Kevin's Watch

but lovers of science tend to work on the assumption that they are always right. seems a contradiction.

sgtnull wrote:but lovers of science tend to work on the assumption that they are always right. seems a contradiction.

That's a gross statement, Null and absolutely wrong. I really find it ridiculous how you are so anti-science and yet somehow your religion escapes criticism. How many Christians are so set in their ways that they are right?

i am not anti-science. i am typing on a compuetr and listening to a cd player. i am against the arrogance of the scientists who procalim that science is pure and perfect. like everything, it needs to be used correctly. and i will debate that science has killed more than religion any day of the week.

sgtnull wrote:i am not anti-science. i am typing on a compuetr and listening to a cd player. i am against the arrogance of the scientists who procalim that science is pure and perfect. like everything, it needs to be used correctly. and i will debate that science has killed more than religion any day of the week.

Then you are confusing science with the use of science's products - which is not science. Science is a process - you cant use science to kill people unless your experiment involves killing people. And I doubt that any scientist beyond Mengele and the other Nazis would practice or sanction that. And anyway, how many people have died due to christianity, Null? In the 20th century alone, alot.

i am against the arrogance of the scientists who procalim that science is pure and perfect.

Again you make generalisations. They are not the majority. Stop attacking science based on the institution of academics' views (even though they arent the majority). And admit it - Christians are just as arrogant.

i see that arrogance on these boards. and i will argue that science kills more. i have posted the links on another thread.

sgtnull wrote:i see that arrogance on these boards. and i will argue that science kills more. i have posted the links on another thread.

So arrogance of posters = arrogance of science as a whole. That's retarded logic, Null. Seems you need some reasoning skills. Again Null - Science DOES NOT kill people. The use of weapons or chemicals kills people. Religion, on the other hand, kills people.

Null, why is it you love to claim scientists are so arrogant yet you wont admit that religious people are just as arrogant. Please reply to this and stop ignoring this issue. Anyway, I have seen you enter into a thread and start attacks on science without provocation. Who is arrogant now?

i dont really see that either kills people. our interpretation is what does the damage.

Tazzman wrote:i dont really see that either kills people. our interpretation is what does the damage.

That's what I think. Great post!

Indeed Tazz. All knowledge is morally neutral. It's the application of it that could be "good" or "bad."

--A

Hmmm, That's genuine NRA reasoning:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". A statement that flies in the face of the fact that the guns were created for the sole purpose of killing (or at least maiming) people. With the exception of sporting guns.

So: Science don't kill people, but it is used to develop a 50 Mton warhead.
So: religion don't kill people, but The bible and the Koran speak of (and endorse) numerous inspired ways of killing.

Difference: There are no book that claim to be the central message of science that encourage killing people (at least none that I know of). Whereas.......

The reasoning is perfectly sound in my opinion, the products of science are tools. Tools are the responsibility of the wielder.

The tool makes things possible. It does not make things happen.

--A

You are right. It doesn't indict science per se. But it indicts the people who used science to MANUFACTURE the guns just as much as it indicts those who chose to use them. In any case, the indictment is towards people and not science.

When, on the other hand people with a religious belief say: "Hey, it's people who abuse religion who do all the bad stuff. It's not religions fault." All you have to do is point at the bible or the koran and shrug.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of sensible religious people about, but they do have a bad case, when you look at the pivotal point of their beliefs: ancient books, that haven't been revised for 1900/1400 years give or take. Books that justify killing for no other reason than offense to a deity!

Any ideas can be abused.

--A

Please re-read post. Big edit.

Lore: anyone reading Jesus' message should not be inspired to kill.

on the other hand, we went from breech loaders, to cartridge to automatic weapons. each designed for more death. poison gas was created for what purpose? nuclear bombs? tanks?

sgtnull wrote:Lore: anyone reading Jesus' message should not be inspired to kill.

on the other hand, we went from breech loaders, to cartridge to automatic weapons. each designed for more death. poison gas was created for what purpose? nuclear bombs? tanks?

That's the misuse of the products of science - I mean, the misapplication of science's knowledge by military minds.

On the other hand we have the Jones Town Massacre, the Crusades, forces conversion of natives to Christianity, Priests abusing children, slaughter of catholics by protestants, many other religious massacres.

And again, Null you keep avoiding my point: admit that christians are just as arrogant.

How very disappointing to see so many posts in this thread since I posted, only to find that they're this crap. sarge, even I, who defend faith as strongly as I defend science, am having a very difficult time finding merit in your posts in this thread. Beginning with the fact that the thread was started by someone who wanted to learn something about science. Before almost anything was said, you attacked. Yeah, I know, it's in the Close, and every thread here should expect to become a battlefield, no matter how innocently it was intended.

Then, there's specifics. Let's see...

sgtnull wrote:but lovers of science tend to work on the assumption that they are always right. seems a contradiction.

Rubbish. They work from the assumption that they're wrong, but that they can learn from their mistakes, and, eventually, get it right. They say, "This might be the answer. Let's see if we can find flaw in it." For example, after centuries of people trying, Watts solved Fermat's famous theorem. He then spent months with a colleague looking for flaws, and, finally, thought he had it all correct. Then, he had to have it closely scrutinized by many of the world's mathematical leaders. They went looking for flaws, and they found one. So Watts had to see if the flaw invalidated the entire solution, or if it damaged only a part of it, which would hopefully be fixable.

If scientists were always sure they were right, there would never have been any advancement in anything. They'd say, "I know I cannot be wrong about this." And when it didn't work, and things seldom work on the first attempt, they'd say, "Well, I know I cannot be wrong. There is no possible explanation for this not having worked." Then, they'd move on to another project, fail, move on, fail... And we'd still be using stone knives, living in caves.

sgtnull wrote:i am not anti-science. i am typing on a compuetr and listening to a cd player. i am against the arrogance of the scientists who procalim that science is pure and perfect. like everything, it needs to be used correctly. and i will debate that science has killed more than religion any day of the week.

---

i see that arrogance on these boards. and i will argue that science kills more. i have posted the links on another thread.

To not see the difference between science killing, and people using the fruits of science to kill is either 1) amazingly ignorant, or 2) a lie, wherein the known truth is ignored in the hope of making someone or something look bad.

sgtnull wrote:Lore: anyone reading Jesus' message should not be inspired to kill.

I agree. And I wish the millions who killed in Jesus' name did too. But it happens. People read Jesus' message, twist it, and use the twisted version to justify their murderous hearts. The KKK, Phelps, Aaron McKinney and Arthur Henderson, Pope Innocent III, Charlemagne...)

sgtnull wrote:on the other hand, we went from breech loaders, to cartridge to automatic weapons. each designed for more death. poison gas was created for what purpose? nuclear bombs? tanks?

Indeed, many have used science badly. And I imagine many who invented and used these horrible things were atheists, and many were doing so in Jesus' name. Check out these posts again:

Tazzman wrote:i dont really see that either kills people. our interpretation is what does the damage.

Avatar wrote:Indeed Tazz. All knowledge is morally neutral. It's the application of it that could be "good" or "bad."

Excellent post, Fist! Take heed of his points, Null; he's spot on.

Damn, LoreMaster has to add another star...

That was a great post Fist.

--A

Avatar wrote:Damn, LoreMaster has to add another star...

That was a great post Fist.

--A

But technically you are agreeing with Fist. Agreeing with my agreeing doesnt warrant a star in my system.