An Unlikely Universe?

citizenzen said:
I'd consider getting one, if I could snack on their head lice.
Click to expand...

The bar exam for one of these lawyers consists of grading their ability to swing on them. They pass the exam when they slip off of the bar but prove they didn't.
 
Nick_A must be deep, because I can't understand what the heck he's talking about.
 
citizenzen said:
Well, I got that far.

But I'd work on it a little before taking it on the road.
Click to expand...

What! having a hard time with humor? Here's Zen joke to cheer you up

Q: What did a Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
A: Make me one with everything.
 
*rimshot*

Nickie-baby.

Save the recycling for the bottles and cans.

You need to come up with some new material.
 
趁熱打


Nice one Nick :D If only you could practice what you preach ;) I suppose in some sense we are comrades :p
 
Tao_Equus said:
But to fill that space with a superstitious dogma of a creator, backed up with the patently fraudulent claim of scientific credibility, when not one thing supports it except faith in old books, is tantamount to performing a lobotomy on oneself. It is the severing of that human spirit of adventure for the frontier and replacing it with the easy chair and fireplace of senility.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then how do you explain the greatest minds of the scientific age as reserving a deep sense of faith in the Creator? I mean seriously, lets do a tally shall we? How many of the greatest minds in scientific history were atheists? It is true that some might be agnostic (like Darwin) but how many were actual atheists? Moreover... do you realize that the man named as the founder of modern science (Newton) was the most dogmatic person even by his own society's standards?

Let me guess... now your going to say that all of these people were "naive" right?
That they didn't know everything that wise atheists of today know... but that doesn't
really solve the problem of your argument does it? You said that faith stifles human creativity...
when the history of all science itself stands as proof against such a claim. All of these men
were driven to understand the universe not just as a materialistic piece of matter and mass,
but with its spiritual and meaningful elements, which were the real driving force being their
determination.
 
c0de said:
If that were true, then how do you explain the greatest minds of the scientific age as reserving a deep sense of faith in the Creator? I mean seriously, lets do a tally shall we? How many of the greatest minds in scientific history were atheists? It is true that some might be agnostic (like Darwin) but how many were actual atheists? Moreover... do you realize that the man named as the founder of modern science (Newton) was the most dogmatic person even by his own society's standards?

Let me guess... now your going to say that all of these people were "naive" right?
That they didn't know everything that wise atheists of today know... but that doesn't
really solve the problem of your argument does it? You said that faith stifles human creativity...
when the history of all science itself stands as proof against such a claim. All of these men
tried were driven to understand the universe as a way to understand life, not just as a
materialistic piece of matter and mass, but with its spiritual and meaningful elements, which
were the real driving force being their determination.
Click to expand...


Its a big question, with millennia of conditioning clouding it. Yet it is the modern era that saw us progress from "steam rocket" to "space rocket", and crucially at a time when religion was at last divorced from science. Perhaps a unique time if the "youth of today" are represented in what you think of as 'your' chosen path. You made 'your' début here trying to promote this islamic propaganda of scientific harmony in the koran. Not openly as a muslim promoting muslim propaganda but as a student of science looking for criticism on 'your' own idea for a thesis. Yet you could accept no criticism. And you go on to say on another thread that you are not a student of science! I said at the time and I say again you do not understand the physics you pretend to.
But most irritating is you thinking you have the right to jump in to an established thread and have me serve your irrelevant haverings. Well sorry, if you cannot be bothered to think I am not going to do it for you.
 

@ Tao

Tao_Equus said:
Its a big question, with millennia of conditioning clouding it. Yet it is the modern era that saw us progress from "steam rocket" to "space rocket", and crucially at a time when religion was at last divorced from science.
Click to expand...

err.. no actually its a very simple question:
How many scientists in the history of science were atheists?


Tao_Equus said:
Perhaps a unique time if the "youth of today" are represented in what you think of as 'your' chosen path. You made 'your' début here trying to promote this islamic propaganda of scientific harmony in the koran. Not openly as a muslim promoting muslim propaganda but as a student of science looking for criticism on 'your' own idea for a thesis. Yet you could accept no criticism. And you go on to say on another thread that you are not a student of science! I said at the time and I say again you do not understand the physics you pretend to.
But most irritating is you thinking you have the right to jump in to an established thread and have me serve your irrelevant haverings. Well sorry, if you cannot be bothered to think I am not going to do it for you.
Click to expand...


LOL! :) dude, your klassic you know that?

You do realize that everything I said was a reply directly
related to your post which I quoted right?

Your personal attacks on me wont cover up the fact
that you have no answer to the argument...
 
c0de said:

@ Tao



err.. no actually its a very simple question:
How many scientists in the history of science were atheists?





LOL! :) dude, your klassic you know that?

You do realize that everything I said was a reply directly
related to your post which I quoted right?

Your personal attacks on me wont cover up the fact
that you have no answer to the argument...
Click to expand...
Until the 20th century when we began to see the first secular universities not many. Though why you seek to congratulate their shortcomings I have no idea. But as soon as scientists had the opportunity to learn without being force fed religion that is what they did, and science flourished. Today the majority of scientists are atheists. There are probably more scientists alive today than there were in our history, so it may well be that the answer is not what you might expect.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Until the 20th century when we began to see the first secular universities not many. Though why you seek to congratulate their shortcomings I have no idea. But as soon as scientists had the opportunity to learn without being force fed religion that is what they did, and science flourished. Today the majority of scientists are atheists. There are probably more scientists alive today than there were in our history, so it may well be that the answer is not what you might expect.
Click to expand...



Do you even realize that I predicted that you would take this exact
approach and nullified its effect in my first post on the thread?

