It's pretty obvious that god was created in the mind of man in man's image. We project human qualities upon gods, because that is what man relates to.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:If you were created in his image, you would be invisible. Some of his characteristics apparently are really bad, if that's where we get them.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:If there is an all powerful god looking out for you with healing power, why would you waist your time relying on the limitations of human derived medical science for your health? Just trust god for the miracle of healing. What better testament to his existence is there?curtpenn said:More false dilemmas.TexasScientist said:Really? Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues, or science as a way of understanding in health issues?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
All truth is God's truth.
The evidence of reality is where can find truth.
Almost everything you say is some variant of false dilemma and/or straw man arguments.
We are created in His image and have some of His characteristics. It should come as no surprise that we increase in knowledge and ability. What better testament to His existence is there?
You demonstrate a remarkably undeveloped understanding of metaphor. Also, I would have thought you were capable of understanding the basic idea that we live in a fallen world and are not perfect. But then again....
Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity
53,863 Views |
723 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
First of all, the predominant culture determines what is moral or immoral. That culture can use religious edicts to make that determination, or it can use some other moral benchmark. My basis for morality is by taking a humanistic science of morality approach - by evaluating what is harmful and what is in the best interest and the well being of others, and using that as a basis or benchmark for morality. Religious morals require belief that some cleric was given a divine set of rules, without regard to the well being of anyone, and the rules are subject to interpretation by the cleric. That's why there are so many conflicting moral ideas within Islam and Christianity, and between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who all claim divine revelation from the same god.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
What is your basis for telling us what is moral or not? Still waiting for your explanation that doesn't require some element of belief or faith.
TexasScientist: "It's pretty obvious that god was created in the mind of man in man's image. We project human qualities upon gods, because that is what man relates to."
That applies to mythological gods like Apollo and Zeus, but fails in several other religions.
It's human nature, after all, to wish ill on your enemies and good for your friends, but Christianity, for example, teaches us to pray for our enemies and give freely without expecting reward. These are not born from human nature, but something better.
You take moral advances for granted, but just where did movements to abolish Slavery, to treat women as equal to men in rights, and to protect the weak from predatory practices come from? Slavery, racism, sexism, and a rigged court system are common to pretty much all societies, so where did the change start?
It was not a human invention, morality.
That applies to mythological gods like Apollo and Zeus, but fails in several other religions.
It's human nature, after all, to wish ill on your enemies and good for your friends, but Christianity, for example, teaches us to pray for our enemies and give freely without expecting reward. These are not born from human nature, but something better.
You take moral advances for granted, but just where did movements to abolish Slavery, to treat women as equal to men in rights, and to protect the weak from predatory practices come from? Slavery, racism, sexism, and a rigged court system are common to pretty much all societies, so where did the change start?
It was not a human invention, morality.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Google Josef Mengele, a scientistTexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
He told a lot of people what was moral
Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist? Not me.Osodecentx said:Google Josef Mengele, a scientistTexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
He told a lot of people what was moral
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Perhaps if you repeat your mother of all circularities often enough it will magically become grounded in something other than belief or faith.TexasScientist said:First of all, the predominant culture determines what is moral or immoral. That culture can use religious edicts to make that determination, or it can use some other moral benchmark. My basis for morality is by taking a humanistic science of morality approach - by evaluating what is harmful and what is in the best interest and the well being of others, and using that as a basis or benchmark for morality. Religious morals require belief that some cleric was given a divine set of rules, without regard to the well being of anyone, and the rules are subject to interpretation by the cleric. That's why there are so many conflicting moral ideas within Islam and Christianity, and between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who all claim divine revelation from the same god.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
What is your basis for telling us what is moral or not? Still waiting for your explanation that doesn't require some element of belief or faith.
