Science is the God of a modern atheist

[Drowning Man]

1. They place it opposite from the actual God in discussion.
2. They have significant faith in it.
3. They think acquiring scientific knowledge is a goal in and of itself and they have no specific goal beyond it.
4. Scientific knowledge gives their life meaning and gives them comfort at times of extreme stress the same way faith in God comforts a believer.

Prove me wrong.

1. Not necessarily. There are plenty of scientists that are theists.
2. Er...faith is belief despite lack of or contrary evidence. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge based on evidence, trial and peer review. I'm not sure how you're trying to equate that to "faith".
3. First, who are "they"? Second, there are lots of goals to acquiring scientific knowledge. I'm not sure where you're getting this one from.
4. Um...not really. I don't think that it's a comforting belief that there isn't a life beyond this one, that there is no moral code handed down to us by a supreme being, that we have absolutely no reason to believe that wrongs will be righted in the end, etc...

Basically, I think you need to work harder on proving your unfounded statements true, rather than for me to prove you wrong...

 

[Daisy]

This is not knowledge that requires Devine intervention.

At that time in history, it most certainly was...

 

[tosca1]

1. They place it opposite from the actual God in discussion.
2. They have significant faith in it.
3. They think acquiring scientific knowledge is a goal in and of itself and they have no specific goal beyond it.
4. Scientific knowledge gives their life meaning and gives them comfort at times of extreme stress the same way faith in God comforts a believer.

Prove me wrong.

Science is the god of the modern atheists.........ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.


I gave them this evidence that science has not taken the possibility of creation by God out of the equation - well, they just won't accept it!



Here, straight from the National Academy of Sciences!

....... many scientists, hold that

God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[digitusmedius]

Greeks figured out the spherical shape by placing markers at certain points and measuring the length of the shadow cast at noon.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...g-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene

And no i was being factual. The horizon is always at eye level no matter if you stand at sea level or on top of a mountain. The reason for this is that the earths layer of air causes a reflex distortion making it look as if the horizon at eye level.

OK... several things. As predicted you ignored the link about the Greeks and how they determined the Earth's spherical shape. And I specifically didn't address your sea level comment since it was correct in general but not for the reason you cited above but because it's not possible for the eye to see the curve until it's 50,000 feet above sea level. What I ridiculed is that you went on to identify yourself as a flat-earther. You've probably seen NASA photos and dismiss them as hoaxes:

 

[vegas giants]

But certain knowledge was given the prophets long before the nations or science came to realize...such as...

Covering human feces...Deuteronomy 23:13

Leviticus chapter 11 establishes in principle that disease can be spread by insect, by rodent, and, most important, by contaminated water. This latter silently attests to the principle that disease is caused by microorganisms, showing the Bible to be millenniums ahead of Leeuwenhoek (1683) or Pasteur (19th century). The same could be said of quarantining, mandated in Leviticus chapter 13 in cases of leprosy.


Dietary prohibitions recorded at Leviticus 11:13-20 included predators, such as eagles, ospreys, and owls, and scavengers, such as the raven and the vulture. Located as they are at the top of the food chain, they concentrate large quantities of toxins. Animals lower down in the food chain ingest these toxins in amounts that are insignificant in themselves, whereas those animals at the top of the food chain accumulate them in concentrated doses. The Mosaic Law allowed the eating of some animals that were vegetarians and were not in a food chain that concentrated toxins. Certain forbidden meats harbored encysted parasites such as those causing trichinosis.

The Bible’s prohibition against misuse of blood, embodied in the Mosaic Law in several places, is now after 3,500 years proving to be medically sound. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-16; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23) The restriction is repeated in the Christian Greek Scriptures at Acts 15:20, 29 and Ac 21:25. Medical practice is attempting to minimize or entirely eliminate use of donor blood in kidney dialysis, heart-lung pumps, and surgery in general. Hepatitis in its many forms, AIDS, cytomegalovirus infection, and myriad other blood-borne maladies stand as gruesome reminders to the worldly wise who ignore God’s laws.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101991841

And mixing fabrics


That's just crazy

 

[vegas giants]

Science is the god of the modern atheists.........ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.


I gave them this evidence that science has not taken the possibility of creation by God out of the equation - well, they just won't accept it!



Here, straight from the National Academy of Sciences!

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

We can not rule out the flying spaghetti monster is God

 

[Aunt Antifa]

At that time in history, it most certainly was...

