Not a sin anymore???

[metis]

There maybe varying percentages of scientists that are theists, nevertheless, the atheistic ones are loudly vocal with pushing their non- theistic narrative.

That's simply not true as peer-reviewed neither posits a deity nor denies that possibility. There simply is no "scientific atheistic conspiracy" with how we do science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The undeniable order that the theistic founders of modern science had observed caused them to look for laws that must govern the phenomena.

That's empiricism, not theology. Theists can do the same things atheists do if they leave their theism out of it.

Having discovered these laws, they concluded that the universe had been created by a "God of order."

Non sequitur. There is another possibility that has been overlooked - that the universe is ordered and godless. The march of science awaited the Enlightenment, and proceeded in two waves. The first revealed the clockwork universe - the universe that ran like a huge mechanism without intelligent oversight. No gods needed there. The sun moved through the sky without angels pushing it or Apollo pulling it. And so, the deist god was born, the one that builds universes and then leaves them to run on their own. The ruler god was dismissed as unnecessary. The second wave showed how the universe could assemble itself without intelligent oversight, and so the builder god was not needed, either. All of this science, and no deities needed.

Thus was laid the theistic foundation of modern science, but that foundation is no longer accepted.

There is no theistic foundation to science and never was. God is a superfluous notion in science. The idea adds no explanatory or predictive power, which is why it appears in no scientific theories.

There maybe varying percentages of scientists that are theists, nevertheless, the atheistic ones are loudly vocal with pushing their non- theistic narrative.

Actually, it's the other way around. That's why the author of this piece is generating Christian apologetics. Science doesn't speak to religion at all. It's all the other way - theists telling us what wrong with the science and why it needs a god injected. They're offended that science doesn't need them or even acknowledge them. Science falsified Christian creationism without a single reference to it. Creationists like this author have been agitated ever since. He's obviously offended that his god is not needed in science, and so he writes about his emotional grievance. You never see this stuff going in the opposite direction - from science to religion.

Scientists could easily and accurately write that it is the theist who is loudly vocal pushing his theistic agenda like this author, by why bother? Theism is no threat to them and not worth addressing at all. Theists like to imagine that there is a debate raging between them and science. There isn't. There are just creationists writing articles like this one that aren't even looked at by the scientific community. Scientific experts such as evolution specialists or climate specialists aren't interested in anybody else's opinions about their sciences, including those who happen to agree with it.

You are showing your complete ignorance of scripture.

You are showing your complete ignorance of dialectic. If you had a rebuttal, we would have seen it rather than this hand waving.

Knowing more technical stuff about the brain has not helped us to be wise.

Did you think the purpose of neuroscience was to make man wise? Wisdom doesn't come from science. Knowledge does, which facilitates insights into brain evolution and the mechanics of neural activity in those who study it, which knowledge has resulted in improving the human condition.

 

[F1fan]

Because
1 I belive jesus has authority

Fine, you as a flawed and fallible person thinks this is true. Why? It's not factual. It's just someting you want to think is true to bolster your religious beliefs. Believe anything you damn well please. What makes beliefs likley true is there being credible evidence to support them. You lack any evidence. So your belief is irrelevant in debate.

2 jesus claimed / implied that the Scriptures are inspired

Assuming a jesus actually existed, and assuming anything this person said was actually written don, and assuming the quotes are accurate. So, no real evidence. But plenty of guessing.

3 what jesus called "the Scriptures " correspond to what we call the bible (old testament)

The Jewish text is all there was. And again, you are making a long list of dubious assumptions here, not very compelling in debate.

Yes I can think for myself, and arrived at the conclusion that each of these points is probably true.

Yet you reveal a host of assumptions that need a lot of evidence you don't have. So how could you arrive at any of these conclusions rationally? You can't. This is why I challenge you not thinking for yourself. You have adopted a lot of non-rational beliefs that other people say are true, and you didn't think them through for yourself. Religion exploits the need for average folks to belong to the tribe, to conform to social norms, and the believer subconsciously goes along with it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Irrelevant you can not use "natural inclination " to justify doing immoral stuff.

