Science and why i dont like it.

[911child]

s o a p n u t

911child

s o a p n u t

Scientists have been exploring the modification of genes for a looking time--like in vegetables and fruit, domestic animals like dogs and cats, and cattle. Breeders and scientists modify the genes of living things to get certain results, usually through generations.

I also love that someone brought up Hitler's beloved perfect race, which is ironic because blonde hair and blue eyes are genetic and troublesome mutations--accidents. The loss of pigmentation is bad for hair and eyes because it makes them more susceptible to damage, unlike with brown hair and brown eyes. Ironic still is that blonde hair and blue eyes are considered sought after traits by a good many persons. Darn genetics.

But here's something even more ironic OP: you say you hate science, but without science you wouldn't be able to come on this site and complain about how much you hate it, nor would you probably have ever known about what scientists are trying to do with science.

As for me--I love science. It has done many wonderful things, and I find science about genetics very interesting. Genetic science isn't all bad, and has certainly uncovered many genetic mysteries over the years... like disorders, cancers, why is it we seem to be so much like our parents in one way or the other despite our best efforts. That stuff gets passed down to us through genes, and I think if scientists hadn't discovered those things, we would still be in a lot of ignorance. We wouldn't be able to help those that are suffering of cancer before it was too late if it wasn't for our ability to look at someone's genes and determine how likely it is that someone may get cancer because of their parents, so on and so forth.

I know my opinion isn't a religious one; I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in the god of the bible. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that if it weren't for science today, I honestly think the world would still be living by medieval morals and ways of thinking. It's bad enough that there are still too many people who don't learn from mankind's history.

One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: a man isn't entirely guilty; he didn't create history. But he isn't entirely innocent; he continues to repeat it.

whats ironic is your in a christian guild, yet you dont believe in God or are a christian. But what i hate about science, When they decide to create things that are pointless. Question, how will a cat that glows in the dark, a lion/dog hybrid, or spider/plant hybrid help humanity in anyway? How will allowing two men to have a child help anyone? There is a reason we as humans can create life with a man and a woman. You cant expect to pieces of the same type to work together and make something. Thats like getting two lamp plugs and pushing them together and expecting the lights to work. I like science to a point, i dislike it when they do things that are unneeded and pointless. To me. it is better to analyze a step before jumping blindly into something. People are giving up God for science.

Well, this is a public guild, and I'm sure you have had more than one unbeliever among your midst in the past, yes? It's not very ironic, either--this guild has a lot of discussion, and from my understanding, whether I'm a Christian or not, it's my prerogative to have a discussion in a discussion forum, whether I agree or disagree with the topic or OP's opinion, as long as I do so in a civilized manner. What brought me here was a friend who saw this discussion, showed it to me, and as a result, I took some interest in replying. But I'm getting the vibe that you don't like me being here-are unbelievers not welcome, especially when they disagree with certain topics? Maybe the crew should make the guild a private one, then.

Anyway... hybrid lion dogs and plant spiders don't actually exist, you know that, right? I'm familiar with those photos and with the fact that those photos are nothing but a giant hoax. The person who put them up as "proof" was a troll because they knew there were people on the internet who would actually think they were real. That lion dog, though, is technically real... as in it's just a super fluffy dog that got shaved in such a way to look like a lion. And glowing cats are real in a sense that some cats have been bred to have certain color of skin that would glow under a black light; the purpose was so that cats could be found more easily in the dark, like in situations where they run away and are hiding in a bush and such. It wasn't some arbitrary decision.

The actual truth about science, though, is this: it allows people to explore why things are the way they are, which is good because that passion for exploration has birthed amazing and pretty neat discoveries. It's just too bad that some people have crossed the line between right and wrong, have done some terrible things--there's always going to be people like that, anywhere.

But do I think that science should oblige the moral boundaries of any religion? No. I don't think we would have such an abundance of knowledge if that was mandatory.

I dont care if your here or not, it doesnt bother me, i just wasnt aware that the guild was a public guild but then again i didnt care one way or another. Science is able to clone animals, do you not find it wrong that they have considered (as far as we the public know) cloning humans? They have wanted to after they figured out how to clone that sheep. Where would the line be drawn? Science should have some boundries at the very least have some 'Do not do this' type of rules. The glow in the dark cat is at a great disadvantage to hunting now. Scientists are working on (information from Through the Wormhole) splicing humans with animals, how will this help us?  

