Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[JerryL]

Yea, now it's a "consensus among most ancient people". Why aren't you saying it this way:
"Most ancient people were taught by scientists, that the Earth is flat"?

I'm not saying it that way because that's not a true statement.

 

[Cynic]

Okay, now here's a quote from my "website":

HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME - (Matthew 12:30). Okay, Agnostic, which do YOU go with - Wikipedia or Matthew?

I'm sorry, Baptist, but I will not comply with your senseless rambling.
You make baseless, inaccurate, and false claims, and so far you have failed to back them up when I have asked you to.

I am still waiting for you to tell me how, specifically, "siding" with science is an insult to agnosticism, and how being an agnostic is contradictory to being a non-theist.

For the SAME reason it is with the Bible.

Your slogan should be: Give me neutrality, or give me death!

What same reason?

I'm not saying suspend judgement on Gravity or Heat, but I'm saying that as an Agnostic, I don't understand them saying things like, science is more accurate than the Bible. I just don't get it.

Excuse me, please clarify what you meant in the first sentence.

 

[michel]

I have a feeling you just wear Agnosticism as a label.

Your intuition is very inaccurate.

Inaccurate, huh?

Have you actually sat down and studied evolution extensively? I was a christian for approximately 9 years and had a total disregard for evolution, that is, until I did my own research. It seems so evident and obvious through converging lines of science. I've been reading a little bit on evolutionary psychology which is a new field of science, and it seems to explain human behavior on profound levels, it would be absurd to ignore this theory. Looking back on what I used to believe reminds me of a little allegory called Plato's Cave.

 

[michel]

I am still waiting for you to tell me how, specifically, "siding" with science is an insult to agnosticism, and how being an agnostic is contradictory to being a non-theist.

You know what I meant. In the area of whether or not God exists. Just because a particular field of science cannot prove God, that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Isn't it funny you wanted clarification on everything to the left of my conjunction, and nothing to the right of it when I said:

Siding with science is an insult to Agnosticism and siding with the Bible is an insult to Agnosticism too.

 

[michel]

I'm not saying it that way because that's not a true statement.

q.v. Post 140 please --- that says it all. It's a perfect illustration of how "science" and Scripture clash.

 

[Cynic]

You know what I meant. In the area of whether or not God exists. Just because a particular field of science cannot prove God, that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

It doesn't mean God does exist either. So, how is this an insult to Agnosticism?

Isn't it funny you wanted clarification on everything to the left of my conjunction, and nothing to the right of it when I said:

Siding with science is an insult to Agnosticism and siding with the Bible is an insult to Agnosticism too.

Not really. I don't "side" with the bible, so the right of your conjuction has little to do with me.

 

[Cynic]

Inaccurate, huh?

Have you actually sat down and studied evolution extensively? I was a christian for approximately 9 years and had a total disregard for evolution, that is, until I did my own research. It seems so evident and obvious through converging lines of science. I've been reading a little bit on evolutionary psychology which is a new field of science, and it seems to explain human behavior on profound levels, it would be absurd to ignore this theory. Looking back on what I used to believe reminds me of a little allegory called Plato's Cave.

I'm sorry, but you've taken this quote entirely out of it's context, which was a discussion in a different thread that doesn't have any relevancy to my beliefs concering the existence or non-existence of God.

If you think I have some ulterior motive to provide an excuse to "hide", in order to suspend some sort of judgement, of which you implied was hell, well you're assumptions are utterly rediculous. I don't believe in either heaven or hell, and I find all your implications rather insulting, mostly towards my level of intellegence. "Hiding" would be quite futile in the face of an omnipotent God that measures the motives, which the bible so proclaims. I am honest enough to accept full responsibility for my choices and actions. You've not only insulted my intellegence, but my personal integrity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Siding with science is an insult to Agnosticism and siding with the Bible is an insult to Agnosticism too.

You show a remarkable misunderstanding of both science and agnosticism. In fact, if one were to take agnosticism as the term was originally intended by its creator, 'agnosticism' is a necessary facet of methodological naturalism.

 

[Cynic]

Good point, Mr Guy. We've come a long way from the days when Archimedes yelled Eureka! when he discovered Buyoncy. But it's still just the same. Go grab a copy of Scientific American or Popular Science ... nothing new. Just trying to make a fast car go faster, or a shaver to shave closer, or frame-by-frame depictions of the Hal 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odessy (which reminds me --- they argue over when the Millenium started --- 2000 or 2001 --- and, of course, scaring us to pieces with Y2K).

I'm sorry, But I read both of these magazines, specifically Scientific American as I read their monthly issues, and I find your statements to be extremely superficial and incredibly false.

Please, by all means, you can download almost any issue for approximately five-eight dollars and see it for yourself:

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=group&methodnameCHAR=resource_getgroupbrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEYEAR_CHAR=2005

I gotta admit though, if it weren't for scientists, we'd all be posting in the dark.

:biglaugh:If it weren't for science, you wouldn't be posting at all. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that we'd be in the dark, but still able to use computers.

 

[michel]

I'm sorry, but my beliefs are not motivated by self interest and bribery.

You made this cheap shot right after telling me my examples were "pathetic". And that out of thin air. Then when you give me a smorgasbord of definitions for Agnostic, you refused to tell me which one YOU are (1,2,3, or 6).

Don't you dare come to me now accusing you of insulting your intelligence.

 

[Cynic]

You made this cheap shot right after telling me my examples were "pathetic". And that out of thin air. Then when you give me a smorgasbord of definitions for Agnostic, you refused to tell me which one YOU are (1,2,3, or 6).

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
4. 
   adj.
   [*]Relating to or being an agnostic.
   [*]Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).
   

gee, which ones do you think can apply? Maybe all of them? The distinctions are based on word usage, not on different types of agnosticism. If you want to know what type of agnostic I am, I am an agnostic non-theist.