This is what's known as an opinion. There are other possible explanations. We are each displaying our faith.TexasScientist said:It's pretty obvious that god was created in the mind of man in man's image. We project human qualities upon gods, because that is what man relates to.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:If you were created in his image, you would be invisible. Some of his characteristics apparently are really bad, if that's where we get them.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:If there is an all powerful god looking out for you with healing power, why would you waist your time relying on the limitations of human derived medical science for your health? Just trust god for the miracle of healing. What better testament to his existence is there?curtpenn said:More false dilemmas.TexasScientist said:Really? Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues, or science as a way of understanding in health issues?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
All truth is God's truth.
The evidence of reality is where can find truth.
Almost everything you say is some variant of false dilemma and/or straw man arguments.
We are created in His image and have some of His characteristics. It should come as no surprise that we increase in knowledge and ability. What better testament to His existence is there?
You demonstrate a remarkably undeveloped understanding of metaphor. Also, I would have thought you were capable of understanding the basic idea that we live in a fallen world and are not perfect. But then again....
quash: "Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist?"
First, Science does not eradicate diseases on its own, but in cooperation with moral people, often the very religious people you and TS dislike.
Second, the point is that attributing moral virtue to 'Science' is not valid, because Science is amoral. The tools created by scientists can be (and are) used for both good and bad purposes.
For example, the Colt revolver was 'good' in the sense that this invention allowed women to defend themselves against larger men who might otherwise harm them in remote locations where law enforcement was simply not possible. But the same tool was 'bad' when used for robbery and murder.
First, Science does not eradicate diseases on its own, but in cooperation with moral people, often the very religious people you and TS dislike.
Second, the point is that attributing moral virtue to 'Science' is not valid, because Science is amoral. The tools created by scientists can be (and are) used for both good and bad purposes.
For example, the Colt revolver was 'good' in the sense that this invention allowed women to defend themselves against larger men who might otherwise harm them in remote locations where law enforcement was simply not possible. But the same tool was 'bad' when used for robbery and murder.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Could you try just addressing an issue and not make up stuff to replace what you think you know, that you don't know? Neither of us dislike religious people. I would ask you to support such a charge but you'd do what you always do and say "It's there in all your posts." No, it is not.Oldbear83 said:
quash: "Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist?"
First, Science does not eradicate diseases on its own, but in cooperation with moral people, often the very religious people you and TS dislike.
Second, the point is that attributing moral virtue to 'Science' is not valid, because Science is amoral. The tools created by scientists can be (and are) used for both good and bad purposes.
For example, the Colt revolver was 'good' in the sense that this invention allowed women to defend themselves against larger men who might otherwise harm them in remote locations where law enforcement was simply not possible. But the same tool was 'bad' when used for robbery and murder.
Science is not a tangible thing, you are correct. Science works through people. If religiously motivated scientists have made advances then you can claim credit. I really don't care what scientists do on their weekends.
But why bring up Mengele except to attack science. Poorly. Amoral people are in all fields. We have one in the White House now. It doesn't mean we should toss out our system. Mengele abused the tools.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
** sigh **quash said:Could you try just addressing an issue and not make up stuff to replace what you think you know, that you don't know? Neither of us dislike religious people. I would ask you to support such a charge but you'd do what you always do and say "It's there in all your posts." No, it is not.Oldbear83 said:
quash: "Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist?"
First, Science does not eradicate diseases on its own, but in cooperation with moral people, often the very religious people you and TS dislike.
Second, the point is that attributing moral virtue to 'Science' is not valid, because Science is amoral. The tools created by scientists can be (and are) used for both good and bad purposes.
For example, the Colt revolver was 'good' in the sense that this invention allowed women to defend themselves against larger men who might otherwise harm them in remote locations where law enforcement was simply not possible. But the same tool was 'bad' when used for robbery and murder.
Science is not a tangible thing, you are correct. Science works through people. If religiously motivated scientists have made advances then you can claim credit. I really don't care what scientists do on their weekends.