It's only immoral to your religion, and obviously the rest of us don't care. We aren't bound to your god.

 

[F1fan]

Knowing more technical stuff about the brain has not helped us to be wise.

Don't ignore that there are many Christians who reject and deny the theory of evolution despite the vast evidence that establishes it's true. So why would these people reject biology and not reject what is understood about how the human brain works as well? Oddly the two are related. We understand through pet and fMRI scans of brains just why some people believe in non-factional, and irrational concepts. Yet it is this understanding that explains theists will NOT accept this understanding. So do you see the irony? (probbaly not, because irony) Wisdom comes when a person understands, and there has to be a specific mental condition for this.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Don't ignore that there are many Christians who reject and deny the theory of evolution despite the vast evidence that establishes it's true. So why would these people reject biology and not reject what is understood about how the human brain works as well? Oddly the two are related. We understand through pet and fMRI scans of brains just why some people believe in non-factional, and irrational concepts. Yet it is this understanding that explains theists will NOT accept this understanding. So do you see the irony? (probbaly not, because irony) Wisdom comes when a person understands, and there has to be a specific mental condition for this.

We do not understand everything about the brain... not even close.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Did you think the purpose of neuroscience was to make man wise? Wisdom doesn't come from science. Knowledge does, which facilitates insights into brain evolution and the mechanics of neural activity in those who study it, which knowledge has resulted in improving the human condition.

Really? Then why is so much of the world still in a mess?
If knowledge leads to improving The human condition we're doing a poor job of it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I check the weather report. When I use my GPS in my car.


Knowing how things work doesn't make us wiser. Understanding how our brains work, doesn't make us wiser. Understanding human nature doesn't make us wiser. LOL Okay then. I disagree and I think you're out to lunch on that one.

We are stupider than ever in many ways. We can't even decide which bathrooms we are supposed to use. People in power pretend that the genders don't exist, and that men can have babies... Absurdity has become The New normal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We do not understand everything about the brain... not even close.

We do know a lot though.
A lot that you don't seem to think is helpful in any way, for some odd reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are stupider than ever in many ways. We can't even decide which bathrooms we are supposed to use. People in power pretend that the genders don't exist, and that men can have babies... Absurdity has become The New normal.

Nah, we're not "stupider." We currently hold the most knowledge that any human civilization has ever known. And we continue to add to that knowledge base.

Nobody pretends "genders don't exist." People like yourself don't seem to understand that gender is a social construct though.
Everyone knows which bathroom they should be using. It's just people like yourself that obsess over the need to know what genitals other people have.

 

[leroy]

The first two of those must be believed by blind faith if they are to be believed at all.



Intellectually, you should reject the two that are not supported by evidence.

Well I think there is good evidence for the resurrection (which would grant the authority of Jesus) and “2” is just a historical fact.

Because evolution promotes what is good for survival.

Well you are wrongly assuming that whatever is good for our survival “necesairly” has to be morally good.

We know that this assumption is wrong because the animal kingdom is full of behaviors that you would label as “morally wrong” but are good and beneficial of the survivability of the specie.

Things that are morally wrong like killing the elder, killing the handicapped, rape, adultery, discrimination, killing the offspring, etc. are all common in the animal kingdom and have some survival value (otherwise these behaviors would have not evolved)

The Bible enumerates hundreds of commandments. If it doesn't call pedophilia immoral, it is because it doesn't consider it such, just like slavery.

And it doesn’t mention “nor chopping other´s ´people head with a knife” ether.

I think you are making an unjustified leap……. Just because the bible doesn’t mentions it , it doesn’t mean that you can do it

Because societal needs, which vary over time, determine what man considers immoral.

agree

Here's a place where we have gone astray in the past. It occurred then when you didn't like my answers, therefore kept asking the same questions previously asked and answered. I understand that as a theist, you reject the above. God did it because nature couldn't do it - an incredulity fallacy if one commits it. Fine.


.

