In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Kunich
cyclintom@yahoo. said:"Frank Warner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Kunich
cyclintom@yahoo. said:> Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
> incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
> religion I'm thinking of.
Is that so? Perhaps you credit science for more than they have accounted
themselves.
In 300 years, science has given us virtually painless medicine, made
childbirth a relatively safe process instead of a dangerous one,
lighted, plumbed and heated entire cities, made it possible to go from
one continent to another in a matter of hours and speak to someone on
the other side of the planet (or even off the planet) instantaneously,
eradicated a number of horrible diseases and made others little more
than annoyances, made bigger, faster, stronger, more precise and
durable machines used by the members of these newsgroups, . . . . But
you get the idea, and I haven't even scratched the surface.
I hate to point this out but "science" is really only some 150 years old.
Really hard to put a date on it. Some say it started as far back as the
Italian Renaissance in the 15th and 16th Centuries, with people like Da
Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus and others who actively started exploring
our world absent silly superstition. (I hold this view, because that is
when the scientific method was first proposed; that events we observe
every day can be explained _and accurately predicted_ by empirical
means rather than supernatural ones.)
300 years was merely a number I plucked out of the air. 1707
corresponds to the important working period of one of the most famous
and influential scientists of all time: Isaac Newton. (Yes, he believed
in God. Lots of other scientists do, too.)
150 years ago, science was in full swing. By then, we had people like
Charles Darwin working on the important questions in nature. I guess
he's one of your favorite guys, huh? (Also a believer, BTW.)
Quoted message said:Oh, wait, you're trying to tell us that what the CHURCH did was science. Old
Gregor Mendel and his like?
Mendel was a monastic. That's not difficult to understand. Then, as
now, some of the great institutions of higher learning (and scientific
study) were religiously based.
I don't overlook the contributions of religion to scientific knowledge.
For instance, I have enormous respect for the Jesuit order at the
Vatican, who operate one of the most sophisticated observatories on the
planet.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:In contrast, religion has given us a few great buildings, some music,
some art, literature, and lots of superstitious claptrap, needless
fear, and destructive prejudices.
And, ahem, science.
I said that. You snipped it. Try to be more honest, you're embarrassing
yourself.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:By all means tell us when and where the universe came from and where it's
ends are.
That's just it. Atheists aren't afraid to say, "I don't know."
Ahem, but they aren't to afraid to say that there isn't a God with equal
knowledge.
Most atheists don't say that at all. They say, if there is a God, it's
up to you to provide evidence of such. Until then, it's within my
rights to lack belief in one. It's the default position.
In the official parlance, these are called "weak atheists," but don't
let the name fool you. They'll tear you and your silly superstitions a
new one; most of them have forgotten more about it than you will ever
learn.
Some atheists, on the other hand, make a positive assertion for which
the burden of proof is on them. I am one of those. I am a so-called
"strong atheist." I actively believe that there is no such thing as a
God or gods. And, ironically, I stand on the weakest of evidence,
because my evidence is that there is no evidence.
As somebody once said (an atheist, by the way), "Lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack." But that same person also said, "Sometimes you
can open your mind so much your brain falls out."
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong.
And the proof comes from you.
No. It comes from real history, not from a book of stories that were
written 40-200 years after the event, from 2nd & 3rd hand sources, and
that do not even support each other in several major details. (Read the
Gospels: who was at the Resurrection and Ascension in each of them?
Don't you think the most important event in the history of mankind
should have been portrayed consistently in its own paltry few
stories?).
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The proof comes from crawling out from under your superstition and
learning a little about the way history works, particularly religious
history.
Ah, yes, your version of history - oh yeah, RELIGIOUS history as if you even
had the slightest clue what you were talking about.
Not my version. A version. One that has some basis in actual historical
fact, supported by contemporary documents and a variety of other
evidence. As opposed to _this_ delightful bit of circular reasoning:
"The bible is true because the bible says it's true."
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine. The fact that you find religious
people so offensive does lead me to believe that you have a lot more
questions than you'll admit.
I don't find religious people offensive. That is, most of them. Most of
them are perfectly fine and I get along great with them. It's the fact
that religion turns otherwise rational people's minds to mush (or
worse, to mindless violence) that I find offensive.
And your claim that you know how the universe was created in a big bang is
like SOOOO scientific.
I could be wrong. That's my whole point about science. The Big Bang
might be one of those "just so" stories, like the ones you learned in
Sunday School. But the Big Bang is one of the best models we have right
now about how everything we can measure came to be. It works down to
the smallest detail (with caveats, because there are some problems in
some interpretations of it--and some VERY interesting ideas are coming
out of that).
I can assure you that 1000 years from now people will be wondering how
we could believe in such a quaint notion. Those people will be the
descendants of scientists, not Jerry Falwell.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:And yes, I have a million questions that I don't claim to have the
answers to.
Strange that you don't seem to have any question about the existance of God.
No. None at all. I have no question about the purple monkeys flying out
your ass, either. What's that? You say you can't prove there are no
purple monkeys flying out your ass? Well, I say you're wrong, and I
have this book right here that tells me so.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:By all means tell me - how long is a Day to God?
On this planet, "day" has a very specific meaning.
But the bible claims that it wasn't until the third day that God created the
earth. So your claim is that he would have had to know what a day was before
there was a sun and then an earth and he would force his time schedule to
your beliefs.
Oh, Puh-lease. Save me your ancient regional creation myths. In my neck
of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
lizard. You can't prove it didn't happen that way, away out there on
the rainbow bridge.
Quoted message said:You grow more interesting by the minute. Tell me, does all that knowledge
prevent you from being a stupid ass all the time? Or do you have moments of
lucidity?
Meh. Grow up. Do you want to talk about this or do you want to hurl
what you mistakenly believe are witty insults?
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com