[911child]

Rednal

You know what else is an abomination in the eyes of God? Sin. Why, you could even go so far as to say that anyone who's ever sinned has become an abomination, and that abominations are lucky because God's willing to forgive such issues!

Oh, wait... isn't that the core doctrine of the faith? =D Imagine that!

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to settle on the idea that whether or not artificially-created children are abominations, even in the eyes of God, we should remember the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18:21-35...

(NIV version, here)

Quote:

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him.

25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’

27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.

31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.

33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’

34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

Maybe the children wont be a abomination to God, but maybe the method of which they were created.  

[Sea Thrift]

911child

I dont care if your here or not, it doesnt bother me, i just wasnt aware that the guild was a public guild but then again i didnt care one way or another. Science is able to clone animals, do you not find it wrong that they have considered (as far as we the public know) cloning humans? They have wanted to after they figured out how to clone that sheep. Where would the line be drawn? Science should have some foundries at the very least have some 'Do not do this' type of rules. The glow in the dark cat is at a great disadvantage to hunting now. Scientists are working on (information from Through the Wormhole) splicing humans with animals, how will this help us?

Fyi, and I bring this up respectfully: I don't think the word "foundries" means what you think it means. The singular of that word, being foundry, is a kind of factory where people melt metal and create different molds for it. Something along those lines. Did you mean boundaries? Anyway, I digress. I think creating boundaries for science can only limit us more. Again, I don't think any religion has the right to dictate science, at least the whole of the field as we know it. If a solitary scientist wants to explore science within the confines of his religion, though, that's his business and his right.

Cloning animals doesn't bother me one bit, as long as it's done with good intention and reason. I actually watched a conference some months ago where scientists found a way to finally clone these endangered but beautiful birds. I think it's wonderful. Cloning can have its positive aspects.

As for cloning humans--I think there's only so much we can know about the truth as regular joes. Anyone can create horror stories, and until the truth is made transparent, I myself am careful to take all conspiracies with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean I dismiss the theories and claims; I just have learned that jumping the boat doesn't do anyone favors. Like actually believing in moss spiders and lion dogs (just some good natured poking).

But do I myself believe that scientists are trying to clone humans? Yes, and I can only hope that whatever it is we discover, it brings positive outcomes. I have no problem with the idea of cloned humans. It's just a matter of understanding what we should do to prepare such individuals for the world. It will be hard for them if people are set on being prejudiced against their very existence because people's moral standards dictate them to be.

Genes are extremely complicated in how they work. The idea of creating some anthropomorphic person is still very much science fiction, even if people are claiming that scientists are trying to do just that. People say a lot of things, especially on specials like Through the Wormhole. Ever watch a History Channel special about aliens? Those guests have a lot claims and honestly, not much to back them up except for belief and hearsay. There's no shame in stepping back and questioning such persons' intentions when they say those things. Trolls aren't just on the internet.

It would be interesting to find legitimate information about such studies, that's if they really exist. My opinion is, don't let yourself get lost in conspiracies and hearsay. If you want real answers, demand them. The government--because I would assume only the government would pay for anthropomorphic research--isn't transparent enough. Start petitions to demand records, or sign them. Be a patriot instead of feeding the masses what might be truth... or just more lies.

Thanks, i didnt catch that typo. I meant boundaries. You can think that science should not be limited by boundaries and as it is your opinion and thats fine, but you cannot deny that if left to do what ever, it will have major consequences. Morality should guide science as well as religious morality. If we can clone humans, that puts the value of human life to nothing. Most, if not all conspiracies come from some truth, and to dismiss each one is stupid as well as getting wound up in them. I am not wound up in them, just i know the government would love to clone people and do as they please with animal human hybrid. I do not put it past scientists to create creations such as the fern/spider and lion/dog. No i dont watch the alien show on History Channel, i actually dont watch to much tv. I dont see how i am feeding the masses on what maybe true. I am a patriot, a God loving patriot, just like what america was based on.  

