Is it ok to believe in God......

Post Reply New Topic

What religion specifies that experimenting on live humans is wrong?

Ah no I am not being irrational, I am guilty however of not reading your post several times to make sure I fully comprehended what you were saying, and for that I apologise. But then you have read my post without reading between the lines. Read it this way if you will "in a rational world religion would have no say in science" that a belief in the supernatural has an input into scientific endeavour is a sad indictment on humanity


It is meant as a humorous dig at the mass use of Windows as an operating system, it is a play on the Darwin fish which has legs to symbolize evolution and I see Linux as a more developed OS than windows.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 09 Oct 2013, 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nope. Religion has no authority over science.

Unless, of course, we're talking about science funded by religion. In such a case, it is rare that the 'discoveries' made by such 'science' gain any credibility upon review.



If you're going to try and establish religion as a moral authority, you should probably steer away from the many, many examples where religion dropped the ball. Religion does not set moral values, it adopts and adapts to suit its target audience.



Only if we're running everything through the semantic-pedantometer. Religion has no place in science except as a subject to scrutinise. Whether religion can or cannot hypothetically effect individual scientific studies is not the subject being discussed.

So God is really nothing supernatural, its interactions between atoms and molecules, so god is purely naturalistic, and can be discovered/defined and named by science. In fact many attributes of god have already been discovered/defined and named by science.[/quote]

I doubt about that, aren't all things will discovered by science. But if was possible to create life in a laboratory, so could be possible also create some similar thing that simulated the God. God is very abstract thing but in my opinion was more like as system and not only one identity. Many things are abstract because are systems but exist in a real world. Example, the nation. We can't see the ''nations'' because they are a systemic compilation of culture, people, traditions and ideas, but they exist.
God is a like organism, as our organism, as universe. (God = universe(s) )
''All'' can be summarizing like as Matrioshka russian dolls.

Wrong, Lucifer is like a opposite of God and Bobama also, (If he really called ''Obama'')
With a poetry we could to say many things, more realistic and direct than complex normal texts.
Lucifer is a destruction, God is construction and the reconstruction. The bad and the good are complements, without the bad and wrong aren't exist the good and right, but there corrents of energies that mix in the middle of the way or path among this opposites polos.

BEAUTIFUL POETRY!! !!
I'm risk with poetry.

anyone that believes in anything, believes in god because god is everything. i am not anthropomorphizing god, but all that exists is part of god including your sense of self.

i do not know why i know this. i just do.

just as there are limits on the complexity of human thought, there are also limits on the simplicity of human thought. maybe the answer is borne from the utmost of simplicity that humans brains can not consider rather than in the precarious balancing of mathematical concepts in order to explain what is true. i know it is a very brave concept to want to take the wheel and drive yourself, but if you do not know how to drive and do not know in which direction to go, then it is a disastrous decision.

the only alternative to steering one's mind into a psychotic realization that they account for nothing in the scheme of things, is for them to have faith that they matter.

how many lives ever existed in the universe? who knows. maybe "god" knows, but not in the way humans could know.

i do not ascribe a visual identity to my concept of god, but i think that the universe is so perfectly unfolding, and if the rules that govern the universe sprang from nothing, it would imply a proper miracle wherein all the laws that govern the newly unleashed energy are going to be cast from non existence to existence with no causality involved.

i think the universe has existed for ever. it is easier to conceive the unfathomable idea of forever than it is to conceive of something springing out from nothing.

Here it is, if one single scientist uses his or her religion to guide him or her in answering a potential ethical question or for motivation in continuing research, or motivation for starting research, and maybe there are other non religious things guiding them, then religion has played a part in science. This is an undeniable fact. So, to clarify to myself, you're not saying that religion doesn't play a part in science, you're saying religion shouldn't play a part in science....So being rational, you'd say that religion does play a part in science, but, according to your reasoning, it shouldn't.

And just a thing about the fish,,,my point applies to the Darwin fish as well, it defaces the Christian symbol as a way to enhance the Darwin idea........


