|
|
| Re: ''in god we trust'' (1317757) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1317845) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:47:20 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:45:10 2015. Possibly. As I’ve already said, I don’t know what caused the universe to come into existence (passive voice used purposely), but whatever assumptions I might make about it, I’m not going to assert them as true without some way of verifying. |
|
|
| (1317846) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:50:59 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 14:42:46 2015. The embrace of Science starts with the rejection of Superstition.I agree with ultimately rejecting superstition, but not as the start of science! If the embrace of science starts with rejecting something else without scientific reason, you already come in with an agenda, that will make conclusions biased. Embracing science means learning more about how the world works via observation and testing. This keeps it pure and innocent. Once you leave this realm, you are no longer speaking science, but your opinion. |
|
|
| (1317847) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:52:31 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:50:59 2015. Very well stated. |
|
|
| (1317848) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 14:58:00 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:43:06 2015. How do those atheists explain (or even describe) the events that preceded the big bang? |
|
|
| (1317849) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:01:41 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:50:59 2015. If the embrace of science starts with rejecting something else without scientific reason, you already come in with an agenda,Superstition is by definition non-scientific and devoid of reason. Definition from Google: su·per·sti·tion ˌso͞opərˈstiSH(ə)n/ noun noun: superstition excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings. "he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition" synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity, fallacy, delusion, illusion; More a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief. plural noun: superstitions "she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood" synonyms: myth, belief, old wives' tale; More One cannot embrace science by somehow "working around" superstition. It needs to be rejected beforehand. Then one can proceed with scientific research and endeavors. |
|
|
| (1317850) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:11:52 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 14:58:00 2015. Hardly ever discussed that issue; it seems if you accept "The Big Bang" you don't really need to discuss what came before--it was just a static walnut (or ping pong ball, or soccer ball, maybe a a very round watermelon) that included all the matter of the Universe.To me common sense demands that something happened to upset this perfect equilibrium. What and why just then? |
|
|
| (1317851) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:15:58 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:01:41 2015. The chicken or the egg?You're saying that the starting point is: "Everything we are taught to believe is false" And only then can you begin to pursue science. I (and New Flyer, I think) am saying: "When you begin to understand science, you will be able to combat superstition." |
|
|
| (1317853) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:28:33 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:15:58 2015. You're saying that the starting point is: "Everything we are taught to believe is false"Where did I say "everything"? At a certain age, children reject the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. So should adults. |
|
|
| (1317859) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:41:21 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:28:33 2015. The Tooth Fairy, OK.Santa NEVER!! |
|
|
| (1317861) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:46:21 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:41:21 2015. it's the Easter Bunny that is real.Proof below: |
|
|
| (1317864) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 16:20:05 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:15:58 2015. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.One who believes in superstition can still engage science and then prove superstition false. It would mean that the believer would be open to the belief being disproven. |
|
|
| (1317865) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 16:23:10 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:01:41 2015. It does not need to be rejected beforehand. It can still be rejected when scientific inquiry makes it impossible.I can believe the superstition that walking under a ladder brings me bad luck. I can bring that belief into my scientific inquiry, and when observation shows it's not the case, I can humbly consider myself disproven. |
|
|
| (1317866) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 16:23:44 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 16:20:05 2015. the whole point of Superstition is rejecting facts that would prove that superstition to be false.They even congregate in officially-recognized tax-exempt organizations with their own buildings, whose mission is to spread their superstitions to others. Their activities are constitutionally protected. |
|
|
| (1317868) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 16:25:38 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 16:23:10 2015. what if instead of walking under ladders, the superstition holds that some guy from 2000 years ago, born of a virgin, ascended to the skies in the flesh? |
|
|
| (1317869) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by TonyG on Mon Oct 5 16:26:58 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015. Wow! |
|
|
| (1317870) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 16:31:45 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 15:46:21 2015. Hippitus Hoppitus Deus Domine |
|
|
| (1317877) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 17:53:55 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 13:59:44 2015. The biggest one is DNA. It's already been proven to be a computer program (ask Bill Gates and the guys who wrote their email addresses onto bacterial DNA). |
|
|
| (1317882) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:15:46 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:15:58 2015. That would be unscientific.After all, Aristotle's geocentrism was thought to be scientific until proven otherwise. |
|
|
| (1317884) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:16:47 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 14:31:37 2015. pwnt. Laws require a lawgiver; they don't write themselves. |
|
|
| (1317885) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:17:44 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 16:23:10 2015. Strawman argument. |
|
|
| (1317887) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 18:35:13 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 17:53:55 2015. LOL! |
|
|
| (1317888) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 18:37:31 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:15:46 2015. So? In the absence of better evidence, geocentrism is a reasonable observation. |
|
|
| (1317890) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 18:39:21 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:16:47 2015. LOL! Scientific laws have nothing to do with other kinds of laws.And as for the other kinds of laws, the common law lacks a “lawgiver.” |
|
|
| (1317936) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Oct 5 23:56:03 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015. That is really fucking wrong.Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (1317943) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 6 00:18:28 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 15:11:52 2015. Hardly ever discussed that issue; it seems if you accept "The Big Bang" you don't really need to discuss what came before--it was just a static walnut (or ping pong ball, or soccer ball, maybe a a very round watermelon) that included all the matter of the Universe.Huh? Just because you're totally ignorant of cosmology does not mean cosmologists (who may or may not be atheists) haven't sought to explain what might have come before the Big Bang. There are various theories regarding the interactions of higher dimension branes, looping spacetime, or various string theories to explain how the Big Bang happened and what came before it. It may be possible to make observations in this university, particularly the prevalence of matter over antimatter, the uneven distribution of cosmic background radiation, and dark matter/energy, which will show us what came before the big bang. |
