Null's grudge with scientists. Take 5.

[Avatar]

Fair enough. (Phew. )

--A

[Prebe]

Good post fist

[sgt.null]

fist: i'm confused: the proper application of guns and tanks is to kill people. so i fail to see how the tech is being misused. poison gas has other uses?

as to Pope Innocent III, what charges do you have against him? Aaron McKinney and Art Henderson killed Matthew Shepherd, what religious link do they have? I have spoken out against Phelps many times. and the klan as well. didn't Charlemagne found Europe? a hodge podge of names there, none but Innocent and Charlemagne having much to do with an established religion and having a major effect on history. and many could argue better for those two than i can. Phelps cloaks himself in fundamentalist garb, and i have denounced fundamentalism often and consistantly.

and I must have missed the Manhattan Project's pledge to serve Jesus. the atom bomb was built for a secular goverment.

[Xar]

and I must have missed the Manhattan Project's pledge to serve Jesus. the atom bomb was built for a secular goverment.

But in fact, the atom bomb was a byproduct of the atom theory. It was commissioned and pushed for by the government in order to have the "biggest gun", but many of the scientists involved realized their theories were being used to build a technology that could kill millions, and they regretted their part in it. Science discovered how to break the atom; it was people who decided they could use this as a weapon. Similarly, it was people who twisted the Bible's or the Qu'ran's messages to preach hate. Science itself did not. Similarly, religion itself did not: it's the people who interpret them that twist both to their purposes. This is part of the human nature.

Frankly, I see this debate about science vs. religion quite curious. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see any inherent opposition between the two (note: I'm talking about the concepts, not the people who represent them). In fact, one could go so far as to say that they are complementary: science deals with the physical world, while religion deals with the spiritual world.

[[Syl]]

Null, cease and desist. If you really want to take that tack up again see:

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=327875
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=288887
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=275421
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=275420

Since I can't split and merge posts, I'll have to settle for deletion.

[sgt.null]

oh, i'm sorry. i didn't realize that my postings upset so many that i need to be told what to think. again we have the pro religion force silenced. what makes so many upset that i can't even respond to a direct question? oh yeah, i was responding to a direct question.

whatever. enjoy your discussion free from outside thought. a slap on the back, a nod. that would be proper?

and oddly enough we are in Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality. not the Loresaat.

[[Syl]]

Oddly enough, you were in a thread called "The philosophy of science" not "SgtNull's endless collection of diatribes."

And y'know, it's not that you tend to say the same thing over and over, as most of us here do have known opinions on various subjects, it's just that you tend to ignore anything said after that while continuing to return to the inflamatory.

But here you go. Knock yourself out. Wouldn't want anyone being told what to think, now, and the Close could always use the traffic.

[Loredoctor]

I just find it interesting, Null, that you enter this thread on the attack when the nature of this thread was to discuss the philosophy of science and that no one had attacked religion. It's ironic that you said in another thread that scientists are arrogant or like to cause harm yet you storm in here with your own arrogance and begin a fight.

[Fist and Faith]

fist: i'm confused: the proper application of guns and tanks is to kill people. so i fail to see how the tech is being misused. poison gas has other uses?

Using science, people learned about the explosive possibilities of various substances. Who the heck starred in the old Marco Polo movie? (Alan Hale, father of the Skipper, was also in it.) In it, the Chinese had gunpowder, but didn't spread the knowledge of it, because they understood its potential for evil use. And true enough, some have used science to make weapons. (Just as some have used science to save lives, grow better crops, and make life better for everyone.) Blaming science or scientists for how some use science's fruits to further their own evil is the same as blaming religion and (good) popes for how some use sacred writings to further their own evil.

as to Pope Innocent III, what charges do you have against him?

I may have the wrong pope in mind, in which case, this applies to the correct one. Isn't he the one who called for the Crusades? He absolved murderers if they would murder Muslims, and recapture the holy land.

I may have the wrong pope in mind.Aaron McKinney and Art Henderson killed Matthew Shepherd, what religious link do they have?

They killed Matthew because God says homosexuality is a sin.

I have spoken out against Phelps many times. and the klan as well.

I'm glad to hear you think these people are not good people, even though they do what they do because they think they are doing Jesus' work.

didn't Charlemagne found Europe?

He beheaded 4,500 pagans, because they would not become Christians.

a hodge podge of names there, none but Innocent and Charlemagne having much to do with an established religion and having a major effect on history.

The point was that, even though you and I agree that "anyone reading Jesus' message should not be inspired to kill," it happens all the time. It need not have a major effect on history. It does not mean religion is evil, or more easily used for evil, or anything else. It just means that it has been used for evil. Just as science has been.

and many could argue better for those two than i can. Phelps cloaks himself in fundamentalist garb, and i have denounced fundamentalism often and consistantly.

