science, but science has let us down for many millenia. How many times has science said, “oh well, we were wrong…this is how it really is…Oh actually, our calculations were off by seventy-five million microns so the implications are as varied as the universer…yada yada yada…science sure does like to poke its nose in religion, but the contrary is not so. If you scientist really want God out of your labs, then stop talking about Him like you know Him. I’m just saying…

Quote:
It is very sad to see many of mankinds brightest, most talented minds continue to fall for the same series of lies and deception that has plagued our race since the beginning of time (or should I say when – by chance – nimble atomic particles ran into each other in such a fashion as to start a Big Bang!).

Quote:
If you throw some bricks and cement together and leave them for a million years will you get a house? NO.

But we should believe that the beautiful complex universe and our planet just the right distance from the sun and with an unusually large moon that contributes to the earths stable spin, otherwise we would wobble like a spinning top. Not to mention the perfect recycling system the earth came together from nothing! Mmmmmm

Seriously, I wonder how the **** these people think. This stuff doesn't even make sense. I quoted so that people could see who didn't bother and/or didn't bother to even go to the article. Nothin' better to at 3:08 AM Saturday morning anyway...

As much as I'd love to sit here and just over and over show specific places where my ability to follow their train of thought fails horrendously, I don't want to take the time. I just kind of sit back in my cushioned office chair and sigh.
#38 Sep 04 2010 at 4:55 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Are you saying that people *don't* use science as a means to attack religion? Cause that would be a funny position to take, especially in a thread about an article talking about a book by Hawking in which he suggests that God isn't needed for the universe to exist. You seriously can't see the anti-theist spin here?
Science at it's very core is about understanding how and why things work the way they work.
Religion has a tendency to put a stamp with "GOD" on anything it's believers do not understand so when science discovers how something works it can easily be perceived as an attack on religion if you wish to see it like that.
#39 Sep 04 2010 at 5:49 AM Rating: Excellent
paulsol wrote:
Perhaps 'Law of Gravity' is Gods middle name?


I always thought it was Damn.
#40 Sep 04 2010 at 6:50 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

He's probably the smartest person on the planet,


Hahaha, holy fuck, no. What he is; is famous. Sometimes in science this corresponds with genius, in this case it corresponds with novelty. Without ALS, Hawking is teaching differential equations at East Anglia. He's, *maybe* in the top 5000 physicists working today in terms of contributions to the field. He's an entirely average (considering his education level) mathematician, generally.

I realize it's all magic to you morons, anyway, and that it's impossible for you to tell the difference, but really you feel for the "powerful wizard with the crippled body" archetype? Really? What's next, a blind prophet?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Sep 04 2010 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:

He's probably the smartest person on the planet,


Hahaha, holy fuck, no. What he is; is famous. Sometimes in science this corresponds with genius, in this case it corresponds with novelty. Without ALS, Hawking is teaching differential equations at East Anglia. He's, *maybe* in the top 5000 physicists working today in terms of contributions to the field. He's an entirely average (considering his education level) mathematician, generally.

I realize it's all magic to you morons, anyway, and that it's impossible for you to tell the difference, but really you feel for the "powerful wizard with the crippled body" archetype? Really? What's next, a blind prophet?


Hawking certainly may be more famous than than he is intelligent, but he's not quite the "average joe" you paint him to be. Also, you're a ****. I realize this is not earth shatteringly new information, but I'm uncharacteristically awake at 8:00AM on a Saturday, so... meh.
#42 Sep 04 2010 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Hawking certainly may be more famous than than he is intelligent, but he's not quite the "average joe" you paint him to be.

Average *considering his education*. Among his peer group, he's not exceptional. Obviously he's not "average" using a peer group of the entire population of the world, you fat wannabe bourgeoisie cunt. I'm not sure what your reading comprehension issue is, exactly, but it seems to be persistent. I'd assume it has to do with your powerful unrealized desire to fuck your sister that's been creeping out female posters for years.

Here's an idea, hire a prostitute and call her "Julie" or whatever the appropriate name is and call it good. Maybe then you can move on and progress to the point of being capable of having an actual discussion about anything without the crushing weight of your own insecurity getting in the way.

Huggles.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Sep 04 2010 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
This is because I'm not ready to go out yet, isn't it?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#44 Sep 04 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
It's always the woman's fault.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#45 Sep 06 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Kavekk the Pest wrote:
And, equally, a scientific theory that explains a testable phenomenon might imply spontaneous creation.


I'm not sure what you mean by "spontaneous", but if you mean "without cause", then no. Here is the deal: all evidence can point to an event, creation. To claim that there is *no* cause for it is generally outside science. Generally, science would say "we have no cause" or "within our understanding of physics, nothing can explain it". Like I said, I have not read Hawkings' book, so this really isn't fair, but what the article implies is that Hawking sort of proved that there can be no cause to creation. Generally you can't do that.
#46 Sep 06 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:

He's probably the smartest person on the planet,


Hahaha, holy fuck, no. What he is; is famous. Sometimes in science this corresponds with genius, in this case it corresponds with novelty. Withou


With no real valid way to assess a single quantity "intelligence" it is stunningly unlikely that under some "objective" definition he would be number one.

That said, my favorite antidote about Hawking, which I have no idea if it is true, is that an Oxford, as an undergraduate, he and his classmates were assigned some difficult problems. Most solved 1-2, working together. Hawking was very disappointed that he had only solved 5 working alone.

That said, it is hard to differentiate between smart and hard working and my recollection is that most of his contemporaries did not work so hard.
#47 Sep 06 2010 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
That said, it is hard to differentiate between smart and hard working and my recollection is that most of his contemporaries did not work so hard.


This is why I sit at home and play FFXI and write smutty stories all day. I'm smart, but I'm the opposite of hard working.
#48 Sep 06 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
catwho wrote:
Quote:
That said, it is hard to differentiate between smart and hard working and my recollection is that most of his contemporaries did not work so hard.


This is why I sit at home and play FFXI and write smutty stories all day. I'm smart, but I'm the opposite of hard working.

True, but Hawking is completely paralyzed and can't jack off, so he has to content himself with creating equations and theorems in his head.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#49 Sep 06 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
yossarian wrote:
my favorite antidote about Hawking, which I have no idea if it is true, is that an Oxford, as an undergraduate, he and his classmates were assigned some difficult problems. Most solved 1-2, working together. Hawking was very disappointed that he had only solved 5 working alone.
Anecdote?
#50 Sep 06 2010 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Yes Dr. Jones... To the Poison you just drank!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#51 Sep 06 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Yes Dr. Jones... To the Poison you just drank!


That reminds me, I can't remember how to get the antidote on that part in Lego Indiana Jones.

Edited, Sep 6th 2010 8:00pm by Nadenu
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 405 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (405)