[Sea Thrift]

911child

Thanks, i didnt catch that typo. I meant boundaries. You can think that science should not be limited by boundaries and as it is your opinion and thats fine, but you cannot deny that if left to do what ever, it will have major consequences. Morality should guide science as well as religious morality. If we can clone humans, that puts the value of human life to nothing. Most, if not all conspiracies come from some truth, and to dismiss each one is stupid as well as getting wound up in them. I am not wound up in them, just i know the government would love to clone people and do as they please with animal human hybrid. I do not put it past scientists to create creations such as the fern/spider and lion/dog. No i dont watch the alien show on History Channel, i actually dont watch to much tv. I dont see how i am feeding the masses on what maybe true. I am a patriot, a God loving patriot, just like what america was based on.

Like I said, scientists should be able to research what they want, as long as those things are within good intentions and reason. To dictate all of science by your religion, or anyone's, is wrong. And you are feeding the masses by still proclaiming that science created creatures they clearly haven't, and I already shared my opinion about anthropomorphism.

So your logic is that if scientists succeed in creating cloned humans, then human lives would have zero value. Correct? So... if that is correct, that would mean you believe, as a result, that cloned humans have no value.

I would have to passionately, greatly disagree with you. I could never stand with you on that, and I think you would be one of those people cloned humans would have to be prepared for. Imagine the harm that logic would do to anyone, to be told you have no value because you didn't come out of a woman's body. Very disconcerting. Have some empathy.

Or is your logic that if scientists are trying to clone humans, then human life has no value? That would mean you have no value, but I don't believe that for one second. I think you have value despite me disagreeing with you on a number of things. You think, you feel, you have a conscience, the ability to reason and perhaps understand. Isn't that enough?

And for the record... this country wasn't founded on Christianity. James Madison was a Deist, John Adams was a Unitarianist (even though Unitarianists during that time believed in Jesus, they didn't believe in his divinity, in the trinity, many of the miracles in the bible, nor that the bible was the infallible word of God), Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Thomas Paine was a die-hard Deist. None of them favored religion (in fact, some of them expressed their disdain for it); the only thing they sought to protect was that if anyone else liked a religion, lifestyle, whatever, they would have the freedom to live it if they wanted.

If this country was supposed to be run according to Christian morality, then the first amendment wouldn't exist to protect against that from ever happening. It's just too bad that many people don't want to respect that amendment our forefathers fought so hard for us to have.

I think I digress on this topic, though. I feel like there's nothing left to say lest things begin to get heated, and I don't want that. Good luck, and enjoy this lovely Sunday. I'm going to get me a berry smoothie at Costco!  

[911child]

s o a p n u t

911child

Thanks, i didnt catch that typo. I meant boundaries. You can think that science should not be limited by boundaries and as it is your opinion and thats fine, but you cannot deny that if left to do what ever, it will have major consequences. Morality should guide science as well as religious morality. If we can clone humans, that puts the value of human life to nothing. Most, if not all conspiracies come from some truth, and to dismiss each one is stupid as well as getting wound up in them. I am not wound up in them, just i know the government would love to clone people and do as they please with animal human hybrid. I do not put it past scientists to create creations such as the fern/spider and lion/dog. No i dont watch the alien show on History Channel, i actually dont watch to much tv. I dont see how i am feeding the masses on what maybe true. I am a patriot, a God loving patriot, just like what america was based on.

Like I said, scientists should be able to research what they want, as long as those things are within good intentions and reason. To dictate all of science by your religion, or anyone's, is wrong. And you are feeding the masses by still proclaiming that science created creatures they clearly haven't, and I already shared my opinion about anthropomorphism.

So your logic is that if scientists succeed in creating cloned humans, then human lives would have zero value. Correct? So... if that is correct, that would mean you believe, as a result, that cloned humans have no value.

I would have to passionately, greatly disagree with you. I could never stand with you on that, and I think you would be one of those people cloned humans would have to be prepared for. Imagine the harm that logic would do to anyone, to be told you have no value because you didn't come out of a woman's body. Very disconcerting. Have some empathy.

Or is your logic that if scientists are trying to clone humans, then human life has no value? That would mean you have no value, but I don't believe that for one second. I think you have value despite me disagreeing with you on a number of things. You think, you feel, you have a conscience, the ability to reason and perhaps understand. Isn't that enough?

And for the record... this country wasn't founded on Christianity. James Madison was a Deist, John Adams was a Unitarianist (even though Unitarianists during that time believed in Jesus, they didn't believe in his divinity, in the trinity, many of the miracles in the bible, nor that the bible was the infallible word of God), Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Thomas Paine was a die-hard Deist. None of them favored religion (in fact, some of them expressed their disdain for it); the only thing they sought to protect was that if anyone else liked a religion, lifestyle, whatever, they would have the freedom to live it if they wanted.