Don't you dare come to me now accusing you of insulting your intelligence.

Don't accuse me of "hiding" behind agnosticism as If I have some ulterior motive.

 

[michel]

Don't accuse me of "hiding" behind agnosticism as If I have some ulterior motive.

And don't accuse me of being motivated by self-interest and bribery.

 

[michel]

*************MOD POST************
​

Come on guys; this isn't getting anyone anywhere
​

 

[Cynic]

And don't accuse me of being motivated by self-interest and bribery.

Where did I directly accuse you of being motivated by self-interest and bribery? If I did, then I apoligize.

 

[JerryL]

q.v. Post 140 please --- that says it all. It's a perfect illustration of how "science" and Scripture clash

You asked why I didn't say that scientists taught ancient people that the Earth was flat. I told you that I didn't say that because that's not true. Tell me how post 140 interacts with that, because as best I can tell the two are almost entirely unrelated.

You say those who once believed the earth was flat.

How did they come to believe that, when Isaiah and David taught otherwise?

TO answer your first question: Most likely because it appears flat when you stand on it.

I don't believe that you can support that either Isaiag or David thought that the Earth was a shpereoid.

I'll tell you. Some rebellious Bibliphobe decided that his "science" and "observations" were more authoritative than Scripture, and started teaching that heresy as 'science'. Then people, CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, started believing it.

That fails to explain why the belief was so widespread (including times predating a bible to be phobic of and areas where there was not a bible to be phobic of). It completely fails Occam's razor, and you cannot offer even cursiory support.

Then comes someone like Christopher Columbus, who knows better because he believes the Bible, not 'science' ... and basically proves 'science' wrong and the Bible correct.

Actually, scientific methods established not only the shape of the earth, but the size, about 2000 years before Colombus.

But what do the 'scientists' do? They just say, "Oops, now we have more evidence" and they readjust their data to ... guess what? ... coincide with the Bible!

Scientists do adjust their hypothesis and theorum and laws and facts when they have more data; but flat Earth was never a scientifically established position, nor is it BIblical (the Earth is the result of the waters below seperating and allowing ground to appear between).

 

[michel]

but flat Earth was never a scientifically established position, nor is it BIblical (the Earth is the result of the waters below seperating and allowing ground to appear between).

Flat Earth was never a scientifically-established position? Yeah right! And I have land for sale in Florida - (but Napoleon has first dibbs on it).

IF that's true (which it's not), then why didn't slientists correct the mistake? And since the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere (of course YOU'LL never find it), and slientists didn't teach it ... then where did it come from? (Oh, I know! Some misguided priest, right?)

And as far as the waters separating and the Earth appearing, I agree with that, and am on record here as saying so.

 

[JerryL]

Flat Earth was never a scientifically-established position? Yeah right! And I have land for sale in Florida - (but Napoleon has first dibbs on it).

My land in Florida has gained $100,000 in value in the two years I've been living on it. If you've got land here, now is a good time to sell it.

But feel free to show me how a flat Earth was scientifically established.

IF that's true (which it's not), then why didn't slientists correct the mistake? And since the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere (of course YOU'LL never find it), and slientists didn't teach it ... then where did it come from? (Oh, I know! Some misguided priest, right?)

It was a common-sense belief. After a while, the Romans noticed that the Earth's shadow was a circle, so the Roman belief (and most everyone in their empire) was that the Earth was a circle, but none except the Greeks (that I am aware of) thought it was anything but flat. After all, you would fall off.

And as far as the waters separating and the Earth appearing, I agree with that, and am on record here as saying so.

So where is the water above the sky?

 

[michel]

But feel free to show me how a flat Earth was scientifically established.

Aristotle endorsed it.

It was a common-sense belief.

It might be common sense to you, but we Bibliophiles know better.

After a while, the Romans noticed that the Earth's shadow was a circle, so the Roman belief (and most everyone in their empire) was that the Earth was a circle, but none except the Greeks (that I am aware of) thought it was anything but flat. After all, you would fall off.

Bully for the Romans; but they didn't have to go looking at shadows when it was documented centuries before.

I can just picture this: a Roman and his wife walking down the street, coming within earshot of two Roman 'scientists' and overhearing them talking.

Dipsticus: Hey, man, check it out! The Earth's shadow is ... is ... is an arc!
Imadufus: Wow! Thanks to this lunar eclipse, now we can prove the Earth is round!
Husband: Did you hear that, Honey?
Wife: Ain't that a shame? And we've known that for years.

So where is the water above the sky?

I have a feeling you know that already.

 

[JerryL]

Aristotle endorsed it.

Show how he scientifically established it and you would have an argument.

It might be common sense to you, but we Bibliophiles know better.

You know it's the land, seperated from the waters below, and under the expanse which holds up the waters above. You know it has four corners and is held up on pillars which God shakes from tiem to time causing earthquakes.

I can just picture this: a Roman and his wife walking down the street, coming within earshot of two Roman 'scientists' and overhearing them talking.

Name a roman scientist. Scientific method was not in use.

I have a feeling you know that already.

Yes I do "in your head"

 

[michel]

Show how he scientifically established it and you would have an argument.

I have no idea who started it. We could save a lot of time typing if you wouldn't be so picky. The point is, it was being taught contrary to Scripture.

You know it's the land, seperated from the waters below, and under the expanse which holds up the waters above. You know it has four corners and is held up on pillars which God shakes from tiem to time causing earthquakes.

Cute --- real cute.

Name a roman scientist.

I gave you two, how many more do you want???

Scientific method was not in use.

The Scientific Method is a myth.

Yes I do "in your head"

Nice