Atheism

@hingehead,

Quote:

expletives with more than four words

Four letters is what I meant of course. Holy Mary Mother of God!

2 Replies

@hingehead,

I seen it, but did not want to make an issue of a mistake.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Richard Dawkins does a fireside reading of his hate mail

A hero AND a victim ! Is there anything he cant do ?

Quote:

One has to wonder why people who believe in all powerful and just God get so worked up. Don't they think God can handle Dawkins?

One has to wonder why people who believe in science as a God cant divorce themselves of their emotions and stop attacking other religious people.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

expletives with more than four words.....Four letters is what I meant of course.

Thats OK. Everyone knows accuracy and decency are not required when attacking religion.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

One has to wonder why people who believe in science as a God

Another attempt at the Grand Leap of logic"
Most scientists I deal with, look at their science more as a job that they really love. Its been many a time in the recent past when many self proclaimed "keepers of the flame of morality" had denounced and condemned science for its voodoo like practice. Mostly thats merely because the many science disciplines hve no real crossover between them and each disciplines reserach , stands alone. WHereas the "Moralists" count on using the ignorab=nce of their flocks to beat the drum about "godlessness" and "Immorality" bullshit.

As I said , and others have said, (and which you appear to want to deny), Many scientists are religious as well and they have little time for these whipped up fears of the ignorant minority of Fundamentalists. Im sorta surprised that you, who claim a Catholic upbringing, havent accepted the Turches Cheachings and several papl incyclicals on the very subject.
The Catholics are still the main roadblock in the research for Embryonic STem Cells . ACtually, the persistance of the research ahs discovered that there are several opportunities to "Mine" stem cells which are non specific from umbilical blood or pluripotential adult stem cells. If we would have followed the Churches teachings, we wouldnt now have several breakthroughs on extracting stem cells. So "NOT" studying something based upon some moral imperative can also be foolish.
SO, "studying induced pain to etermine pain receptors is already going on " and "Banning reserach because it appears immoral and UnGodly is a proposal that Im sure that the followers of NED LUDD would support

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Extract from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997 edition). Pages 493/4.

Quote:

Respect for the person and scientific research.

2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

God might be defined as T.S.Eliot said as the personification of the source of "the habits of the community formulated, corrected and elevated by the continuous thought and direction of the Church".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I always think its hilarious when people think science is a faith. Science is a mode of looking at a problem. You can use science to question science. Science isn't even the knowledge that science has given us. Semantics I know. Scientia=knowlede, but the scientific method is based on the ability to reproduce results and test theories. Faith by definition is not amenable to the scientific method.

1 Reply

Faith is not subject to questioning--it is, in fact, the act whereby one surrenders one's right to question.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

They must throw away their common sense and logic in order to accept their religion.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Your anti-religious stance ignores many disciplines, probably because you know nothing about them. They have been mentioned before, but I can mention them again if you wish.

You dont like the Catholics because of their moral stance, you dont like the Protestants because of their education stance, you dont like muslims because of their technology stance, you just dont like religion do you ?

So if we leave people like you in charge of science we will have no monsters, will we Frankenstein ? If we leave people like you in charge of education we will have no problems with children using science to discover morality.

Quote:

"Banning reserach because it appears immoral and UnGodly is a proposal that Im sure that the followers of NED LUDD would support

Doing any research you like is something I am sure Hitler would support.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

I always think its hilarious when people think science is a faith.

I always think it is hilarious when the stupid cant see they have replaced the spiritual with the physical. They protest "oh no, not us...we would never replace religion with science...." yet they continue to attack religion like it is their God given right.

Quote:

the scientific method is based on the ability to reproduce results and test theories

Perhaps someone so smart like you can tell us how that applies to evolution ?

Quote:

Faith by definition is not amenable to the scientific method.

Agreed.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

They must throw away their common sense and logic in order to accept their religion.

They must throw away their respect for life and death in order to accept their science.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They must throw away their common sense and logic in order to accept their religion.

Do you know anyone who has religion that you like and/or respect?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Faith is not subject to questioning--it is, in fact, the act whereby one surrenders one's right to question.

And history shows, and Setanta is an expert on history, that it gives you the power to ask questions and sometimes with more insistence than at others. The Christian faith has asked the whole world questions. It didn't take the Communists long to get a McDonald's in Moscow and rock and roll. It asked an Indian gentleman why he proposed to put a lady on the pyre of her dead husband. It was told that it was the tradition to which it replied that it was a tradition in its country to hang people for doing things like that. It had to show them the right way round for rumpy-pumpy. The missionary's position. It, the Christian faith, through its agents, and they are not all as useless as those you lot pick out hoping nobody will notice that they are picked out especially for their abnormalities and are not typical, asked the world about those things it drank and smoked and chewed to get as high as a kite and the agents refined them and rendered them palatable, unlike Saki, say, so you could all get high, 4-tea-bag/cup high, say. And the same with most of the pharmaceuticals which were all there waiting for the atheists of the past to discover and mass produce. But that's not fair on the atheists of the past. They didn't have mass production at their disposal did they? Poor dears. And you couldn't expect 30,000 uptight gods and goddesses to design something as elegant as mass production either. Nor those with a thousand heads or with a thirst for blood or in a state of nothingness.

One snort of kinnikinic used to cost $000sands at today's prices for physicians. And tobacco is a long story.

This, it, what you have, what you dream about, is all brought into being by the Christian faith represented by the body of its agents. And now these lot don't want to believe in it. They don't understand the rules is why. Aren't they precious?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Word salad is such a cliché for you Spendi.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Okay--one word--precious.

0 Replies

Bumper sticker I followed this morning:
God does not believe in atheists

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Bumper sticker I followed this morning:
God does not believe in atheists

....but he still loves ya Wink

3 Replies

Everybody knows that knowledge is power. Foucault made them a spiral. Knowledge gets power and power gets more knowledge and thus more power. As a maybe Marxist he didn't take the spiral to "critical mass" for obvious reasons. The point at which power reaches when it can determine which knowledge to get more of and which to put on Ignore. Folklore for example. And if the knowledge is scientific it has no sceptics.

Meta-physical knowledge also leads to power but it always has sceptics which it cannot repress except in relation to expressions of the scepticism and then only temporarily. And such expressions of scepticism are not repressed today and are not likely to be.

Thus meta-physical knowledge always has the inhibiting factor of the scepticism and can no longer go critical. It's a safer bet for freedom lovers.

It can also acheive effects scientific knowledge can't. Such as "Here comes the Bride" and "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam". A page of algebraic equations can't have the effects on the psychosomatic system those have. Or at least I hope not.

And there would be no jokes about meta-physicians anymore: as the scientist said to the librarian.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

....but he still loves ya

on an eternal bbq. Wink

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know