Nevertheless, many read Jesus' message, and are inspired to kill. Why? Because they twist things to suit their own murderous ways. Just as many learn things about science, and use that knowledge to kill. Saying religion is not responsible for uncountable murders and atrocities is exactly the same as saying science is not. Neither is, but many people use both for their own evil ends. This issue need not exist, because both are used as the user wishes.

and I must have missed the Manhattan Project's pledge to serve Jesus. the atom bomb was built for a secular goverment.

Yes, evil people did something horrifying with the fruits of science. Science was used for evil. Nobody disputes that.

In fact, some scientists - that is, some people who use the scientific process to learn - are evil. It happens.

Dr. Zaius said, "There is no conflict between religion and science. Not true science." I'm sure the pope who excommunicated Copernicus warmed himself by a fire from time to time. And he did not likely go to a field after lightning struck to get his fire. People had learned about fire by then, knew what it was, and how to make it themselves. He used the results of science, just as you use computers and cd players. And then he excommunicated Copernicus. It would seem one can use the fruits of science, yet still, for reasons that have nothing to do with Jesus' teachings, be anti-science.

For God's sake, you said it yourself:

like everything, it needs to be used correctly.

YES! That's all there is to it!! One would think you understand! EVERYTHING, not just science and religion, have to be used correctly! ALL things humans involve themselves in are used for good and evil. Science and religion are not the only examples. Music is used to glorify God, and for love, and to arouse murderous rages in soldiers, and to entertain a torturer at work, and... This whole issue need not exist. Pointing fingers at one or the other is ridiculous, because, though neither is good or evil, both are used to both ends. But then, your very next sentence is:

and i will debate that science has killed more than religion any day of the week.

*throws hands up in the air* The last word is yours. I do not believe you are capable of being truthful about religion or science, so I won't respond again. But don't worry, I don't think less of religion because of the way you represent it.

[Lord Mhoram]

null,

You are nitpicking now. Christianity has been warped beyond anything that Christ ever desired or foresaw. How can you deny this? Men like Luther saw it, and tried to stop it.

As for science: I find this issue more confusing. What is the purpose of science? I know it is to better understand the world around us and to gain knowledge and enlightenment, but is it truly for the betterment of mankind? If so, then the invention of weapons would be bad science, even if it is scientifically sound and inventive. The problem I see with branding science as a killer or destructor is that it has no moral framework or basis.

[kevinswatch]

Sgtnull, I'm just not sure what you want us to do for you. You post a comment such as "lovers of science tend to work on the assumption that they are always right", and pretty much everyone here says that your comment is wrong and nothing more than a terrible generalization that is not accurate of the scientific community. What do you want us to do? It's not like you have put forth an opinion that we can argue against. From Syl's links, people have tried to do this many times already. But you seem to want to continue to stubornly say stuff like "all science is arrogant", when we tell you that you're simply not right.

So I'm simply asking you, what kind of reaction are you expecting to get from your comments, besides to annoy people? What are you expecting from us? Do you want us to agree with you? Do you want us to argue against your "science = arrogant" claim some more? We can't turn every topic about science into your "anti-science" debate. Like Syl said, this topic was originally supposed to be about the philosophy of science.

No one here is trying to silence religion, and no one here is trying to deny you from entering a debate to say your side. But can you understand that many people could be tired when you turn many topics here into a "science = evil" debate?

I just want to help clear things up.-jay

[Fist and Faith]

As for science: I find this issue more confusing. What is the purpose of science? I know it is to better understand the world around us and to gain knowledge and enlightenment, but is it truly for the betterment of mankind? If so, then the invention of weapons would be bad science, even if it is scientifically sound and inventive. The problem I see with branding science as a killer or destructor is that it has no moral framework or basis.

Correct, science has no moral framework. It's purpose is NOT for the betterment of mankind. It is merely to learn. Humans cannot help themselves. We must learn, explore, and all that. Some are content only with learning. After all, what practical applications will we likely find if we know what the universe looked like the first 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second after the Big Bang? I don't imagine it's gonna do anything for anybody. Yet, somebody is trying to figure it out!

[Loredoctor]

Edit: where did God of War's post go?