Well you are labeling yourself as an empiricist…….. so where is your empirical evidence that shows that:

1 morally bad behaviors could have not have a selective benefit in the survival of our specie

2 morally good behaviors could have not been selectively negative

In other words, you have to show that things like Rape could not have any selective benefit


Or perhaps you are simply saying that whatever is good for our survival, by definition is also morally good. (if rape would have had a benefit, then it would have been ok to rape) is this a correct representation of your view?

 

[F1fan]

We do not understand everything about the brain... not even close.

I didn’t claim that we know everything about the brain. But I did say was many Christian extremists reject what we do know, science, for the sake of their religious beliefs. Many of your posts reveal you are one of these Christians who reject science due to religious dogma.

 

[F1fan]

Really? Then why is so much of the world still in a mess?

Because in the world today there are still people who believe that a 2000 year old myth is true and the theory of evolution is false.

If knowledge leads to improving The human condition we're doing a poor job of it.

As long as we have people who believe in 2000 year old myths and rejects science and expertise then we will have a world that it continues to be a mess. What will it take to teach Christian extremists who reject science that science is valid and true? Obviously reason doesn’t work, so what will?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really? Then why is so much of the world still in a mess? If knowledge leads to improving The human condition we're doing a poor job of it.

The parts of the world that are the worst off are the ones where education is least available and prevalent. Scientific knowledge has made life longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier safer, and more interesting. Humanism has gifted the world with the modern secular, liberal democracy with it guaranteed personal rights including YOUR right to practice whatever religion you like. Turning serfs and subjects into modern, autonomous citizens has made life much better for those who received those benefits.

I'll bet that your life is pretty good. Try to imagine what it would have been like during the Middle Ages or antiquity. How much wealth or leisure would you expect to enjoy? How much of the world could you have tasted. Too bad if you needed glasses. Better chop some wood and fetch some water from the well. Poor mom - died in childbirth, but at least two of her five babies made it to age two. Appendix burst? That's a shame. Raw sewage in the streets? That sound unhealthy. Farming with field animals and plows? That sounds labor intensive. Husband spirited away in the night to who-knows-where? That's the king's prerogative.

How did you miss all of that betterment of the human condition?

Well I think there is good evidence for the resurrection (which would grant the authority of Jesus)

I don't. There is good evidence that resurrection following rigor mortis is impossible, and it requires faith to believe that it happened.

Well you are wrongly assuming that whatever is good for our survival “necesairly” has to be morally good.

It's important to understand that what I'm saying is that before humanity, whatever evolution produced promoted communal fecundity. The word morality doesn't apply until humanity comes along. At that point, what is thought to promote communal welfare is called moral. Survival and proliferation of populations is the business of evolution, and occurs in all animal populations. When man gets involved, he already has instincts gifted him by evolution that promote human fecundity. Look at what happens to teenagers, who before recent times, used to be ready for adult life. Look at all of the instincts that go into a young man and woman budding off to produce and raise children. They fight with their parents and want to move out. They experience lust and want to copulate. The girls want babies.

But modern society introduces new factors, like lineage and inheritance, and so some of those instincts must be controlled, and the target behavior is deemed moral. Then society changes more, and teenagers are no longer ready for adult life in modern Western societies. So, teen pregnancy is frowned upon by those who value education. Thus, we have a pre-moral stage determined by evolution followed by the advent of the conscience, language, reason, and civilization, and those premoral instincts and intuitions are evaluated for expedience achieving the goals of the culture, which one was in agreement with nature's directive to reproduce as early and as often as possible, but through cultural evolution, might fall out of alignment with nature's directives.

I think your position is probably that none of that would have happened without divine intervention.

Well you are labeling yourself as an empiricist…….. so where is your empirical evidence that shows that:

1 morally bad behaviors could have not have a selective benefit in the survival of our specie

2 morally good behaviors could have not been selectively negative

In other words, you have to show that things like Rape could not have any selective benefit

Once again, the argument is that morality as human beings experience it developed from the biological evolution of behaviors that facilitate the population's growth to which was added also by evolution the powers of reason and speech and the advent of civilization. You need to get away from the idea of evolution having a moral purpose. That's a human construct. What evolution generates is neither moral nor immoral. Morality begins with humanity.

