Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[fiveworlds]

You are basically making my point for me when you say

"Some on the fringe do count the "begats" and conclude the 6000 year story. Again, this is not mainstream and it is not taken in all religions."

It isn't mainstream now, but it was.

At that point the church was lying about being able to calculate the age of the universe by looking at an old book.

 

 

Lots of scientific discoveries ran into trouble with religion.

Since religion taught (but doesn't any more) that all the creatures on earth were for the benefit of mankind, the discovery of invisible life that man could not even see, never mind use was a problem.

The churches, initially refused to accept that they existed.

This was a particular problem with pathogens which struck people down with illness simply by chance rather than as divine retribution.

 

Then there's the view of the church that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

That overstayed its welcome to the detriment of many- the church finally apologized for lying about Galileo's ideas late in the 20th c.

 

And, re this

"I will remind John Cuthber that you do have a religion."

Nope, Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair-colour or not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

 

Nope what they said is that it is older than 6100 years old. Not that it couldn't be older. I think they only mentioned it because scientists were saying it was 3000 years old etc being way wrong and it wasn't a book

Edited July 9, 2014 by fiveworlds

[moth]

 

Nope what they said is that it is older than 6100 years old. Not that it couldn't be older. I think they only mentioned it because scientists were saying it was 3000 years old etc being way wrong and it wasn't a book

 

Do you have a reference for that? The YEC brigade might be relieved to know this.

[John Cuthber]

 

Nope what they said is that it is older than 6100 years old. Not that it couldn't be older. I think they only mentioned it because scientists were saying it was 3000 years old etc being way wrong and it wasn't a book

No, they did not say "it must be at least...", they specified the exact day.

They said

"In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. "

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

And this bit

"Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead."

tells you which book they used- the Hebrew Bible.

 

 

Wouldn't it be better if you found out what you were on about before posting?

Edited July 9, 2014 by John Cuthber

[fiveworlds]

No, they did not say "it must be at least...", they specified the exact day.

They said

"In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. "

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

And this bit

"Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead."

tells you which book they used- the Hebrew Bible.

 

 

Wouldn't it be better if you found out what you were on about before posting?

 

They specified an exact day yep since their trade was founded. Hebrew bible ah no. The hebrew bible may mention the trade but it is a real trade. It says according to our Chronologie or as far as we know. Also when the trade was founded people did have great grand-parents etc so at least 6100 years.

Edited July 9, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Moontanman]

What religious code? Do you mean the one the woman is not practicing? Difficult to determine what she is not doing since she is not doing it.

 

Please tell us which religious text and the part in it that you refer to. I recall none that allow forced abortions.

 

Both John Cuthber and I would like to know.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

 

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

No pregnancy equals no abortion. Very scientific.

Not to mention unreasonable

 

Without unwanted conception there would be no reason for abortion.

This is simply not true, abortions are preformed for reasons other than not wanting to be pregnant

 

Human nature: men will have sex with anything that will let them. Very scientific.

Sounds like men need to keep it zipped up or at least wrap that rascal. BTW this is very childish, this is not human nature but the nature of an immature little boy.

 

If woman doesn't allow, man must commit crime of rape.

Is this the argument of a 12 year old boy? If a man can't find a woman who is willing he must commit rape? Your argument is childish and stupid... If a women says no, it means no, that means the little boy has to take care of his pee pee all alone...

 

Unless and until we evolve to where men get pregnant, women must bear the responsibility for pregnancy.

No, it takes two to tango and rapists must be dealt with by the law and harshly too.

 

Since you didn't say, I will suppose the house doesn't have to be particularly attractive to you in order for you to get up what it takes to set it on fire. If you're like most men, if a house will open its door you will enter. If a house is willing to have you inside, shame on the house for not protecting itself from your fire starter.

Your view on this issue is disgusting, most men are mature enough to treat women like the people they are. You have no respect for women or your self.

 

I mean really people, let's talk real world.

Yes let us talk real world, in what universe is your world located?

 

In general: A man doesn't give a rip if a woman gets pregnant because he has sex with her. He sees it as her problem, not his. All the man is after is the sex. He will say and do pretty much anything he has to to get it. No ladies, he doesn't love you and he won't respect you the morning after. Get over it. Men have always seen women as sex objects. Its the old Clint Eastwood movie thing: if you can't eat it, fight it or f__k it then piss on it; if women didn't have a pu__sy there would be a bounty on them, they would just be varmints.

