Most ‘evil’ men in history…atomic scientists? Or might it be biologists and chemists, with their knowledge leading to bio-chem weapon development? You guys chime in with your opinion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Most ‘evil’ men in history…atomic scientists? Or might it be biologists and chemists, with their knowledge leading to bio-chem weapon development? You guys chime in with your opinion.[/quote]
Knowledge and technology in and of itself is not evil. It’s what people do with it that determines that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Most ‘evil’ men in history…atomic scientists? Or might it be biologists and chemists, with their knowledge leading to bio-chem weapon development? You guys chime in with your opinion.[/quote]
Knowledge and technology in and of itself is not evil. It’s what people do with it that determines that.[/quote]
But, obviously, if they had taken their hypotheses, theories, discoveries, and inventions and creations to the grave with them, people couldn’t do evil with such.
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Most ‘evil’ men in history…atomic scientists? Or might it be biologists and chemists, with their knowledge leading to bio-chem weapon development? You guys chime in with your opinion.[/quote]
What about the man who invented the hammer? Maybe if he hadn’t invented it, Peter Sutcliffe wouldn’t have killed all those prostitutes…
Perhaps God should not have created all those creatures that eat people or infect them with disease? Or maybe he shouldn’t have created man with an imagination and curiosity if he didn’t want us to learn all these things.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Nobody ever claimed it was indestructible!!!
Why latch onto this?
A bomb blew up beneath it. Everything around it got all blown up, too. Only the tilma, located directly above the bomb, was unharmed.
Pretty cool story? Not for atheists, apparently. I don’t have a problem with this in itself, just please stop implying that I or anyone else ever even suggested that the tilma could be used as a bullet proof vest. I understand your point. You are making it under false pretenses.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
What about the man who invented the hammer? Maybe if he hadn’t invented it, Peter Sutcliffe wouldn’t have killed all those prostitutes…
[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Nobody ever claimed it was indestructible!!!
Why latch onto this?
A bomb blew up beneath it. Everything around it got all blown up, too. Only the tilma, located directly above the bomb, was unharmed.
Pretty cool story? Not for atheists, apparently. I don’t have a problem with this in itself, just please stop implying that I or anyone else ever even suggested that the tilma could be used as a bullet proof vest. I understand your point. You are making it under false pretenses.
[/quote]
My point is that your story about the tilma surviving a bomb blast means zilch unless there is scientific confirmation that it enjoys some level of divine protection. These stories are rampant, whether about appearances of the virgin Mary or alien encounters or being visited by one of the three Nephites, but lacking scientific verification, they are only stories with no bearing on objective reality.
Faith is a lame excuse for lack of evidence.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I created heat, would I be responsible for cold?[/quote]
In your situation, energy already exists…[/quote]
No, it doesn’t.[/quote]
Sorry, I didn’t see the “created”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I created heat, would I be responsible for cold?[/quote]
Well… yes. You would be, because the absence of heat is what defines cold. If there had never been such a thing as heat, then there would also never be such a thing as cold. [/quote]
If there never had been such a thing as heat, then heat is absent. You might not put a word to it, of course. In any case, God creates man with free will. Now, if someone doesn’t believe in free will, don’t bother arguing with me, as I can’t change my mind on this. So, free will. Good is defined by God, since “good” and “evil” don’t exist as mechanisms in a mechanical universe. That’s our supernatural mumbo-jumbo, good and evil. Good, is what’s pleasing to God. So, evil is the absence of being pleasing to God.
You might as well blame me for the evil of murder, since I want murder to be unlawful, or at least seen as evil. Perhaps if we accepted murder as simply an action though, maybe it wouldn’t be evil? Moral, peaceful, people are responsible for evil?![/quote]
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.
God is the prime mover. NOTHING could exist without him creating it (what with being omnipotent and all). Evil is His creation, and God must obviously be smart enough to recognize that creating good creates evil, so embrace it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.[/quote]
All I assumed was an absence of heat. Universe or total nothingness, I could care less as far as this goes.
If by creating you mean that because we tell a child about the evil of murder, evil now exists…Ok, then you have a really bizzare idea of “responsibility” and create. Sorry, but no.
Out of all, this has to be least thought out argument. You’ve essentially condemned science, parenting, and distinguishing between good and evil, period. You can’t define good, God or Godless, because you’ve then defined evil, bringing it into existence. Heck, you can’t even discover and/or impart knowledge to others (example, science), lest you become responsible for evil! Drop the objection, it’s absurd.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Evil is His creation, >>><<< embrace it.[/quote]God from all eternity did render the dawn, existence and progress of evil utterly and unavoidably certain whilst remaining entirely free from it’s production, guilt or the temptation thereunto. I have practically no idea how that works and quite frankly don’t much care anymore. I do know that evil is very useful to Him.