The other poster who responded to my post....both of you guys have read what I've said as basically "religion OVER science." It's not even close to what I'm saying....why do you think you see this in your head when you're reading my response? You guys want to get into an adversarial discussion about religion vs science, when that isn't what this is. Reread your responses, you take subtle shots at me, you're dismissive, you want to fight it seems, or maybe stir my emotions, and again, you're not being objective....and if you think caring too much about truth is pendantic...again...not science....you have to care about the formalities and the specifics to be a scientist......

Religion has a say in science isn't the same as religion has authority over science.....you gotta be clear....



If you're a scientist, my statement should cause you to further investigate what I'm trying to say given that you are right, it I was trying to establish religion as moral authority it would not be wise to use example of when religion dropped the ball....you would conclude that I was NOT saying that religion is moral authority, but simply that it can plays a part in science good or bad.



focusing on truth is not being pedantic. And to say that this is not the subject being discussed should say "this is a subject I dont feel like discussing." I actually think you guys would make better priests, and I'd make a better scientist lol I actually love science, physical science over biology, and if you consider psychology and anthropology science, love those....

Well..THERE IS MUCH more to life than language my friend..or science..they are all approximations of the truth..so in others words there is much more to life than meets the words of science...

Goddard communicated this as well as I could possibly communicate it in response to you...

But here is the thing..unless you walk in light you are blind..and yeah that's not anything personal.. IT IS..Just Metaphor Friend..IS IT!

And yeah..ALL LANGUAGE is metaphor...

AS ALL WE LIVEVIL IS WHAT 'WE' [email protected]...

And you can ask any linguistic expert...and they WILL tELl you this is true...

Darknesss IS FREE..but LIGHT IS a lot of Work...

So stand by in dark..or move ahead in LIGHT..IT IS only your true will that you livevil..not mine..IS IT

Lots of Love..seyes...

?LOL....!
!NOWon..E..NO?

?POETRY IS god!
!god IS POETRY?

!ONENONENO?
?WONOWONOW!

I'm not seeing any ambiguity in what I wrote.



Your opening statement was: "Religion has say in science when exploring the ethics of certain scientific methods of discovery.". If you're now saying that the rest of your post should be considered apart from this statement, the second paragraph becomes nothing more than empty, insubstantial rhetoric.

There is no scientific reason to investigate your opinions. The conclusion is already obvious. Currently this discussion is more philosophical than anything else. You can, though, be assured that anything scientific you have to offer will be addressed accordingly.



Focussing on semantics rather than the intended meaning behind those words is not truth-seeking - nor is it scientific. I'm quite happy to discuss the subject of semantics; after all, I was the one who brought it up.

My own observation of how you reach your conclusions leads me to believe that you would make a terrible scientist. Do not, however, let that put you off chasing your dreams.

@ adifferentname

We are dealing with a serious case of pedantry here. knowbody is making the point that religious people are in all walks of life and this includes the sciences, therefore it stands to reason that their religion will in some way effect science, even if it is as innocuous as the reason they got into science was a religious belief to help humanity and one way to to that is to fight disease. So whilst you, knowbody and I know full well that we are talking about religious dogma demanding science be carried out and presented in line with that dogma, knowbody is getting all het up over semantics.

Quite so.

We have two different subjects, one trivial and one far less so. Separating the two is important.

I despise the commonly used tactic of "You said something slightly wrong in your 1000 word post, so I'm going to nitpick at that rather than address the substance of your post". I'm not saying this is what's happening here - in fact I think knowbody is genuine, if misguided, in said picking of nits. This is why I've taken an approach of informing rather than condemning.

Now that I have informed, any continuation of such pedantry can be considered malicious, and therefore fair game for condemnation.

I don't get your posts lately. Are you even trying to make sense?

I have come to the conclusion that aghog is either incapable of making sense or is too wrapped up in a sense of smug superiority to care that his posts are indecipherable. There could be a variety of causes, but I prefer to think that his intent is self-entertainment, which is harmless enough.

Whatever the explanation, I choose to ignore every post he makes.

+1

+2