- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What makes you a science denier?
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:00 am to airfernando
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:00 am to airfernando
quote:What a great quote.
Science has perpetually proved itself wrong.
0
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:12 am to Gaston
quote:
As a scientist, it literally doesn't make any to believe in 'science'. It's a method, a collection of tools to get your point across. I get paid to write reports that even though I may totally believe in my premise, there's nothing substantially there to convince others. You go through the method, you lay out the rules, you let people know where the decision points are, you back up your assumptions, and you bring them to the trough. It's up to them to drink...its up to us to convince them it's the right trough and it's safe for them to do so. It all comes down to risk for people.
Believing in science is absurd. I mean if you don't trust Maxwells equations then you derive them for yourself...that's not belief, that understanding your tools.
ETA: I'm a difficult person to convince, as I hope most scientists are.
Please detach your nose from your own gooch... the average person does not think in terms of science, nor are they likely to understand the vast majority of how or why the world around them works on a scientific level- for this vast majority of people they take what is told to them regarding science on faith, or "belief."
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:14 am to Tigerbait357
quote:
I believe in science, I graduated with a degree in biochem, but I am still very religious. I go to church sometimes. Science doesn't disprove religion as religion doesn't disprove science.
I grad with chem and hold a similar view. The Bible is the word of God. Science is the work of God. Funny thing about the scientific field is outside of academia and government, aethists tend to be rare.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:30 am to ManBearTiger
Creationist
New Earth Theorist
Intelligent Design
The above are all science deniers.
New Earth Theorist
Intelligent Design
The above are all science deniers.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:37 am to Kino74
quote:
I grad with chem and hold a similar view. The Bible is the word of God. Science is the work of God. Funny thing about the scientific field is outside of academia and government, aethists tend to be rare.
^This
I am a biologist. Evolution has been proven time and time again.
The problem is that people automatically associate evolution with Darwinism. Darwin merely put forth a Theory of evolution. Darwin's theory is not law.
I have been reading a book by Michael Dowd titled "Thank God for Evolution". Great book on how Science and Religion are very much intertwined.
The problem I see, as a biologist and devote Catholic, is the extremes on both ends. Christians that take the Bible as literal and science as fiction, and Scientists that completely deny the Bible because they take it literally and science disproves what it says. Both are fallacies.
As Dowd explains, Homo sapiens is the only species on the face of the Earth that seeks to assign meaning to everything in life. Religion is a means of that. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What happens when we die?
The Bible was written at a time when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. We now know, for a fact, that this is not true, that the solar system is in fact heliocentric. So how anyone can take Genesis as literal when it is clear as day that it is metaphorical is beyond me.
I believe one can have a belief in a greater being--whatever your religion teaches--and still believe that scientific discoveries are fact. Dowd uses the analogy of God as a clock maker. Everything that occurs in life are the mechanisms that make the clock run, but God puts them in motion.
At the end of the day though, I believe that what one man believes is his own busines.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:38 am to airfernando
quote:
Science has perpetually proved itself wrong
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:49 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
I have been reading a book by Michael Dowd titled "Thank God for Evolution". Great book on how Science and Religion are very much intertwined.
I have been reading a book by Richard Dawkins titled "The God Delusion". Great book on how Science and Religion are very much not intertwined.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:50 am to LucasP
Ok, I'll bite.
A theory is a theory because it hasn't been proven or disproven.
So explain to me again how it is false? When has anyone come out, with scientific evidence, stating that the "Theory of Natural Selection" is false?
A theory is a theory because it hasn't been proven or disproven.
So explain to me again how it is false? When has anyone come out, with scientific evidence, stating that the "Theory of Natural Selection" is false?
This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 9:56 am
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:00 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
So how anyone can take Genesis as literal when it is clear as day that it is metaphorical is beyond me
Here's the problem with that statement - it is supposed to be "the word of God," not the word of man, so it shouldn't be imperfect. And I would venture to say you only view it as metaphorical because modern science has proven it false - I believe it was taken as literal when written (by man, of course). You say it is metaphorical yet doesn't it give a direct lineage or genealogy from Adam and Eve on down to all the characters that are the basis for the Old Testament?
This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 10:05 am
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:04 am to Brazos
quote:
I choose to believe that something is God.
The older I get the more ridiculous the phrase "I choose to believe" sounds to me.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:04 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
for this vast majority of people they take what is told to them regarding science on faith, or "belief."
Yet another example of how the vast majority of people are morons. I don't take any science on faith. I simply don't have opinions on things that I don't understand or don't see results from. If I can see the results from something then I'll accept the scientific explanation as the probably being the best explanation even if I don't completely understand some of the specifics. I don't consider that taking it on faith though.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:09 am to Peazey
quote:
I simply don't have opinions on things that I don't understand or don't see results from.
People seem to have a problem with simply saying I dont know. Thats where the phrase "I choose to believe" rears its ugly head and self delusion takes over rational thought.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:11 am to LSU Coyote
The difference is, Dawkins, an admitted atheist, practically attacks religious believers. The very title of the book confirms that. Dowd's book is written to address all audiences.
Dawkins' purpose in writing that book was almost solely to attack religion. While he does make valid points about morality (you don't have to have religion to be moral), that is the extent of my agreement with him.
While it is of no consequence to a man like Dawkins, I take issue with him and anyone that thinks religion is the sole problem this world has. This idea that religion is holding mankind back from some greater purpose or evolution is ridiculous. What is the greater purpose or evolution that religious deniers claim religion is holding us back from? If everyone stopped believing in religion, does all violence stop? Do all wars cease?