No, real human beings care for each other, real men and women accept responsibility for themselves, they don't trey to shift the burden of responsibility like a small child.

 

Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

Nope what they said is that it is older than 6100 years old. Not that it couldn't be older. I think they only mentioned it because scientists were saying it was 3000 years old etc being way wrong and it wasn't a book

Scientists were saying the world was 3000 years old? Theists were saying it was more than 6100 years old, can you substantiate any of this nonsense?

[fiveworlds]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

 

 

 

Not to mention unreasonable

 

 

This is simply not true, abortions are preformed for reasons other than not wanting to be pregnant

 

 

Sounds like men need to keep it zipped up or at least wrap that rascal. BTW this is very childish, this is not human nature but the nature of an immature little boy.

 

 

Is this the argument of a 12 year old boy? If a man can't find a woman who is willing he must commit rape? Your argument is childish and stupid... If a women says no, it means no, that means the little boy has to take care of his pee pee all alone...

 

 

No, it takes two to tango and rapists must be dealt with by the law and harshly too.

 

 

Your view on this issue is disgusting, most men are mature enough to treat women like the people they are. You have no respect for women or your self.

 

 

Yes let us talk real world, in what universe is your world located?

 

 

No, real human beings care for each other, real men and women accept responsibility for themselves, they don't trey to shift the burden of responsibility like a small child.

 

 

 

Scientists were saying the world was 3000 years old? Theists were saying it was more than 6100 years old, can you substantiate any of this nonsense?

Can you?

[Phi for All]

Can you?

 

I'd like to substantiate that Fred Champion's arguments don't reflect any man I know or would care to know. I'd like to substantiate that it's an abysmally childish argument, and one that seems to be prevalent with those who think being a sociopath is cool.

[fiveworlds]

 

I'd like to substantiate that Fred Champion's arguments don't reflect any man I know or would care to know. I'd like to substantiate that it's an abysmally childish argument, and one that seems to be prevalent with those who think being a sociopath is cool.

Not necessarily I am not 6000 years old therefore I don't know the truth. Now I can be told something is the truth and believe it but without actually knowing it beyond all reasonable doubt I cannot prove it. But the same is true for every religion on the planet. Everybody's a blooming sociopath and everybody lies. We do have a bit of paper though not much and what's paper anyway? It's like a page. I was told that was because it was easy to burn.

Edited July 10, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Moontanman]

Not necessarily I am not 6000 years old therefore I don't know the truth. Now I can be told something is the truth and believe it but without actually knowing it beyond all reasonable doubt I cannot prove it. But the same is true for every religion on the planet. Everybody's a blooming sociopath and everybody lies. We do have a bit of paper though not much and what's paper anyway? It's like a page. I was told that was because it was easy to burn.

So no humans currently alive saw "it" so your totally unsupported gibberish is just as good as empirically tested repeatable scientific evidence?

 

You do not have to personally witness something to find out if it is true. That is one of the saddest arguments from personal incredulity I have read in some time. Do yourself a favor and watch a few episodes of CSI to get an understanding of how evidence allows us to know what happened in the past as opposed to having faith in totally unsupported nonsense..

Can you?

You are the one who made a positive assertion. I simply asked you to show me evidence you are correct...

[fiveworlds]

So no humans currently alive saw "it" so your totally unsupported gibberish is just as good as empirically tested repeatable scientific evidence?

 

You do not have to personally witness something to find out if it is true. That is one of the saddest arguments from personal incredulity I have read in some time. Do yourself a favor and watch a few episodes of CSI to get an understanding of how evidence allows us to know what happened in the past as opposed to having faith in totally unsupported nonsense..

 

You are the one who made a positive assertion. I simply asked you to show me evidence you are correct...

 

You know the pope used to give titles to people on a single page with a papal seal. If the queen of england made somebody governor of wherever they were given a piece of paper with the queen's seal. Not every governor was well liked hence it was paper. But as far as i'm aware it's actually the teaching trade. With most being school life governors.

Edited July 10, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Ophiolite]

 

<Obnoxious nonsense removed>

Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

True in your universe, perhaps. Fortunately not true in the one I inhabit.

[Delta1212]

Since you didn't say, I will suppose the house doesn't have to be particularly attractive to you in order for you to get up what it takes to set it on fire. If you're like most men, if a house will open its door you will enter. If a house is willing to have you inside, shame on the house for not protecting itself from your fire starter.

