What does this have to do with anything since there is no real opposition to it?
Furthermore if one expresses interest and inquiry in 'ancient texts', then who cares? Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts, and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
I find their attempt to diminish religion quite amusing, yet science has become the new religion for some. They mention ancient texts and try to dismiss them, but many ancient texts have actually helped science became what it is. People need balance.
Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts
Which questions?
and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
What are you talking about? What do you understand 'missing link' to mean? In what sense do you mean science can't explain the beginnings of evolution? Since the theory of evolution by natural selection can quite clearly explain the beginnings of evolution. Sure, it might not be able to pinpoint the exact mutation, point in time or organism, but it clearly explains the mechanics of the beginnings of evolution. Perhaps you should actually try understanding it before writing about it like you know something more than what you learned from creationists.
yet science has become the new religion for some.
Really? They have repetitively observed daily/weekly ceremonies and rituals, wars, dogmatic literature, rules for governing peoples lives and thoughts, oppressive theologies and ordained leaders whose authority must remain infallible and unquestioned? In science? Really?
Or are you just repeating arguments you heard elsewhere without bothering to give them any thought yourself?
Which ancient texts have helped science become what it is? Ancient texts on maths and science maybe? Or do you mean ancient texts like the scientifically incorrect Koran and Bible?
You also might want to do your evolution homework, Armbreaker. There's been zero new stuff from your side for years, especially since Creationists never, ever seem to understand what they're arguing against.
But anyway, specific stuff to say:
Furthermore if one expresses interest and inquiry in 'ancient texts', then who cares?
You must have never talked to an atheist before. This isn't about interest, it's about belief. PZ Myers has a liking for the Epic of Gilgamesh, but it's literary. He enjoys it as fiction. These people treat everything they read as fact. It's an attitude that often leads down bloody paths, to medical negligence, and attitudes of resistance to inquiry.
Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts...
As Jimmy said, which questions? I've seen a LOT of people say that sort of thing for no reason at all: They just define their woo as being beyond science.
...and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
Do that evolution homework I mentioned. You don't bother to listen to people like us, do you.
I find their attempt to diminish religion quite amusing, yet science has become the new religion for some.
We don't diminish religion. We just try to knock it off its undeserved pedestal in the name of fairness. As for science becoming a religion, you must have a very creative definition of "religion," because science doesn't rely on blind faith.
They mention ancient texts and try to dismiss them, but many ancient texts have actually helped science became what it is.
What, precisely, are you talking about? Science is what it is because it relies on careful observation and experiment, not ancient authority of texts. About all I can imagine you're talking about are instances where science found out the ancients got some things right.
Example of what I'm talking about: They found an Egyptian medical text that mentioned putting honey in wounds to prevent infection. This works when you don't have more advanced tech because honey is filled with antibacterial agents bees use to keep their hives nearly sterile. We know why it works. I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptians used a sympathetic magic angle to rationalize it: Honey's sweet, wholesome stuff, therefore it's associated with health. Of course, that rationale has lead to all sorts of crazy stuff. It's probable that the Egyptians just lucked out.
Oh, and Armbreaker, you haven't been paying attention to what you've said right after the line about 'no real opposition': There's no shortage of opposition, and you're a part of it without realizing it.
The sort of special pleading vibe I get from you requires abandoning reason whenever you might not like the answer.
Additionally, people are still flocking to witch doctors and magic men for their health. That's what "alternative" "medicine" is. Torture may not be as prevalent as back then (but it's making a comeback), but we're living in a day when a kid gets death threats and suspension for not handling a cracker the "right" way.
We've also got plenty of arbitrary, ancient "morality" in office.
So, yeah. I think you have a certain lack of attention to the issues and positions.
Perhaps you'd like to be specific and explain what the real view is, so that I don't have to guess what it is this week and accidentally create a straw man in the process?
PZ posted it, got it from Edger, and here I post it:
6 comments:
What does this have to do with anything since there is no real opposition to it?
Furthermore if one expresses interest and inquiry in 'ancient texts', then who cares? Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts, and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
I find their attempt to diminish religion quite amusing, yet science has become the new religion for some. They mention ancient texts and try to dismiss them, but many ancient texts have actually helped science became what it is. People need balance.