If this country was supposed to be run according to Christian morality, then the first amendment wouldn't exist to protect against that from ever happening. It's just too bad that many people don't want to respect that amendment our forefathers fought so hard for us to have.

I think I digress on this topic, though. I feel like there's nothing left to say lest things begin to get heated, and I don't want that. Good luck, and enjoy this lovely Sunday. I'm going to get me a berry smoothie at Costco!

John Adams was a believer of God.
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

As well as Washington. The majority of them were. I hope you enjoyed your smoothie and i also hope you do not think nor feel that i have anything against you.  

[Sea Thrift]

911child

John Adams was a believer of God.
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

As well as Washington. The majority of them were. I hope you enjoyed your smoothie and i also hope you do not think nor feel that i have anything against you.

Quote:

And for the record... this country wasn't founded on Christianity. James Madison was a Deist, John Adams was a Unitarianist (even though Unitarianists during that time believed in Jesus, they didn't believe in his divinity, in the trinity, many of the miracles in the bible, nor that the bible was the infallible word of God), Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Thomas Paine was a die-hard Deist. None of them favored religion (in fact, some of them expressed their disdain for it); the only thing they sought to protect was that if anyone else liked a religion, lifestyle, whatever, they would have the freedom to live it if they wanted.

And George Washington was also a Deist. I suggest you look up what Deism is, because no offense--it seems like you don't quite understand what it is. Just because one believes in a god, doesn't mean one is a Christian.

As for your quote... if the constitution was founded on general Christian principles as Mr. Adams so proclaims, then Christians nowadays, and throughout history, have a hard time recognizing and respecting those principles. Because in general, Christian principles are meant to be loving, empathic, tolerant, respectful, patient, just, understanding... you get the gist. I think Adams, if anything, is speaking for himself. Leaving for reals this time. Costco closes early today.  

[911child]

s o a p n u t

911child

John Adams was a believer of God.
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

As well as Washington. The majority of them were. I hope you enjoyed your smoothie and i also hope you do not think nor feel that i have anything against you.

Quote:

And for the record... this country wasn't founded on Christianity. James Madison was a Deist, John Adams was a Unitarianist (even though Unitarianists during that time believed in Jesus, they didn't believe in his divinity, in the trinity, many of the miracles in the bible, nor that the bible was the infallible word of God), Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Thomas Paine was a die-hard Deist. None of them favored religion (in fact, some of them expressed their disdain for it); the only thing they sought to protect was that if anyone else liked a religion, lifestyle, whatever, they would have the freedom to live it if they wanted.

And George Washington was also a Deist. I suggest you look up what Deism is, because no offense--it seems like you don't quite understand what it is. Just because one believes in a god, doesn't mean one is a Christian.

As for your quote... if the constitution was founded on general Christian principles as Mr. Adams so proclaims, then Christians nowadays, and throughout history, have a hard time recognizing and respecting those principles. Because in general, Christian principles are meant to be loving, empathic, tolerant, respectful, patient, just, understanding... you get the gist. I think Adams, if anything, is speaking for himself. Leaving for reals this time. Costco closes early today.

You may find this interesting, http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755  

[Sea Thrift]

911child

You may find this interesting, ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

Sort of, but when you read more about all the details of what each signer of the constitution believed and wanted for this country (instead of relying on a few select quotes), my point still stands. This country wasn't meant to be regulated by any religion. Even James Madison slapped his own hand when he realized a lot his pursuits in making this country a more biblical nation were totally unconstitutional. This is why:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

No law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning the government isn't allowed to adopt any religion, nor make laws in preference to any religion, while allowing people to believe whatever it is they want to without being told otherwise.

Again, this country wasn't founded on Christianity. This country was founded on freedom, a freedom which a lot of people want to destroy for the sake of arrogance, apathy, superiority, and control.

Practice a sprinkle of empathy and let that sink in. If you have more to say, you're free to pm me. Goodbye.  