 

Aside from that being woefully poor use of metaphor: What? I assume that your "assumption" that I don't have standards is meant as an insult, but how do you reconcile that with the idea that any man will have sex with any willing woman? It's like you think men are compelled to have sex with anything that moves and there's no way around it.

 

For the record, I've met plenty of women that I absolutely wouldn't touch even if they threw themselves at me, and I guess you don't think males have any responsibility for staying monogamous in a relationship.

 

I mean really people, let's talk real world.

 

In general: A man doesn't give a rip if a woman gets pregnant because he has sex with her. He sees it as her problem, not his. All the man is after is the sex. He will say and do pretty much anything he has to to get it. No ladies, he doesn't love you and he won't respect you the morning after. Get over it. Men have always seen women as sex objects. Its the old Clint Eastwood movie thing: if you can't eat it, fight it or f__k it then piss on it; if women didn't have a pu__sy there would be a bounty on them, they would just be varmints.

 

Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

Holy @&%# what kind of people do you interact with? I mean, just on a personal basis, not caring if you get a woman pregnant? Like, on purely selfish grounds that can have a huge impact on your social and financial well-being. Any guy that doesn't care if he impregnates someone is an imbecile.

 

Second, the fact that you think all men see all women as sex objects and that if they couldn't be used for sex women they would be hunted just betrays some really warped views on women. I'm seriously at a loss for how to respond to that.

[John Cuthber]

Second, the fact that you think all men see all women as sex objects and that if they couldn't be used for sex women they would be hunted just betrays some really warped views on women. I'm seriously at a loss for how to respond to that.

The site rules have a way to respond to people who repeatedly insult groups of other people.

[dimreepr]

If woman doesn't allow, man must commit crime of rape.

 

 

Given you think that let’s hope, For the sake of the women you come into contact with, you manage to find a willing partner; maybe then you’ll grow up.

[Fred Champion]

True in your universe, perhaps. Fortunately not true in the one I inhabit.

Open your eyes. From Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods to thousands of college kids drunk and half naked on Youtube. Tens of thousands of teen and even pre-teen pregnant girls dropping out of school. Millions of "single moms" on some sort of government dole. One common denominator: sex. One common numerator: stupidity. Perhaps you would prefer to call it a lack of respect for themselves. Yes, it is and I say it is also a lack of respect for the rest of society.

 

Human nature. Mix one part female pheromones with one part male testosterone. Add a pinch of something to resease inhibition and a dash of sweet talk. Stir well with opportunity. Danger: mix will come to a boil rapidly, wear protection.

 

I think respect for the other members of one's society comes mostly from maturity. A man's' actions seem to be heavily influenced by his level of testosterone: more testosterone, more aggression. I don't know why we don't drill this into the heads of girls. Maybe its because it would emphasize the difference between men and women. No, can't do that, not politically correct.

 

Education seems to help raise social awareness, especially if it includes philosophy for living one's life (code for establishing a base for morals). Unfortunately, those promoting a socialist agenda don't seem to be able or willing to connect the breakdown of traditional family values with the increase in the welfare rolls. Of course they don't see increasing dependence on government as a bad thing either. And they have changed meaning of the term "family" to mean any group of people. How politically correct.

 

Any person or any society that rewards bad behavior is doing the wrong thing. But that's just my politically un-correct view.

... I assume that your "assumption" that I don't have standards is meant as an insult,

...

No, not at all. I would never intentionally attempt to insult anyone. I see no point in insults.

 

All I meant was that the response was not brought on by a desire inflamed by irresistible and overwhelming attraction. The moth cannot resist the flame.

[dimreepr]

Open your eyes. From Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods to thousands of college kids drunk and half naked on Youtube. Tens of thousands of teen and even pre-teen pregnant girls dropping out of school. Millions of "single moms" on some sort of government dole. One common denominator: sex. One common numerator: stupidity. Perhaps you would prefer to call it a lack of respect for themselves. Yes, it is and I say it is also a lack of respect for the rest of society.

 

 

This is the problem you get, when you let the media/news inform your opinion of the world in which we live.

 

I have never met a rapist, as far as I know; unfortunately, I've met far too many misogynists.

Edited July 10, 2014 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Human nature.

I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "confirmation bias" as soon as possible.

[John Cuthber]

Open your eyes. From Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods to thousands of college kids drunk and half naked on Youtube. Tens of thousands of teen and even pre-teen pregnant girls dropping out of school. Millions of "single moms" on some sort of government dole. One common denominator: sex.