[Marv]

EDIT

[Sunbaneglasses]

Kinslaughterer wrote:
Quote:
Kin: i point out the failings of science to remind that it is not the utopia many paint it as. scientists get things wrong. space shuttles blow up, thalidomide causes birth defects. nuclear power plants blow up. many here choose to see the bad side of religion while forgetting that scientists sat soldiers out in desert to watch a nuclear explosion. scientists practiced eugenics. scientists gave syphillis to black airmen. you see only the dark side of reliogion, some see the nazi experiments on Jews. science has a responsibilty that sometimes gets brushed aside for the want of results. two shuttles blown up because they were sent out with fatal flaws, one rocket burned up on the pad, because the door was bolted shut. and instead of acknowlidging these things, we are told that modern science has done away with the flaws. of course, modern seems to mean today.
Don't blame science for those things. First, the pharmaceutical company that produced thalidomide faked the results, ie no proper testing took place. Scientists didn't give syphillis to airmen the U.S government did. If you want to draw comparisons with the Nazis then note that modern science rejected the length and breadth of Nazi experimentation because it was faulty in the first place and condemned (obviously) by ethical standards. Meanwhile the rise of Nazism in Germany was due to its psuedo-religious manipulations not scientific ones.
Stop trying to find errors in science when you actually mean errors by criminals and individuals. Remember all those scientists who left Nazi Germany (many non-Jewish native Germans)? Didn't the Pope help funnel stolen Jewish wealth out of Germany while ignoring the Holocaust?





Sunbaneglasses wrote:

Sgt Null,do you honestly think that nothing evil has ever been done in the name of Jesus?There are evil people and they have often used the cover of religion or science to try to excuse/explain their evil deeds.Trying to defend Christianity with this arguement is much like the pot calling the kettle black.Both Christianity and science have caused great things to happen in the world,but the human race as flawed as we are have used both things to self serving and evil ends also.

This may be very unpopular,but Null,you are bound by the fear of hell which quite honestly blinds you and sets limits on your thought process.On the other hand some here are free to use reason without the nagging fear of eternal torment.

[sgt.null]

well doesn't seem to be my day.

Fist: the Crusades were an attempt to reclaim the holy city. and are no worse than much of the warring that went on then. but because it was Christians, it has been cast in a harsher light.

Jesus came and replaced the OT. unfortunately we can't convince many of that. and I have come out against anyone who uses the OT and ignores the Gospels.

the Klan is wrong. Phelps is wrong. we Catholics have said that for quite some time.

Charlemagne lived in a different time and we judge him on our knowledge. yes he was wrong, unfortunately many of the time did the same things. we have evolved from that mindset. well most i would hope.

and I would suggest that much of the fundamentalism in Christianity isn't relying on Christ's message, but on Leviticus. if you know way to enlighten these folks, please do. they don't tend to listen to me, because i represent the "whore of babylon." btw: Catholics believe that Rev. already has happened, so i have trouble understanding the doomsday cult of the "final days" as well.

i believe in science. drugs that cure. blood tranfusions. safer food (we're backsliding on that though) what i dislike is the many who portrait religion as for the simpleminded and science for the clear thinkers. i believe in both, and don't appreciate the portrait. hell, many argued against me on the evolution thread, and no one asked me my beliefs until i pointed out that no one had.

LM: i'll have to disagree with your thoughts on Martin Luther. if he had wanted to help he would have pushed for changes in the Church. not branding his own religion and excising the books of the bible he didn't like. he even wanted to dump the book of James from the bible.

Jay: well i would like for the baseless attacks on my religion to stop. but that won't happen. so i'll settle for a man-hug.

SBG: i don't fear hell, why would I? I believe in God's love and have the sureness that I am going to heaven. this doesn't make me a simpleton. it is that kind of thinking that makes me angry. don't associate my religion with an inability to understand science. i haven't questioned hard science. i have questioned the attitude of those who endorse it.

[Prebe]

Anyone reading Jesus messages should not be insprired to kill. True, but if you accidentally flip over to the OT, and that's when the inspiration comes.

It's THE BOOK that's the problem. And Martin Luther did what no one else have dared since: He tried to make his religion contemporary. Excice all you want. For my sake you could (and perhaps ought to) excise all of the old testament!

[Loredoctor]

Jay: well i would like for the baseless attacks on my religion to stop. but that won't happen. so i'll settle for a man-hug.

Most people haven't attacked your religion, Null. And anyway, whatever happened to turn the other cheek?

[Avatar]

Jesus came and replaced the OT. unfortunately we can't convince many of that.

I thought Jesus didn't come to change the law?

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18 )

And I haven't seen baseless attacks on your religion either Sgt. What dispute there has been is based on verifiable historical fact.

--A

[kevinswatch]

Jay: well i would like for the baseless attacks on my religion to stop. but that won't happen. so i'll settle for a man-hug.

Stgnull... I have neither seen nor have I been made aware of any baseless attacks on Christianity. And even if there have been, the answer to fighting against baseless attacks on Christianity is NOT to in turn baselessly attack Science (which you have been doing). The correct thing to do is to send me a PM referencing any baseless attacks on Christianity, so I can deal with the people in question. So if you know of any topics where people are baselessly attacking religion, please let me know about it.-jay