Tired of the religious right putting down science

[pcosmar]

Reform Judaism

Reformed?

Into what?

 

[Toxic]

No, we have done plenty of theoretical research. The engineers need time to catch up with it. That was the entire point of my post, but I guess it went over your head.

The engineers can catch up to what's been discovered up to this point, but research can continue. New information can give engineers shortcuts and make improvements.

 

[Toxic]

Reformed?

Into what?

Look it up.

 

[Southron]

So we have a cruel god then?

Only if we deserve better, which we do not. We deserve death.

 

[jmdrake]

Give me some examples of God's interventions.

Napolean's general's messenger's horse shoe nail. Personal prayers in my own life that have been answered. My son's own faith when sharing his faith being rewarded because the atheist kid who teased him came to Christ. My mother and aunt praying a storm away when my dad had taken the roof off my aunt's house in order to repair it. The times in my life where I should have been dead due to my own stupidity but I'm not. The time I was warned in a dream to pray for my then toddler son that he not get hit by a car, and less than a week later he came within a foot of being hit by a car. (The odd thing is it was the other son that was the most likely to run out in front of a car. So why did I dream instead about his more cautious brother?) I could go on and on.

 

[Toxic]

Only if we deserve better, which we do not. We deserve death.

That's a pretty bleak outlook.

 

[Muwahid]

But there is proof. You're Muslim, if I remember correctly, or am I wrong? If you are then consider Mohammed's ascension into Heaven from Jerusalem, and his revelatory writings where Allah reveals Paradise in examples as the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man. All of these are proofs of Heaven. Mohammed saw Heaven, even went there in vision.

Allow me to explain. I use proof in the strictest meaning of the word, in other words something that is hardcore evidence of something being true. We can chalk up a lot of what's in the scriptures as perhaps anecdotal evidence, but that's not the strongest type. We refer to verse in the Qur'an as "ayaats" meaning "signs" because they're just signs, meant to guide us in the right direction.

My original point was if there is a God, Heaven, or Angels within the confines of this universe, who abide by the laws of this universe, and who can scientifically exist then this is no God, Heaven, or Angel.

I think what you refer to are miracles which cannot be proven scientifically. Me personally I don't believe in things like near-death experiences because I believe we have a date and time when we die, and there's no such thing as near-death or almost dying. But we have plenty of miracles in Islam, both from the scriptures that are reported by many people and authenticated as well as modern day, like divinely inspired dreams, the "ebtesimaat ash-shuhada" which are "smiling martyrs", and interestingly something I saw in Catholicism called "Incorruptibility" where the dead Saints do not decay, we also share this as a "sign" of God and Heaven.

If we could take an Atheist and show him or her all these things they then may be inclined to believe but it wouldn't be 100% concrete proof, solid fact that God exists or "x" religion is correct, or heaven exists.

Therefore I believe firmly religion(s) will never be a provable fact, and that's why we are rewarded for believing in God and living our lives according to his morality, we do not have to bring a big telescope out and find "heaven" for God to exist, because God is a higher power than that, God is the creator of science and therefore can NOT conflict with it, and does not have to obey by it's laws.

Faith requires faith

 

[Toxic]

Napolean's general's messenger's horse shoe nail. Personal prayers in my own life that have been answered. My son's own faith when sharing his faith being rewarded because the atheist kid who teased him came to Christ. My mother and aunt praying a storm away when my dad had taken the roof off my aunt's house in order to repair it. The times in my life where I should have been dead due to my own stupidity but I'm not. The time I was warned in a dream to pray for my then toddler son that he not get hit by a car, and less than a week later he came within a foot of being hit by a car. (The odd thing is it was the other son that was the most likely to run out in front of a car. So why did I dream instead about his more cautious brother?) I could go on and on.

And what about all the other billions of people of faith throughout history who prayed for God to help them, yet them and those they cared about still faced misery, torture, and death? Does God love you more than all of them? What did you do to get on his good side?

 

[jmdrake]

The engineers can catch up to what's been discovered up to this point, but research can continue. New information can give engineers shortcuts and make improvements.

And as long as people who want to pay for these things pay for them, fine. But why take money from taxpayers to pay for it? Where is that in the constitution? I think that was probably Mike Church's point. He's never struck me as part of the "religious right". Neither does Alex Jones (since you mentioned one of his sit ins). It seems to me that you're conflating disagreement over how to fund science with your own prejudice against conservative Christianity. If someone isn't for public funding of science, they must be "anti science" and it must be because they are part of the "religious right".

 

[jmdrake]

And what about all the other billions of people of faith throughout history who prayed for God to help them, yet them and those they cared about still faced misery, torture, and death? Does God love you more than all of them? What did you do to get on his good side?