But why bring up Mengele except to attack science. Poorly. Amoral people are in all fields. We have one in the White House now. It doesn't mean we should toss out our system. Mengele abused the tools.
I'm not the one who brought up Mengele, quash.
Maybe you can read what I actually wrote and try again?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
So you won't support your position.quash said:Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
No surprise there.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
I just said I would. All you had to do is not be a hypocrite.Oldbear83 said:So you won't support your position.quash said:Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
No surprise there.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TS seems ready to throw out all of the good accomplished by religion and religious institutions. He ignores all of the moral teachings of religionsquash said:Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist? Not me.Osodecentx said:Google Josef Mengele, a scientistTexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
He told a lot of people what was moral
I don't see it that way. I think he has acknowledged that religious teachings are an evolutionary development on the same continuum as the moral arc we are on today. What we both object to is the hindrance of moral progress by the rejection of scientific evidence.Osodecentx said:TS seems ready to throw out all of the good accomplished by religion and religious institutions. He ignores all of the moral teachings of religionsquash said:Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist? Not me.Osodecentx said:Google Josef Mengele, a scientistTexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
He told a lot of people what was moral
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
No, you wanted me to have Sam answer the question I put to you.quash said:I just said I would. All you had to do is not be a hypocrite.Oldbear83 said:So you won't support your position.quash said:Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
No surprise there.
You and TS are the ones attacking religion, so back up your statement, please. And I am honest about not recalling any western religious leader in the past 80 years leading society into destruction, let alone citing scripture to do it.
And no, I doubt you intend to even try to answer the question. It smacks of falsity and hubris, but then we have come to expect that from Democrats, even those who deny being Democrats.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You see hate and lies in opposing opinions. I can't help you.Oldbear83 said:No, you wanted me to have Sam answer the question I put to you.quash said:I just said I would. All you had to do is not be a hypocrite.Oldbear83 said:So you won't support your position.quash said:Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
No surprise there.
You and TS are the ones attacking religion, so back up your statement, please. And I am honest about not recalling any western religious leader in the past 80 years leading society into destruction, let alone citing scripture to do it.
And no, I doubt you intend to even try to answer the question. It smacks of falsity and hubris, but then we have come to expect that from Democrats, even those who deny being Democrats.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Nope, I simply see who backs up what they claim (that would be Sam and PaleRider), and who ... well, never bothers to do more than call me names and deny their own hypocrisy.quash said:You see hate and lies in opposing opinions. I can't help you.Oldbear83 said:No, you wanted me to have Sam answer the question I put to you.quash said:I just said I would. All you had to do is not be a hypocrite.Oldbear83 said:So you won't support your position.quash said:Sure. After you ask Sam to do the same.Oldbear83 said:
Quash: "When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right."
Please provide links and quotes from religious leaders from Western nations in the past 80 years which have actually 'quoted holy writ as the best tool for the job', bonus points for actual evidence of a destructive path from their recommendations.
For some reason, I am unable to think of any such examples.
No surprise there.
You and TS are the ones attacking religion, so back up your statement, please. And I am honest about not recalling any western religious leader in the past 80 years leading society into destruction, let alone citing scripture to do it.
And no, I doubt you intend to even try to answer the question. It smacks of falsity and hubris, but then we have come to expect that from Democrats, even those who deny being Democrats.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Answer questions quash, or you're just talking to yourself.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The moral arc we are on seems to be devolving. More laterquash said:I don't see it that way. I think he has acknowledged that religious teachings are an evolutionary development on the same continuum as the moral arc we are on today. What we both object to is the hindrance of moral progress by the rejection of scientific evidence.Osodecentx said:TS seems ready to throw out all of the good accomplished by religion and religious institutions. He ignores all of the moral teachings of religionsquash said:Science is eradicating diseases. You ready to throw all that out because of a Nazi scientist? Not me.Osodecentx said:Google Josef Mengele, a scientistTexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
He told a lot of people what was moral
Oso: "The moral arc we are on seems to be devolving. "
It's a parabola. The apogee was when people stopped going to church regularly.