Let's not exaggerate shall we?
Armbreaker:
Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts
Which questions?
and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
What are you talking about? What do you understand 'missing link' to mean? In what sense do you mean science can't explain the beginnings of evolution? Since the theory of evolution by natural selection can quite clearly explain the beginnings of evolution. Sure, it might not be able to pinpoint the exact mutation, point in time or organism, but it clearly explains the mechanics of the beginnings of evolution. Perhaps you should actually try understanding it before writing about it like you know something more than what you learned from creationists.
yet science has become the new religion for some.
Really? They have repetitively observed daily/weekly ceremonies and rituals, wars, dogmatic literature, rules for governing peoples lives and thoughts, oppressive theologies and ordained leaders whose authority must remain infallible and unquestioned? In science? Really?
Or are you just repeating arguments you heard elsewhere without bothering to give them any thought yourself?
Which ancient texts have helped science become what it is? Ancient texts on maths and science maybe? Or do you mean ancient texts like the scientifically incorrect Koran and Bible?
Let's not exaggerate shall we?
Agreed. So stop it.
Thanks, Jimmy.
Directly or indirectly Doggerel numbers: 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 25, 26, 42, 50, 71, 132.
You also might want to do your evolution homework, Armbreaker. There's been zero new stuff from your side for years, especially since Creationists never, ever seem to understand what they're arguing against.
But anyway, specific stuff to say:
Furthermore if one expresses interest and inquiry in 'ancient texts', then who cares?
You must have never talked to an atheist before. This isn't about interest, it's about belief. PZ Myers has a liking for the Epic of Gilgamesh, but it's literary. He enjoys it as fiction. These people treat everything they read as fact. It's an attitude that often leads down bloody paths, to medical negligence, and attitudes of resistance to inquiry.
Plus science can't answer several important questions about the existence of God, ghosts...
As Jimmy said, which questions? I've seen a LOT of people say that sort of thing for no reason at all: They just define their woo as being beyond science.
...and even basic aspects of evolution such as its beginning and explaining missing links, etc.
Do that evolution homework I mentioned. You don't bother to listen to people like us, do you.
I find their attempt to diminish religion quite amusing, yet science has become the new religion for some.
We don't diminish religion. We just try to knock it off its undeserved pedestal in the name of fairness. As for science becoming a religion, you must have a very creative definition of "religion," because science doesn't rely on blind faith.
They mention ancient texts and try to dismiss them, but many ancient texts have actually helped science became what it is.
What, precisely, are you talking about? Science is what it is because it relies on careful observation and experiment, not ancient authority of texts. About all I can imagine you're talking about are instances where science found out the ancients got some things right.
Example of what I'm talking about: They found an Egyptian medical text that mentioned putting honey in wounds to prevent infection. This works when you don't have more advanced tech because honey is filled with antibacterial agents bees use to keep their hives nearly sterile. We know why it works. I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptians used a sympathetic magic angle to rationalize it: Honey's sweet, wholesome stuff, therefore it's associated with health. Of course, that rationale has lead to all sorts of crazy stuff. It's probable that the Egyptians just lucked out.
People need balance.
From where I sit, balance often is the opposite of fairness.
Oh, and Armbreaker, you haven't been paying attention to what you've said right after the line about 'no real opposition': There's no shortage of opposition, and you're a part of it without realizing it.
The sort of special pleading vibe I get from you requires abandoning reason whenever you might not like the answer.
Additionally, people are still flocking to witch doctors and magic men for their health. That's what "alternative" "medicine" is. Torture may not be as prevalent as back then (but it's making a comeback), but we're living in a day when a kid gets death threats and suspension for not handling a cracker the "right" way.
We've also got plenty of arbitrary, ancient "morality" in office.
So, yeah. I think you have a certain lack of attention to the issues and positions.
Bronze,
The proverbial Strawman.
There are many Ad Hominem comments in there that do not support you arguement also.
I submit relevance?
Perhaps you'd like to be specific and explain what the real view is, so that I don't have to guess what it is this week and accidentally create a straw man in the process?
Post a Comment