Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

by KateWild 85 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  It is not in conflict, Q. It doesn't speak to the subject at all. Science is about the physical, and uses physical tools. The spiritual is not the physical... and so cannot be measured by the same tools. So no... you're not gonna be able to scan the spirit, (and you missed the metaphor about the microscope, lol); or weigh the 'soul' as some tried to do many years ago thinking that the body would be 'lighter' after death.

  Science teaches what has been discovered to date. Follow those teachings if you choose... change with them when they change. No one is criticizing you for it. (well, no one on this thread that i can see). Some of us can learn from science and respect it... but also maintain our faith and follow Christ and God. Knowing that there is no conflict between the two. The science, given a chance, will prove even that one, eventually.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  tec - Shrugs. I've been you for 30 odd years and I can understand why you speak as you do and why you are left apologising for a lack of physical evidence. When you have something real (physical) we can discuss further, meanwhile all the phenomenom you ascribe to your supernatural being science will explain or has already explained.
• 

  bohm

  Tec: Science teaches what has been discovered to date.

  couldnt agree more. The spirit world is on the same emperical footing as santa, grey men and gollum.
• 

  tec

  Except that we know that Santa (I don't know who grey men are... aliens?... or even what a gollum is other than from LOTR)... are made up by people, Bohm. I have been santa too often to NOT know this. No one knows that Christ and God were made up by people. They speculate plenty, but that is not based on facts... or even on science. It is just speculation, or conspiracy theories. But actual science leaves the unknown/undiscovered (by science)... in the unknown/undiscovered (by science) realm... until such time as evidence turns up that science can examine... often when new and better 'tools' turn up.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  Saint Nicholas

  A 13th-century Egyptian depiction of St. Nicholas fromSaint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai

  Saint Nicholas of Myra was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now inTurkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian withdowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes. [7] He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity. In continental Europe (more precisely the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany) he is usually portrayed as a bearded bishop in canonical robes.
• 

  tec

  Saint Nickolas of the 4th century is not travelling the world on Christmas Eve putting presents under Christmas trees (or yuletide logs, etc) Not because there is no evidence for it (though there is no evidence for it, lol)... but because parents all over the world are the ones PLAYING Santa and putting presents under the tree FROM Santa. (Saint Nick)

  Just sayin'

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  And in the same way there is no spirit world.

  Superstitious people all over the world are the ones inventing gods and demons in their own imaginations.
• 

  Qcmbr

  No magic being is everywhere and has all power but is invisible and talks telepathically to people. The evidence for this is the conflicting messages they receive, the lack of useful novel information they present , the lack of congruence with reality and the study of the human brain showing how it can present a convincing perceptual reality at odds with the objective reality using purely chemical and electrical stimuli. Santa (the Coca Cola product ) is based upon a potentially real historical person which makes him more likely than any religious god conceived thousands of years ago by primitive cultures.
• 

  konceptual99

  Hi tec

  You said...

  Science is about the physical, and uses physical tools. The spiritual is not the physical... and so cannot be measured by the same tools.

  True enough I guess however the physical does equal the visible. There are many things that have only become observable thanks to technological advances over time. Things that were equated to or attributed to the spiritual have been found to actually have been physcial.

  You also said...

  Science teaches what has been discovered to date.

  It also predicts what is to be discovered. The periodic table and particle physics as evidenced most recently by the Higgs Boson discovery have all been built up based not just on verification of what can be tested but also based on the predicated nature of what could not be tested at the time.

  Right now there is the graviton, a hypothetical elementary particle. Experiments are underway that seek to fill in more information that would clarify the expectations on gravitons. That's science - it may change but it's not just a shot in the dark.

  The nature of dark matter and dark energy - the fact that we think they exist yet cannot be observed is not the product of some random musings by a bunch of over eager geeks. It's science. It is predicting what we think is there to be found.

  The other thing that it certainly is not is a bunch of anti-theists searching for yet more mud to sling at those with faith. It's simply people using logic and reason to narrow down the search for solutions to questions that we as yet cannot fully answer.

  Peace,

  tammy

  Right back at ya! k99
• 

  snare&racket

  Tec within the last 4 weeks you told me you dont have the time or will to read the science books and literature, if you remember I said it probably isnt best to chip in to such discussions with that stance, i like you alot, but it is frustrating to find you here doing it again, not because you are not allowed, but because it is misleading and you even agreed in a fashion. The topic we discussed this in had an op asking for opinions, so you defended being part of that paticular thread and I didnt say a word. However, it was just word play, because ANY thread on science or atheism, you arrive and discuss things you have no insight or knowledge of. This is ok, but you dont make it clear and talk as if you have evidence of legitimate controversy, where there is NONE in reality. If pushed you will admit, your evidence is a voice or feeling that you alone experience in conjunction with your personal intepretation of SOME of the bible. This is not balanced...

  When we encourage people to look at science, we are saying 'hey go look at the evidence and peer reviewed theories on subject x' but Tec, you are asking people to 'listen to me and my theories on x'

  i dont think people realise this when they first come here, when you continue to denounce something you admit you have not taken the time to examine, it is utter time wasting and I personally ponder how such a nice person could be so unconscionable.

  'The biggest fear in leading, is that people may follow' ........ Be careful Tec , people may follow you ..... We simply signpost people to evidence to decide for themselves.

  Snare x