You claim to be an adherent to Judaism. Have you not read the book of Job? Or better yet, have you read Daniel?

Daniel 3:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

It's not about whether God loves one person more or not, but what ultimately does the most good. The blood of Stephen sowed the seeds for the conversion of Paul.

Edit: Tell me this. You don't believe in heaven, but you apparently believe in God. (Not sure about that though). If heaven is real, and if you went there, after being in heaven for 1,000 years would you really care about what happened to you on earth for < 100 years? Why?

 

[Toxic]

And as long as people who want to pay for these things pay for them, fine. But why take money from taxpayers to pay for it? Where is that in the constitution? I think that was probably Mike Church's point. He's never struck me as part of the "religious right". Neither does Alex Jones (since you mentioned one of his sit ins). It seems to me that you're conflating disagreement over how to fund science with your own prejudice against conservative Christianity. If someone isn't for public funding of science, they must be "anti science" and it must be because they are part of the "religious right".

When did they mention funding and taxes in these specific shows that I'm referring to?

 

[Toxic]

You claim to be an adherent to Judaism. Have you not read the book of Job? Or better yet, have you read Daniel?

Daniel 3:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

It's not about whether God loves one person more or not, but what ultimately does the most good. The blood of Stephen sowed the seeds for the conversion of Paul.

So it does the most good to save someone from a car accident or drug addiction, but not to save millions of people from a holocaust?

 

[jmdrake]

When did they mention funding and taxes in these specific shows that I'm referring to?

Well I haven't heard the specific shows you're referring to and you haven't given me any links. That said I'm going by what I know about Mike Church and Alex Jones. Neither one of them are for big government. Regardless, if their argument wasn't about funding, then your thread is pointless unless one or both of them advocated laws against basic research whether it was privately funded or not.

 

[jmdrake]

So it does the most good to save someone from a car accident or drug addiction, but not to save millions of people from a holocaust?

I don't have a cosmic calculator. Do you?

 

[jmdrake]

And we'll never have them if scientists put the brakes on their research.

Please explain why you think some talk show hosts not going "ra ra ra Higgs Boson sis boom ba" is going to cause scientists to "put the brakes" on their research. The talk show hosts might convince their listeners to tell their congressmen that such research shouldn't be publicly funded. But if you're for smaller government, you're for smaller government.

 

[Toxic]

Well I haven't heard the specific shows you're referring to and you haven't given me any links. That said I'm going by what I know about Mike Church and Alex Jones. Neither one of them are for big government. Regardless, if their argument wasn't about funding, then your thread is pointless unless one or both of them advocated laws against basic research whether it was privately funded or not.

I'm not sure why you missed the whole point of this thread. I'm talking about the popular opinion by many on the right that scientific findings aren't all that special and are sometimes unnecessary. Also that scientists have some kind of scheme to destroy people's faith in God. It appears to me that guys like these feel threatened by the advancement of science and want to crap on it instead of support it. Having a problem with tax payer funding is a legitimate argument, but that's not what was discussed.

 

[Toxic]

I don't have a cosmic calculator. Do you?

It's in the shop.

But seriously folks, if you're going to claim to know so much about God's plan and claim to know that he has the power to intervene and DOES intervene, then I would hope for a better answer.

 

[Toxic]

Please explain why you think some talk show hosts not going "ra ra ra Higgs Boson sis boom ba" is going to cause scientists to "put the brakes" on their research. The talk show hosts might convince their listeners to tell their congressmen that such research shouldn't be publicly funded. But if you're for smaller government, you're for smaller government.

You gotta try to follow me here cuz this discussion is going all over the place. I never suggested that radio talk show host's comments will put the brakes on anything. I'm talking about the notion that scientific research has surpassed engineering and needs to stop or slow down in order for the engineering to catch up. There is absolutely no reason for that.

 

[pcosmar]

Religious Right??

I'm tired of the Religious Wrong?

You know,, the only people Jesus ever spoke harshly to or about were the Religious ones.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure why you missed the whole point of this thread. I'm talking about the popular opinion by many on the right that scientific findings aren't all that special and are sometimes unnecessary. Also that scientists have some kind of scheme to destroy people's faith in God. It appears to me that guys like these feel threatened by the advancement of science and want to crap on it instead of support it. Having a problem with tax payer funding is a legitimate argument, but that's not what was discussed.

Again...please link to the shows. And regardless of what might motivate someone like Mike Church to poo poo some particular finding (and I agree with MelissaW that some scientist calling it a "God particle" was stupid and plays into the very arguments that you are so against) it doesn't matter unless except to the extent of what they might DO about it. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Unless Mike Church or Alex Jones or Alex Jones' fill in was advocating some law against said research who cares? (You do obviously, but why?)