And that's the crux of the issue. You want me to believe a magical deity gave them insight. I think that some smart dudes are the time figured some things out.

 

[watsup]

Science is the god of the modern atheists.........ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.


I gave them this evidence that science has not taken the possibility of creation by God out of the equation - well, they just won't accept it!



Here, straight from the National Academy of Sciences!

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

Science is the god of the modern atheists.........ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.


I gave them this evidence that science has not taken the possibility of creation by God out of the equation - well, they just won't accept it!



Here, straight from the National Academy of Sciences!

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

Theistic evolution is called a BELIEF in that article. A “belief” is just that. It is not scientific theory in any way, shape, or form. Science involves itself in UNDERSTANDING, not “belief”. Believe all you want, but it’s not science.

 

[Daisy]

And that's the crux of the issue. You want me to believe a magical deity gave them insight. I think that some smart dudes are the time figured some things out.

So, you tell me...how else did they know these things when the people of the nations did not?

 

[tosca1]

Theistic evolution is called a BELIEF in that article. A “belief” is just that. It is not scientific theory in any way, shape, or form. Science involves itself in UNDERSTANDING, not “belief”. Believe all you want, but it’s not science.

You still struggling with that?

It doesn't matter if it's a belief. The faq says what it says.


See what I mean? They just won't accept it - even if it's stated plainly and clearly.
Watsup is the latest example.

 

[Mr Person]

If you are desperate to equate religious faith with scientific endeavor, you might not have as much faith as you think you do.

Science deals with disprovable hypotheses. Things are correct, or they are not. Science is rational. Science is accepted until disproven.

Faith is inherently irrational. It is belief without fact, or even in the seeming face of fact. Faith is held no matter what, or is supposed to be . . . even if some evil warlord tortures your entire family to death in front of you, faith is believing anyway.

They are not comparable.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So, you tell me...how else did they know these things when the people of the nations did not?

The same way anyone knows anything - curiosity. That’s how humanity adapts and survives. That’s how it works. If we don’t figure out these things, we die.

 

[watsup]

You still struggling with that?

It doesn't matter if it's a belief. The faq says what it says.

You still have not shown that you have even the slightest idea of what theistic evolution actually entails. You are just making the same repetitive post without being able to actually discuss its meaning.
Believe all you want. Scientists don’t care. They will continue to unravel the mysteries of the natural world without a second thought as to whether there is a “God”.

 

[Daisy]

The same way anyone knows anything - curiosity. That’s how humanity adapts and survives. That’s how it works. If we don’t figure out these things, we die.

If others, besides the Israelite nation, knew these things, I could possibly believe that...but they didn't...the Mosaic Law was unique to the Israelites...

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If others, besides the Israelite nation, knew these things, I could possibly believe that...but they didn't...the Mosaic Law was unique to the Israelites...

So you’re saying an organized society figured some stuff out quicker than others?

 

[Daisy]

So you’re saying an organized society figured some stuff out quicker than others?

Centuries quicker...

 

[roguenuke]

No you cannot, not by observation alone. In fact just observing would tell you that the earth is more likely to be shaped liked a dish with its edges curved up.
Regardless of whether you stand at sea level or are flying in an aeroplane the horizon is always at eye level.

Only if you didn't know land existed. If your boat is in motion, common sense tells you that if you cant see land but know land is there and nothing is obstructing your view, the world must be round. If the world is flat, you should be able to see some land mass in the far distance, not just water and sky. Especially some place like coming up on NYC, where you should see the buildings much sooner than you do, and it shouldn't be you only able to see the tops of buildings first.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[watsup]

So you’re saying an organized society figured some stuff out quicker than others?

The Mosaic law is not the be-all, end-all of morality and ethics in the world. All the other religions and all the nations of the world developed ethics without stone tablets.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The Mosaic law is not the be-all, end-all of morality and ethics in the world. All the other religions and all the nations of the world developed ethics without stone tablets.

Right. That commonality should demonstrate this is a human trait, not a divine one.

 

[tosca1]

No you cannot, not by observation alone. In fact just observing would tell you that the earth is more likely to be shaped liked a dish with its edges curved up.
Regardless of whether you stand at sea level or are flying in an aeroplane the horizon is always at eye level.

I have to say Roguenuke is right. I got curious and googled:

When a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Instead, the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon.