Allow me to quote myself (lol). This time I will make it even
simpler for by using the BOLD option.


"Let me guess... now your going to say that all of these people were "naive" right?
That they didn't know everything that wise atheists of today know... but that doesn't
really solve the problem of your argument does it? You said that faith stifles human creativity...
when the history of all science itself stands as proof against such a claim. All of these men
were driven to understand the universe not just as a materialistic piece of matter and mass,
but with its spiritual and meaningful elements, which were the real driving force being their
determination. "

 
Tao_Equus said:
Until the 20th century when we began to see the first secular universities not many. Though why you seek to congratulate their shortcomings I have no idea. But as soon as scientists had the opportunity to learn without being force fed religion that is what they did, and science flourished. Today the majority of scientists are atheists. There are probably more scientists alive today than there were in our history, so it may well be that the answer is not what you might expect.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I remember reading something some time ago (afraid I don't know the reference, but was probably New Scientist) that there are more likely to be scientists who have some form of spiritual belief in the more mathematical sciences than those in the less mathematical ones.

The point is, as scientists such as Einstein made underlined, is that being a scientist does not necessary preclude any religious or spiritual belief.

Being an atheist or spiritual has no bearing on how good or bad a scientist is - and secularism claims a larger part of the science community today simply because Western society is by and large more secular.

To suggest that secularism has freed science in the 20th century comes across as a straw man.

2c.
 
c0de said:
Do you even realize that I predicted that you would take this exact
approach and nullified its effect in my first post on the thread?
Click to expand...
Need more tissues?

Allow me to quote myself (lol). This time I will make it even
simpler for by using the BOLD option.


"Let me guess... now your going to say that all of these people were "naive" right?
That they didn't know everything that wise atheists of today know... but that doesn't
really solve the problem of your argument does it? You said that faith stifles human creativity...
when the history of all science itself stands as proof against such a claim. All of these men
were driven to understand the universe not just as a materialistic piece of matter and mass,
but with its spiritual and meaningful elements, which were the real driving force being their
determination. "
Click to expand...

You can name a handful. But I would be willing to bet heavily that virtually every one of them if born into today's western secular scientific community, and had access to what we now know they would not be as confused as they were back then. You seem to forget that even if an expansive mind was 'thinking' atheistic thoughts they knew it would be literally suicide to voice them publicly. Religions have traditionally used bully power of the very worst kind to stifle debate. From Socrates to Galileo to challenge the manufactured tripe of the establishments only brought dire personal consequences. If you think that does not figure into into the equation then, as usual, you can only see the rose coloured vision of your incumbent indoctrination.
 
I said:
Interesting - I remember reading something some time ago (afraid I don't know the reference, but was probably New Scientist) that there are more likely to be scientists who have some form of spiritual belief in the more mathematical sciences than those in the less mathematical ones.

The point is, as scientists such as Einstein made underlined, is that being a scientist does not necessary preclude any religious or spiritual belief.

Being an atheist or spiritual has no bearing on how good or bad a scientist is - and secularism claims a larger part of the science community today simply because Western society is by and large more secular.

To suggest that secularism has freed science in the 20th century comes across as a straw man.

2c.
Click to expand...

Well you can think the rise of rationalism/atheism in the past 200 years is completely unrelated to the explosion of scientific progress over exactly the same period... I firmly disagree. They have marched hand in hand. And going back earlier all the major flowerings of human intellectual thought have been accompanied by a fare share of atheists who pushed the boundaries a little farther and eventually made it possible for the likes of Hume and Marx and Shopenhaur to bring rationalism into the mainstream.

Having any spirituality is of no aid what so ever to the professionalism of any scientist.
 
Tao_Equus said:
You can name a handful. But I would be willing to bet heavily that virtually every one of them if born into today's western secular scientific community, and had access to what we now know they would not be as confused as they were back then. You seem to forget that even if an expansive mind was 'thinking' atheistic thoughts they knew it would be literally suicide to voice them publicly. Religions have traditionally used bully power of the very worst kind to stifle debate. From Socrates to Galileo to challenge the manufactured tripe of the establishments only brought dire personal consequences. If you think that does not figure into into the equation then, as usual, you can only see the rose coloured vision of your incumbent indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Once again you completely failed to answer the objection.
You said that faith stifles creativity... How then do you explain
all of the giants of science being men of faith?


Need more tissues?
Click to expand...

what does that even mean ??? !! !! ! LOL!
 
Tao_Equus said:
Need more tissues?
Click to expand...

No more comments like this, thanks. It's just plain childish in the extreme and won't be put up with any more.


Tao_Equus said:
Well you can think the rise of rationalism/atheism in the past 200 years is completely unrelated to the explosion of scientific progress over exactly the same period... I firmly disagree. They have marched hand in hand. And going back earlier all the major flowerings of human intellectual thought have been accompanied by a fare share of atheists who pushed the boundaries a little farther and eventually made it possible for the likes of Hume and Marx and Shopenhaur to bring rationalism into the mainstream.

Having any spirituality is of no aid what so ever to the professionalism of any scientist.
Click to expand...

You suggest that atheism has helped shape science, then suggested that the issue of spiritual beliefs are not really relevant to their professionalism - which sounds like a potential contradiction.

You've also referenced philosophers, not scientists, when discussing this subject in the above post which also looks confusing.
 
c0de said:
Once again you completely failed to answer the objection.
You said that faith stifles creativity... How then do you explain
all of the giants of science being men of faith?
!
Click to expand...
No once again you failed completely to comprehend a very simple statement. If only you were not so self-infatuated you might realise that.

All the giants...:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top