[911child]

s o a p n u t

911child

You may find this interesting, ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

Sort of, but when you read more about all the details of what each signer of the constitution believed and wanted for this country (instead of relying on a few select quotes), my point still stands. This country wasn't meant to be regulated by any religion. Even James Madison slapped his own hand when he realized a lot his pursuits in making this country a more biblical nation were totally unconstitutional. This is why:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

No law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning the government isn't allowed to adopt any religion, nor make laws in preference to any religion, while allowing people to believe whatever it is they want to without being told otherwise.

Again, this country wasn't founded on Christianity. This country was founded on freedom, a freedom which a lot of people want to destroy for the sake of arrogance, apathy, superiority, and control.

Practice a sprinkle of empathy and let that sink in. If you have more to say, you're free to pm me. Goodbye.

this country was founded by christians. "One nation under God.." they all may not have been christians but enough to have that little quote inside the Pledge of Allegiance.  

[Sea Thrift]

911child

s o a p n u t

911child

You may find this interesting, ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

Sort of, but when you read more about all the details of what each signer of the constitution believed and wanted for this country (instead of relying on a few select quotes), my point still stands. This country wasn't meant to be regulated by any religion. Even James Madison slapped his own hand when he realized a lot his pursuits in making this country a more biblical nation were totally unconstitutional. This is why:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

No law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning the government isn't allowed to adopt any religion, nor make laws in preference to any religion, while allowing people to believe whatever it is they want to without being told otherwise.

Again, this country wasn't founded on Christianity. This country was founded on freedom, a freedom which a lot of people want to destroy for the sake of arrogance, apathy, superiority, and control.

Practice a sprinkle of empathy and let that sink in. If you have more to say, you're free to pm me. Goodbye.

this country was founded by christians. "One nation under God.." they all may not have been christians but enough to have that little quote inside the Pledge of Allegiance.

You keep missing my point. I keep saying that this country was not founded on Christianity. Whether our founding fathers were Christian or not doesn't change that reality. The Constitution protects and is proof of that. You won't find Christianity in the constitution and rightly so. The Treaty of Tripoli and Jefferson reassure that truth.

If you have an issue with accepting that, then you don't stand for the rights that Jefferson and soon the rest of the men who fought so hard for people in this country to have. Christians fought angrily against the Bill of Rights; they called these rights atheistic and secular. They demanded that God and Christianity be put in the Constitution; our first presidents were called infidels for their actions.

But those Christians were denied, because despite whatever it was our founding fathers believed in, they knew appeasing such demands was wrong. That's not what America was founded on. Quote-mine all you want--it is what it is. You keep proving your views to be unconstitutional.

And God wasn't inserted into the pledge officially until the mid 1950s. There's even a generation alive today that had dollar bills that didn't have "In God We Trust" printed on them. Both go against the first amendment, period.

I take my leave for good now, lol. Again, if you feel the need for more dialogue, just pm me. I hate being too horribly redundant in threads.  

[911child]

s o a p n u t

911child

s o a p n u t

911child

You may find this interesting, ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

Sort of, but when you read more about all the details of what each signer of the constitution believed and wanted for this country (instead of relying on a few select quotes), my point still stands. This country wasn't meant to be regulated by any religion. Even James Madison slapped his own hand when he realized a lot his pursuits in making this country a more biblical nation were totally unconstitutional. This is why:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

No law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning the government isn't allowed to adopt any religion, nor make laws in preference to any religion, while allowing people to believe whatever it is they want to without being told otherwise.

Again, this country wasn't founded on Christianity. This country was founded on freedom, a freedom which a lot of people want to destroy for the sake of arrogance, apathy, superiority, and control.

Practice a sprinkle of empathy and let that sink in. If you have more to say, you're free to pm me. Goodbye.

this country was founded by christians. "One nation under God.." they all may not have been christians but enough to have that little quote inside the Pledge of Allegiance.

You keep missing my point. I keep saying that this country was not founded on Christianity. Whether our founding fathers were Christian or not doesn't change that reality. The Constitution protects and is proof of that. You won't find Christianity in the constitution and rightly so. The Treaty of Tripoli and Jefferson reassure that truth.

If you have an issue with accepting that, then you don't stand for the rights that Jefferson and soon the rest of the men who fought so hard for people in this country to have. Christians fought angrily against the Bill of Rights; they called these rights atheistic and secular. They demanded that God and Christianity be put in the Constitution; our first presidents were called infidels for their actions.