|
|
| (1317944) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 6 00:26:15 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 18:16:47 2015. The only "laws" of physics are as man-made as any other law on the books. If you're trying to make the case that the laws of physics somehow reveal a creator being you do realize that does nothing of the sort, right?Even our "law" of gravity, which is seemingly immutable and universal does not adequately explain the speed of rotation in the rims of distant galaxies. So we invent dark matter to account for the discrepancy. But as we fail to observe any of the posited dark matter particles, it's looking more and more likely that there is something wrong with our math. While modified Newtonian dynamics fails to fully account for gravitational lensing, there are other theories which get closer. |
|
|
| (1317946) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:36:00 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by WillD on Tue Oct 6 00:18:28 2015. I'll just jump in here for a moment and add that probably the majority of cosmologists are somewhat to pretty religious themselves and see their discoveries as bolstering their wonder of the universe. It's amusing that after Galileo got his pardon from the Vatican, the Catholic Church doesn't have any problems with it either.I love the battles between both sides. :)  
|
|
|
| (1317947) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 00:41:47 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:36:00 2015. That is untrue. Most scientists follow the one true religion. |
|
|
| (1317948) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:48:08 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 00:41:47 2015. Cosmologist though, according to an article I read years ago (I follow astronomy and meteorology) said that more than half considered themselves "religious" and working in the field actually strengthened their faith. To anyone other than idiots, science does not necessarily conflict with religion. And I agree there. Even the Pope agrees, as well as the Space Pope. :) |
|
|
| (1317949) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 6 00:48:44 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015. Interesting story behind that one. There was some hype over an altered photo too: |
|
|
| (1317950) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:50:00 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 6 00:48:44 2015. Thanks for showing us the proof that it contradicts "we'll kick your ass." :) |
|
|
| (1317956) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 09:02:23 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:48:08 2015. The opposite is true |
|
|
| (1317961) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 09:15:12 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by WillD on Tue Oct 6 00:18:28 2015. I wasn't giving my own observation. The question was how professed atheists I knew dealt with the subject. |
|
|
| (1317962) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 09:17:32 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 00:36:00 2015. Actually, I think you have it nailed, except snakes can't talk.I suspect Baby Hippo. |
|
|
| (1317972) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 6 10:27:10 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 16:23:44 2015. No, you don't define superstition correctly.Superstition, as you previously posted (apart from your commentary on the definition), is belief in something without reason. That belief could conceivably be true, it's just that no reason has been found for it. We turn to science to either prove or debunk. What you are talking about (rejecting facts) may be how superstitious people tend to act, but it's not an appropriate definition of actual superstition. |
|
|
| (1317973) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 6 10:29:48 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 16:25:38 2015. Obviously such a claim could not be scientifically verified, if that's what you're asking. |
|
|
| (1317974) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 6 10:35:26 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 09:02:23 2015. Don't have time to nitpick on the article, but where does it actually establish, besides in the title, that most cosmologists are atheists? |
|
|
| (1317976) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:53:46 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 16:25:38 2015. I would say that's ridiculous. Except for Jesus. |
|
|
| (1317977) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:54:45 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 6 10:35:26 2015. My wife goes to a cosmologist who does her nails, and she talks about G-d all the time. |
|
|
| (1317978) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:57:40 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by WillD on Tue Oct 6 00:26:15 2015. The "laws" of physics are not man-made, they are a codification of man's observation of phsyical that can be scientifically proven. Until then, they are theories. |
|
|
| (1317982) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Oct 6 11:20:28 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 09:02:23 2015. No time to read it now. But isn't that really an article about why one specific cosmologist is an atheist? |
|
|
| (1317983) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Oct 6 11:21:55 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:53:46 2015. Why do you make an exception for Jesus? |
|
|
| (1317984) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Oct 6 11:22:36 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:54:45 2015. You're really missing et. |
|
|
| (1317987) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 11:30:26 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by AlM on Tue Oct 6 11:21:55 2015. Also Mohammed's horse. |
|
|
| (1317989) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 11:54:03 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by AlM on Tue Oct 6 11:20:28 2015. The article pre-supposes that most cosmologists are atheists. I simply accept that statement as true because I can’t be bothered to look up stats right now. But it is a useful link nonetheless because it debunks Selkirk’s claim that cosmologists are prone to more theism than other scientists. I simply accept the headline because I already knew the same from previous sources and I find Selkirk’s claim unlikely.Now this is all not very scholarly, but it’s adequate for OTChat. |
|
|
| (1317995) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 12:24:20 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 09:17:32 2015. Nah ... Honey Boo Boo. :) |
|
|
| (1317996) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 12:25:19 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 6 11:54:03 2015. Yep. THIW! Could someone explain that to the turtle some day? :) |
|
|
| (1318004) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Oct 6 12:58:28 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 6 10:27:10 2015. No, you don't define superstition correctly.Reciting some verses at certain times of the day or week in order to repel bad things and attract good things is Superstition. Rejecting certain foods because eating them will send you to Hell is Superstition. Eating a stale wafer handled by a magician because not doing so will send you to Hell is Superstition. Is that a better definition? |
|
|
| (1318005) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Oct 6 12:59:29 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 10:53:46 2015. I would say that's ridiculous. Except for Jesus.IAWTP. |
|
|
| (1318009) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Oct 6 13:17:45 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Tue Oct 6 12:58:28 2015. But not eating certain forbidden foods can make you sick and advance a miserable premature death is science wrapped in the cloak of superstition. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||