It's a parabola. The apogee was when people stopped going to church regularly.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sure I will. That's what religious and philosophical argument is for.quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.quash said:Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.Sam Lowry said:It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.quash said:Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."
Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.
Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.
Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.
They are not the same.
Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.
Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.
Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.
They are not the same.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I think you and TS tend to blur the distinctions between knowledge, information, and data. You also confuse "science" with epistemology which more properly belongs in the realm of philosophy. In any case, discussions re morality necessarily involve belief.quash said:Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.Sam Lowry said:It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.quash said:Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
I wasn't confusing the two, I was pointing out the connection between them. Science is recognized as epistemologically valid. Thus "way of knowing".curtpenn said:I think you and TS tend to blur the distinctions between knowledge, information, and data. You also confuse "science" with epistemology which more properly belongs in the realm of philosophy. In any case, discussions re morality necessarily involve belief.quash said:Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.Sam Lowry said:It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.quash said:Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Well said. That's exactly why science alone isn't enough. It can tell us why different values have this or that effect, but it can't define value. As Curt said, that always involves belief.quash said:Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.Sam Lowry said:It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.quash said:Same premise as Sam's argument. Why bark at me?curtpenn said:What makes you think one would have no basis to argue with a religious leader?quash said:When a religious leader leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no basis to argue otherwise. He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right.Sam Lowry said:Science is a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is great for building things and also for tearing them down. If you think the hammer can tell you when to build and when to tear down, it's safe to say you're bringing some bias into the situation.TexasScientist said:Better than a cleric telling you what is moral or not.Sam Lowry said:If.TexasScientist said:Science can and should be used to determine morality, if your moral goal is determining right and wrong with regard to causing harm to others, and the wellbeing of others.Sam Lowry said:No. That would be as ridiculous as trusting science as a way of understanding moral issues.TexasScientist said:Do you trust religion as a way of understanding in health issues...?curtpenn said:" Religion is derived from lack of understanding."TexasScientist said:And the only thing religion is, is a best guess set of fables consolidated and written down by certain groups of humans, who have pronounced it true, in order to diminish their existential angsts. Science is knowledge derived from testable explanations and predictions. Religion is derived from lack of understanding. I would much rather rely on the science of a parachute, than rely on religion's angels to land safely, notwithstanding any most recent religious best guess work.Oldbear83 said:I used common sense in my last post. Sad if you have not heard of that ...quash said:Science tells us the climate is unaffected by alcohol. Do you have a bible verse to support your odd position? Is this a drunk Noah banging his daughters/world flood thing?Oldbear83 said:Each to his own, but personally I would not start drinking before late afternoon. Bourbon for breakfast leads to unfortunate consequences.quash said:You have completely destroyed my faith in sciencism. As a result your internet will no longer work; x-rays will only be lethal, not diagnostic; when your lost dog is taken to a vet the chip will not be read; Mars has canals again; and Maury Povich can no longer determine who the baby daddies are.Oldbear83 said:There, there, TS. No one is coming to take away your Darwin posters.TexasScientist said:
Zealously no doubt.
Sorry about your dog.
Just an observation based on the climate of your post, quash.
And using 'Science' as some kind of talisman is amusing. Ultimately, all 'Science' is the best, most recent, guess by some human or group of humans, sometimes based on evidence and experience and sometimes based on spitwads and arrogance.
No. Religion is a way of understanding.
Your parachute metaphor presents a false dilemma.
Right now your moral ideas are (mostly) constructive because clerics have helped form your society and you've internalized their values. When a secular dictator leads society on a destructive path, you'll have no real basis to argue otherwise. He'll say science is the best tool for the job, and he'll be right.
Now, can we address the issues being raised here? Science based tools as harm reduction tools?
"He'll quote holy writ as the best tool for the job and he'll be right." = false premise
Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.