But those Christians were denied, because despite whatever it was our founding fathers believed in, they knew appeasing such demands was wrong. That's not what America was founded on. Quote-mine all you want--it is what it is. You keep proving your views to be unconstitutional.

And God wasn't inserted into the pledge officially until the mid 1950s. There's even a generation alive today that had dollar bills that didn't have "In God We Trust" printed on them. Both go against the first amendment, period.

I take my leave for good now, lol. Again, if you feel the need for more dialogue, just pm me. I hate being too horribly redundant in threads.

Just because something is constitutional doesnt automatically mean it is right.  

[Aran of Vengerid]

I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.

Science cures the disease.

Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.  

[Garland-Green]

Wyzukitan

I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.

Science cures the disease.

Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.

They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.

Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.

Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.  

[Aran of Vengerid]

Garland-Green

Wyzukitan

I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.

Science cures the disease.

Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.

They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.

Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.

Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.

Hard to research your individual case with 'prayer-healing' so I'll leave it.

Back in history~
Religion made money. It also educated people to a much greater level than a typical person. Through its education, it attracted bright minds, and built bright minds. Kepler is no exception, you are correct at that. Kepler made a mistake, by crediting a god with the creation of 'all things', and read a god into his discoveries. With the instruments available, the 'science' available, and the ability of Kepler, those factors all played against him. Science is an ever-sharpening blade, and Kepler helped in its sharpening. Kepler was 'selectively' delusional. He required and found proper evidence, when looking at the world around him. If he had just said, "Maybe we orbit a star," without backing it up, he'd be laughed at. Even though the statement is correct, unless he could demonstrate/verify/test/observe/find evidence to support it, no one should believe him. Then, he all of a sudden needs no evidence for a god to exist?

I reference Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'  

[Garland-Green]

Wyzukitan

Garland-Green

Wyzukitan

I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.

Science cures the disease.

Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.

They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.

Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.

Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.

Hard to research your individual case with 'prayer-healing' so I'll leave it.

Back in history~
Religion made money. It also educated people to a much greater level than a typical person. Through its education, it attracted bright minds, and built bright minds. Kepler is no exception, you are correct at that. Kepler made a mistake, by crediting a god with the creation of 'all things', and read a god into his discoveries. With the instruments available, the 'science' available, and the ability of Kepler, those factors all played against him. Science is an ever-sharpening blade, and Kepler helped in its sharpening. Kepler was 'selectively' delusional. He required and found proper evidence, when looking at the world around him. If he had just said, "Maybe we orbit a star," without backing it up, he'd be laughed at. Even though the statement is correct, unless he could demonstrate/verify/test/observe/find evidence to support it, no one should believe him. Then, he all of a sudden needs no evidence for a god to exist?

I reference Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

It is borderlining on ridicule to call someone 'selectively' delusional, and makes me wonder what is in it for you, speaking to someone you consider to be delusional. What do you hope to get out of the conversation?

I know for a lot of people they have to see things to believe it. It has to be hard physical evidence in order for them to consider it true, something you can touch and see for yourself. Consider though if God decided to reveal Himself if people would really accept it. If God appeared to you right now would you not try to rationalize it away? In the Bible Jesus walked around, did all kinds of miracles, healed people, fed people, but people still rejected Him. They refused to accept Him saying who He was, even though He by the standards laid out in their Scriptures had proven Himself to be their messiah.
God did all kinds of miracles, and saved the Israelite out of many perils, yet seeing all these things they still rejected Him over and over. That is basically what the entire Old Testament deals with. If extraordinary evidence was not enough for the people that God lived and walked among, will a random extraordinary event be enough, or be interpreted correctly by the people in our time that by and large has rejected the notion of God altogether? What if the extraordinary is in the ordinary? What if the extraordinary would be counterproductive? What if less people would actually come to a saving faith through extraordinary evidence?

Jesus addressed the Scribes and Pharisees demanding signs from Him. The signs He had given were sufficient in all ways;

Matthew 12:38-45

The Sign of Jonah
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

What if people are tossing out the signs they are receiving? What if they feel a pull on their conscience to believe, which is an act of God, but refuse to accept it, and push it to the back of their mind, or construct all kinds of arguments to keep it at bay? What if by doing that they harden their hearts in such a way that no signs what so ever can get through? What if they are presented with extraordinary evidence, but refuse to accept it, or fail to recognize it?