Science is a false God

[ratiocinator]

Which means that everything we need to be truly good has been given to all of us within the pages of the Holy Bible.

Have you actually read it? Seriously? It's morally inconsistent and often self-contradictory.

 

[Maximilian]

Cherry picking. Compare Matthew 5:43-46 (which you quoted here) with 1 Samuel 15:3 (above).

"The fear of Jehovah is to hate evil." (Proverbs 8:13) That's why Christ Jesus himself "loved justice and hated evil." (Hebrews 1:9)

The Canaanites were evil and deserved to die for their evil. The same holds true for all who are evil:

"When I say to someone wicked, ‘Wicked one, you will surely die!’ but you do not speak out to warn the wicked one to change his course, he will die as a wicked man because of his own error, but I will ask his blood back from you.

But if you warn someone wicked to turn back from his way and he refuses to change his course, he will die for his error, but you will certainly save your own life.

‘“As surely as I am alive,” declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why should you die?" -Ezekiel 33:8, 9, 11​

 

[ratiocinator]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

So, you are saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Amalekites (including all the women, children, infants, and even animals) was morally right?

This from somebody who quoted "love you enemies" and who thinks morality is absolute.....

 

[Maximilian]

In what way is that an "objective moral value"?

Seriously? Are you unable of differentiate between good and evil?

 

[sooda]

Prove it.

Its been proven time and again.. Joshua never had any huge army nor did he kill all the Canaanites. Some of their towns have been excavated and they were NOT destroyed or even disturbed by war.

The population of Palestine was never larger than 700,000 so the stories about huge armies are fiction.. Joshua was promoted as sort of a national hero,

When you understand the limits of pasture and water in Palestine, you will understand why there were MORE Hebrews living outside of Palestine than inside Palestine by the time of Christ.

By the time Jesus was born there were large Jewish populations in Alexandria, Damascus, Persia, what is now Iraq and Elephantine Island on the Nile river.

 

[ratiocinator]

Seriously? Are you unable of differentiate between good and evil?

I'm not the one arguing that the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent children and infants is can be morally justified.

What I am saying is that morality is a human value judgement, not an objective fact. You have yet to provide even a hint of evidence or reasoning that it is objective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

Interesting the direction this thread has taken from the OP 'science is a false god'.

Are you saying it would be moral to have killed the people on this list as babies? That is what it seems you are saying.

 

[Polymath257]

Because of all of the evidence for the transcendent.

Like what? You had just said there isn't such evidence!

 

[Polymath257]

Your Scientism is. It is suffused with assumptions that can never be verified scientifically. The epistemology of such radical positivism, as a result, abrogates science itself. Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended. Attempting to render a conclusive inductive line of reasoning for radical positivism is ridiculous as this begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, to begin with!


All the more devastating to your beliefs is the fact that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction declares that we must not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. What about that very supposition, though? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Your trusty Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.

When did I ever advocate radical positivism in that form?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not making any sense. For legitimate ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to exist morality simply cannot be relative for this makes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ vulnerable to mere caprice. Under such an ambivalent standard absolutely nothing is actually ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ rendering these terms utterly otiose; conveying a distinction without a difference.

Accordingly:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.

(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.

(3) Evil exists.

(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

(5) Therefore, God exists.

(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.​

That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

You posted this several times and I have been trying to make sense of it.

It seems from the logic you are following, you could add
(7) Therefore, God is evil.
(8) Therefor, God is also the locus of all objective evil.

I do not agree with that, but I do not see how you can conclude otherwise based on the logic you followed in constructing your statements.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd like to understand you better, if I could. To that end, permit me to inquire, if I may, have you ever been assessed for ASD? ([Self-Test] Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in Adults)

I scored 24%. Does that help you to understand me better?

Do you think that atheism and ASD are related? Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many who say there is no God because science can't prove it actually worship science.

"Let us notice this morning how modern man has made a god of science. It was quite easy for modern man to put his ultimate faith in science because science had brought about such remarkable advances, such tangible and amazing victories. He realized that man through his scientific genius had dwarfed distances and placed time in chains. He noticed the new comforts that had been brought about by science, from the vast improvements in communication to the elimination of many dread plagues and diseases. And so after noticing these astounding successes modern man ushered in a new god and a new religion. Individual scientist became the high priests, chemical and biological instrumants became sacramental agencies through which the invisible grace of the scientific god became visibly manifested, and scientific laboratories became the sanctuaries. And so modern man dutifully worshipped at the shrine of the god of science.

But today we are confronted with the tragic fact that the god of science which we so devoutly worshipped has brought about the possibility of universal annihilation, and so man today stands on the brink of atomic destruction aghast, panic-stricken and petrified. He realizes now that his greatest need is not science which is power, but wisdom which is control. Doubtless some one has been saying, but is it not right to devote ourselves to scientific adventure? Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.} We must come to see that science only furnishes us with the means by which we live, but never with the spiritual ends for which we live. And so we must turn back and give our ultimate devotion to the God who integrates the whole of life, to the God in whom we live and move and have our being, to the God who has been our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home.6 Preached July 5, 1953"
False Gods We Worship | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

Science is not a religion or a god. Science is a methodology. It is a body of knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is the group of people that practice science. It is the acquisition of knowledge based on objective facts and the communication of that knowledge and the methods used to acquire it. It is a tool. Anyone can use it. Theist, agnostic and atheist alike.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I scored 24%. Does that help you to understand me better?

Do you think that atheism and ASD are related? Why?

From my reading here and elsewhere, I get the impression that the basis of the interest is to establish anything outside of theism--his theism--as a pathology. Just a sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science isn't trying to disprove unicorns either. Yet it says they don't exist.

LOL! Good one. Unfortunately, incorrect.

 

[Maximilian]

Its been proven time and again.. Joshua never had any huge army nor did he kill all the Canaanites. Some of their towns have been excavated and they were NOT destroyed or even disturbed by war.

The population of Palestine was never larger than 700,000 so the stories about huge armies are fiction.. Joshua was promoted as sort of a national hero,

When you understand the limits of pasture and water in Palestine, you will understand why there were MORE Hebrews living outside of Palestine than inside Palestine by the time of Christ.

By the time Jesus was born there were large Jewish populations in Alexandria, Damascus, Persia, what is now Iraq and Elephantine Island on the Nile river.

Then present your evidence. All you've provided is your say so which is not persuasive in the slightest . . .

 

[Maximilian]

So, you are saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Amalekites (including all the women, children, infants, and even animals) was morally right?

This from somebody who quoted "love you enemies" and who thinks morality is absolute.....

Why should God tolerate the evil?

 

[Maximilian]

Have you actually read it? Seriously? It's morally inconsistent and often self-contradictory.

How so?

 

[Maximilian]

(1) is probably wrong

Probably?

 

[Maximilian]

Not that it matters much to the laughable argument for god that follows.

What a curious thing to claim . . .

I'd like to understand you better, if I could. To that end, permit me to inquire, if I may, have you ever been assessed for ASD? ([Self-Test] Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in Adults)

 

[Remté]

Science is not a religion or a god.

Again, I claimed neither of those. I said a false god. And even that of course is not from me. It is an idea which I in its fundamentality can perhaps approve of.