The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident that 1881's "Zetetic Astronomy," the first modern flat-Earth text, devotes a chapter to "debunking" it. The explanation relies on assuming that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by perspective. This debunking does not make much sense, however, as there's nothing about perspective (which just says that things are smaller over longer distances) that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)

Rapper B.o.B wants to launch a satellite into space to find out, once and for all, whether the Earth is flat or round. Here are seven other ways to prove our planet is spherical.

www.livescience.com

 

[soylentgreen]

I have to say Roguenuke is right. I got curious and googled:

7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)

Rapper B.o.B wants to launch a satellite into space to find out, once and for all, whether the Earth is flat or round. Here are seven other ways to prove our planet is spherical.

www.livescience.com

Yes that is true if observing a moving object crossing the horizon. However just viewing the horizon itself means that the horizon is at eye level. Merely looking out at the sea and the horizon will not tell anyone that the earth is round.

 

[soylentgreen]

Only if you didn't know land existed. If your boat is in motion, common sense tells you that if you cant see land but know land is there and nothing is obstructing your view, the world must be round. If the world is flat, you should be able to see some land mass in the far distance, not just water and sky. Especially some place like coming up on NYC, where you should see the buildings much sooner than you do, and it shouldn't be you only able to see the tops of buildings first.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I am not trying to argue the world is flat. there are many good reasons to think it is not. However optical illusion caused by the earths atmosphere gives us a visual clue that the earth is dish shaped. It is the same when we see the moon when it is close to the horizon as being much bigger than when we observe the moon directly over head. The earths atmosphere is longer when looking at the horizon than it is looking straight up and the extra distance causes an optical illusion of magnifying the moon.

 

[roguenuke]

I am not trying to argue the world is flat. there are many good reasons to think it is not. However optical illusion caused by the earths atmosphere gives us a visual clue that the earth is dish shaped. It is the same when we see the moon when it is close to the horizon as being much bigger than when we observe the moon directly over head. The earths atmosphere is longer when looking at the horizon than it is looking straight up and the extra distance causes an optical illusion of magnifying the moon.

That explains more about the atmosphere than trying to claim you cant tell the Earth is round from observations of objects from a ship or ships from land. Once you separate the ocean or land from the sky, you can still observe the noted differences in how you should observe an oncoming harbor or outgoing ship if the world were flat from how we actually see it, regardless of how you are observing it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[soylentgreen]

OK... several things. As predicted you ignored the link about the Greeks and how they determined the Earth's spherical shape. And I specifically didn't address your sea level comment since it was correct in general but not for the reason you cited above but because it's not possible for the eye to see the curve until it's 50,000 feet above sea level. What I ridiculed is that you went on to identify yourself as a flat-earther. You've probably seen NASA photos and dismiss them as hoaxes:
View attachment 67296855View attachment 67296856

I did not ignore the mention of the greeks. I gave you a link showing just how the greeks determined the shape of the earth.
No i am not identifying with flat earthers by pointing out that your remark about observing the world is round merely by being out at sea is wrong. That you move the goal post by adding that we now must observe an object on the horizon while at sea in order to determine shape does not effect the fact that merely observing the horizon itself does not determine the shape of earth.

You've probably seen NASA photos and dismiss them as hoaxes:

Again let me point out that i am aware of flat earthers arguments but that does not make me a flat earther.
To that point the excuse given by flat earthers that these pictures are fakes are also because of an optical illusion caused by the earths atmosphere.
A flat earther would point out that these pictures are obviously fake because there are no stars behind the planet just black space. And we all know that the sky is full of stars So where are they in those pictures.

because it's not possible for the eye to see the curve until it's 50,000 feet above sea level.

 

[Exquisitor]

1. They place it opposite from the actual God in discussion.
2. They have significant faith in it.
3. They think acquiring scientific knowledge is a goal in and of itself and they have no specific goal beyond it.
4. Scientific knowledge gives their life meaning and gives them comfort at times of extreme stress the same way faith in God comforts a believer.

Prove me wrong.

There could be something missing from that sentence.. In balance with what? Science in balance with Christianity?

No, Buddhism does not go and say, "Is God," about anyone, they say, "Is Buddha, is enlightenment."

Islam is in balance with Christianity, Christians believe Christ was God, whereas Islam says none of these is God. It is important that the humanity not be deceived by some powerful spirit.

I am and Hare Krishna balance being both vegetarian. Hare Krishna has the program and the I am has the teachings and Ascended Masters so their power balances.