 

It seems that you are unable to count as far as two, or determined to ignore your own bias, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you.

Two common denominators

1) Sex and

2) men

[aaa16797]

Religion is used to explain what hasn't been publicly explained by science. Easy.

[John Cuthber]

"Religion is used to explain what hasn't been publicly explained by science. Easy."

Can you give some examples please?

Also, please remember "God id it" isn't an explanation of anything unless you can explain where God came from and why He did it.

 

BTW, had you read all the thread before you posted?

[Fred Champion]

I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "confirmation bias" as soon as possible.

Every experience we have prejudices us for every subsequent experience. Its called learning. Most people have learned that men do not get pregnant. Men like sex. Women like sex. Everyone likes sex. Well, most people - normal people - like sex. Means, motive, opportunity. We carry the means with us, the motive is pleasure. All we need is opportunity. Yes, human nature. This is not bias, it is fact.

 

Sex is an external experience for men, an internal one for women. Big difference. Oops, not politically correct. Sex is dangereous for a man only to the extent that he may get something on himself that he can't wash off. Bad enough, but local. Affecting one man, if he doesn't spread it. Sex is dangereous for a woman in the same way of course, but there is a very big additional danger. Can anyone guess what it is? Clue: it affects more than one life.

 

It is the nature of human women that they sometimes get pregnant by having unprotected sex with a man. The majority of women know this and yet many who do know take no action to prevent it. Why? Fact is that the average man doesn't see it as his poblem. And guess what: in the politically correct socialist society no one is allowed to see it as a problem; the "village" welcomes each new arrival and celebrates the new mom, showering her with benefits.

 

The best part is that all those benefits don't cost anything; they're free, the government just gives them out. How wonderful.

It seems that you are unable to count as far as two, or determined to ignore your own bias, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you.

Two common denominators

1) Sex and

2) men

Sex and men do not equal pregnant. You have left out the one necessary ingredient for baking that bun.

 

Oh no, did I really make a not very clever reference to an "oven"?

 

Let's go to Walmart and count only the number of people entering the store who are pregnant. Will we need two tally sheets, one for the men we will count and a second for the women?

[dimreepr]

I’m feeling a little left out of this conversation, Fred are you ignoring me or don’t you understand my posts?

 

You don’t seem to understand iNow or John’s posts either but that doesn’t seem to slow your roll.

[Fred Champion]

 

 

This is the problem you get, when you let the media/news inform your opinion of the world in which we live.

 

I have never met a rapist, as far as I know; unfortunately, I've met far too many misogynists.

Wow. I have never met a man who hates women. With the exception of a few homosexuals, every man I have ever met loved women. I have known at least one man who was convicted of rape. Seems like there was another, but I can't remember.

 

What "problem" do you refer to? The current state of society? Many in the media have agendas. Best to use multiple sources for one's information. Do you really trust any government spokesperson?

 

When I was young I would listen to the US news on TV, then the Soviet news on short wave. Both badly biased. Then I would get the real story, again on short wave, from the BBC.

[dimreepr]

The problem I refer to isn’t the bias you’re referencing but the simple fact that news isn’t just news it’s only the bad stuff, the problems of society and the extremes of human nature, which is why you should do as iNow suggests.

 

Misogyny is far more subtle than simple hate, male sexual needs ensures that.

 

 

I have known at least one man who was convicted of rape. Seems like there was another, but I can't remembe

 

 

 

How many men have you known?

 

The point is the vast majority of men aren't rapists and if you were to ask disinterested parties a very high percentage of them won’t know one either.

[Fred Champion]

I’m feeling a little left out of this conversation, Fred are you ignoring me or don’t you understand my posts?

 

You don’t seem to understand iNow or John’s posts either but that doesn’t seem to slow your roll.

I don't use the same rose colored glasses as some others seem to. And I don't entertain a utopian view of people or society. Encouraging personal responsibility from others, as I do, is not politically correct. I do not expect agreement.

 

Nicholas was asking for a way to reconcile what he saw as conflict. I think any such reconciliation must begin with understanding that each person has not just the sole authority for their own life but also the commensurate responsibility for their life. This concept is anathema for those who want some form of commune-ism for society.

 

When I expressed the idea that women as well as men should take responsibility for their lives, especially in what I consider the most important part of their lives, bring new life into the world, I expected attack. I am getting it. I hope Nicholas recognizes it for what it is.