So every war that has ever occurred was driven by religion? Every violent crime driven by religion? Poverty exists because of religion?
Can anyone justify that unified belief in any one system would solve all of the world's problems? No. Well, maybe I'm wrong. If everyone would just embrace that old "Golden Rule", maybe the world would be a better place.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Dawkins' purpose in writing that book was almost solely to attack religion. While he does make valid points about morality (you don't have to have religion to be moral), that is the extent of my agreement with him.
While it is of no consequence to a man like Dawkins, I take issue with him and anyone that thinks religion is the sole problem this world has. This idea that religion is holding mankind back from some greater purpose or evolution is ridiculous. What is the greater purpose or evolution that religious deniers claim religion is holding us back from? If everyone stopped believing in religion, does all violence stop? Do all wars cease?
So every war that has ever occurred was driven by religion? Every violent crime driven by religion? Poverty exists because of religion?
Can anyone justify that unified belief in any one system would solve all of the world's problems? No. Well, maybe I'm wrong. If everyone would just embrace that old "Golden Rule", maybe the world would be a better place.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:13 am to Brazos
quote:
It's universally accepted that the universe had a beginning.
No, it isn't. This is such a silly assertion to really think that the entire world is in agreement about something like this, and it has been proven. There is evidence to support the Big Bang theory. This is not the same thing as saying that it has been proven, and even then that doesn't prove that the universe had a beginning. Come on.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:15 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
What makes you a simpleton Luddite?
Am I one if I don't know what a Luddite is and I refuse to google this on my phone?
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:19 am to Peazey
quote:
f I can see the results from something then I'll accept the scientific explanation as the probably being the best explanation even if I don't completely understand some of the specifics. I don't consider that taking it on faith though.
When you don't fully understand something but you trust that someone else has done their due diligence in the gaps where your comprehension is incomplete, that is quite literally faith.
Example: is it possible to know with absolute certainty that perception of the world is identical among all humans, knowing that brain chemistry, genetic makeup, and experiences vary from person to person? Isn't it possible that perception varies between people, but because of conditioning, people react to stimuli in much the same way across the board? I don't think we currently can, but we take it on faith that it is.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:25 am to airfernando
quote:
Evolution and the big bang theory have more holes than the Titanic. Science believers can't buy that God could create the world out of nothing, but yet they can believe that life and rocks could erupt out of nothing with no help.
One big problem with science is that it's created by man, who is extremely imperfect and always has a self serving agenda. Science has perpetually proved itself wrong.
Must
Resist
Troll
AHHHHH
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:35 am to 911Moto
quote:
Here's the problem with that statement - it is supposed to be "the word of God," not the word of man, so it shouldn't be imperfect. And I would venture to say you only view it as metaphorical because modern science has proven it false - I believe it was taken as literal when written (by man, of course). You say it is metaphorical yet doesn't it give a direct lineage or genealogy from Adam and Eve on down to all the characters that are the basis for the Old Testament?
Of course. I agree with you on that fact, because at that time, man did believe that the universe was geocentric.
The fact remains that now, we know, without a doubt, that it is not. Can anyone argue, with facts, that the Sun is revolving around the Earth, and not vice versa?
So yes, it is supposed to be the "Word of God", but I just cannot take that as literal when we have knowledge that some parts of it are not true.
Does anyone believe that the person who transcribed Genesis witnessed the creation of the world? I sure don't. It was given to him from God.
I don't believe that everything in religion is metaphorical, but I'm also not stupid. Luke 1:26 in the New American Bible states that the Angel came to Mary "In the sixth month". Even if you went by the Julian Calendar, that puts the Immaculate Conception in May. There is no way, by that translation (which is what the Catholic Church uses) that Jesus could have been born on December 25th, unless he was born 2 months premature. That holiday was not added until later when the Church wanted to convert nonbelievers by placing the holiday near a pagan holiday.
The ignorance that many anti-religion types point out is a result of believing everything in the Bible is true, and taking some parts of the Bible and not others. While the Bible condemned homosexuality, it did not give any man the right to condemn another because of how they behaved. That judgement is reserved for God. In John 8:7, Jesus tells the Pharisees "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone at her".
If God is real (whether you believe he is or not) Who among us is without sin? Who are we to condemn another for their decision? If God is real, that is his ultimate decision.
The difference between an atheist and a christian is that one will be proven wrong at death. Only at that point will we truly know whether there is an Ultimate Creator or not. I believe in God, but unless something happens in my life to absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that wrong, I will not know until I die whether that belief was placed correctly.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:35 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
When you don't fully understand something but you trust that someone else has done their due diligence in the gaps where your comprehension is incomplete, that is quite literally faith.
In the biblical sense? Hell no. In the sense that I have to put trust in someone to do their role in society then ok. I guess. That isn't the same thing as "faith in God" though.
For example: I have a rudimentary understanding of how electricity works and even how many of the electronics and appliances in my house work. I do not know all the engineering details of how the electricity gets to my house or where all the screws and parts go and specifically do in my appliances. But I do know the basics physics of what electricity is and that it is generated in a plant then transferred to my house via wires. I experience the direct result of it. Is it really an act of faith that when I flip the light switch in my bedroom that I expect my lamp to turn on? Do I really have to be an expert on all human knowledge for my life to not be lived on this faith of yours?
This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 10:36 am
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:40 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
I don't think we currently can, but we take it on faith that it is.
Oh and I believe this is called inductive reasoning. It's probabilistic reasoning that has nothing to do with faith.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News