Or perhaps you are simply saying that whatever is good for our survival, by definition is also morally good. (if rape would have had a benefit, then it would have been ok to rape) is this a correct representation of your view?

If nonconsensual sex facilitates the fecundity of a nonhuman animal population as seems to be the case most if not all of the time, it will be selected for. "OK" to do that isn't even a factor. When human culture takes over, the process changes. It's no longer tied to new genes and blind biological processes, which progresses very slowly relative to cultural evolution. Now, it's tied to ideas about what is good for our tribe or town or species, and in the West, is no longer blind nor tied to fecundity. The latter evolved on top of the former in man.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Really? Then why is so much of the world still in a mess?
If knowledge leads to improving The human condition we're doing a poor job of it.

Greed, ego, bad religious beliefs, selfishness, arrogance, narcissism, etc.

 

[leroy]

Fine, you as a flawed and fallible person thinks this is true. Why? It's not factual. It's just someting you want to think is true to bolster your religious beliefs. Believe anything you damn well please. What makes beliefs likley true is there being credible evidence to support them. You lack any evidence. So your belief is irrelevant in debate.



Assuming a jesus actually existed, and assuming anything this person said was actually written don, and assuming the quotes are accurate. So, no real evidence. But plenty of guessing.


The Jewish text is all there was. And again, you are making a long list of dubious assumptions here, not very compelling in debate.



Yet you reveal a host of assumptions that need a lot of evidence you don't have. So how could you arrive at any of these conclusions rationally? You can't. This is why I challenge you not thinking for yourself. You have adopted a lot of non-rational beliefs that other people say are true, and you didn't think them through for yourself. Religion exploits the need for average folks to belong to the tribe, to conform to social norms, and the believer subconsciously goes along with it.

Assuming a jesus actually existed, and assuming anything this person said was actually written don, and assuming the quotes are accurate. So, no real evidence. But plenty of guessing



JAJA that is funny.


You obviously hate religion for some reason and you are not and open and rational person when dealing with this topics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Assuming a jesus actually existed, and assuming anything this person said was actually written don, and assuming the quotes are accurate. So, no real evidence. But plenty of guessing



JAJA that is funny.


You obviously hate religion for some reason and you are not and open and rational person when dealing with this topics.

What a strange thing to say in light of the valid points made by that poster. The first part of this sentence doesn't seem warranted at all, and the second part sounds like an exercise in projection.
This poster has made rational points and instead of dealing with them, you claim they're being irrational and close-minded and wave them away. Hmmmm ...

 

[leroy]

The
If nonconsensual sex facilitates the fecundity of a nonhuman animal population as seems to be the case most if not all of the time, it will be selected for. "OK" to do that isn't even a factor. When human culture takes over, the process changes. It's no longer tied to new genes and blind biological processes, which progresses very slowly relative to cultural evolution. Now, it's tied to ideas about what is good for our tribe or town or species, and in the West, is no longer blind nor tied to fecundity. The latter evolved on top of the former in man.

Well wouldn’t you say that there are things that could be “good for our tribe” but morally wrong?

With “good for our tribe” I mean that the tribe is more likely to flourish and less likely to go extinct…….

 

[leroy]

TI don't. There is good evidence that resurrection following rigor mortis is impossible, and it requires faith to believe that it happened..

Ok this is way off topic, so I you decide not to answer to this, ill understand.

But we do have evidence that:

1 Jesus was alive at some point in time (X)

2 Jesus died at some Point in time(Y)

3 Jesus was alive at some Point time (Z)

4 Y predates Z

With evidence I mean that we have multiple independent sources corroborating each if the 4 points , this type of evidence is enough to grant any fact form ancient history, if you want to make an arbitrary exception with the resurrection go ahead, but why should I?

 

[leroy]

What a strange thing to say in light of the valid points made by that poster. The first part of this sentence doesn't seem warranted at all, and the second part sounds like an exercise in projection.
This poster has made rational points and instead of dealing with them, you claim they're being irrational and close-minded and wave them away. Hmmmm ...

well quote a specific point that you think is valid and explain why is it valid………… to me they seemed points that a flat earhter would make