I gave up presuming to probe the beautiful unsearchable mind of almighty God beyond what He reveals a while ago. I simply praise and worship Him for making me family while I was yet an enemy and dead in my sin.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.[/quote]
All I assumed was an absence of heat. Universe or total nothingness, I could care less as far as this goes.
If by creating you mean that because we tell a child about the evil of murder, evil now exists…Ok, then you have a really bizzare idea of “responsibility” and create. Sorry, but no.
Out of all, this has to be least thought out argument. You’ve essentially condemned science, parenting, and distinguishing between good and evil, period. You can’t define good, God or Godless, because you’ve then defined evil, bringing it into existence. Heck, you can’t even discover and/or impart knowledge to others (example, science), lest you become responsible for evil! Drop the objection, it’s absurd.[/quote]
You used creating heat as an analogy. Are you saying evil is a word for the absence of good?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
You used creating heat as an analogy. Are you saying evil is a word for the absence of good?[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good is defined by God, since “good” and “evil” don’t exist as mechanisms in a mechanical universe. That’s our supernatural mumbo-jumbo, good and evil. Good, is what’s pleasing to God. So, evil is the absence of being pleasing to God.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.[/quote]
All I assumed was an absence of heat. Universe or total nothingness, I could care less as far as this goes.
If by creating you mean that because we tell a child about the evil of murder, evil now exists…Ok, then you have a really bizzare idea of “responsibility” and create. Sorry, but no.
Out of all, this has to be least thought out argument. You’ve essentially condemned science, parenting, and distinguishing between good and evil, period. You can’t define good, God or Godless, because you’ve then defined evil, bringing it into existence. Heck, you can’t even discover and/or impart knowledge to others (example, science), lest you become responsible for evil! Drop the objection, it’s absurd.[/quote]
This is actually a quite interesting line of reasoning… one that never ceases to generate curiosity for me.
Sloth, you kind of have two options here:
Either god created good and along with it evil… or he told us about good and along with it evil. If you choose the latter, then you will be left needing to explain who created good and evil… or to make it easier, just evil. If it is not god, then you are undermining his omnipotence.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.[/quote]
All I assumed was an absence of heat. Universe or total nothingness, I could care less as far as this goes.
If by creating you mean that because we tell a child about the evil of murder, evil now exists…Ok, then you have a really bizzare idea of “responsibility” and create. Sorry, but no.
Out of all, this has to be least thought out argument. You’ve essentially condemned science, parenting, and distinguishing between good and evil, period. You can’t define good, God or Godless, because you’ve then defined evil, bringing it into existence. Heck, you can’t even discover and/or impart knowledge to others (example, science), lest you become responsible for evil! Drop the objection, it’s absurd.[/quote]
This is actually a quite interesting line of reasoning… one that never ceases to generate curiosity for me.
Sloth, you kind of have two options here:
Either god created good and along with it evil… or he told us about good and along with it evil. If you choose the latter, then you will be left needing to explain who created good and evil… or to make it easier, just evil. If it is not god, then you are undermining his omnipotence.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good is defined by God, since “good” and “evil” don’t exist as mechanisms in a mechanical universe. That’s our supernatural mumbo-jumbo, good and evil. Good, is what’s pleasing to God. So, evil is the absence of being pleasing to God.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your analogy failed because if you created heat, you assume there is already a universe to create heat in.[/quote]
All I assumed was an absence of heat. Universe or total nothingness, I could care less as far as this goes.
If by creating you mean that because we tell a child about the evil of murder, evil now exists…Ok, then you have a really bizzare idea of “responsibility” and create. Sorry, but no.
Out of all, this has to be least thought out argument. You’ve essentially condemned science, parenting, and distinguishing between good and evil, period. You can’t define good, God or Godless, because you’ve then defined evil, bringing it into existence. Heck, you can’t even discover and/or impart knowledge to others (example, science), lest you become responsible for evil! Drop the objection, it’s absurd.[/quote]
This is actually a quite interesting line of reasoning… one that never ceases to generate curiosity for me.
Sloth, you kind of have two options here:
Either god created good and along with it evil… or he told us about good and along with it evil. If you choose the latter, then you will be left needing to explain who created good and evil… or to make it easier, just evil. If it is not god, then you are undermining his omnipotence.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good is defined by God, since “good” and “evil” don’t exist as mechanisms in a mechanical universe. That’s our supernatural mumbo-jumbo, good and evil. Good, is what’s pleasing to God. So, evil is the absence of being pleasing to God.[/quote]
[/quote]
It almost makes sense… comes pretty close even.
Here’s the problem, though; Does god care if you are pleasing to him?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Does god care if you are pleasing to him?[/quote]
I just want to point out how awesomely kinky this sounds… just in case anyone missed the subtle brilliance of my humor.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Here’s the problem, though; Does god care if you are pleasing to him?[/quote]
The God of my faith, yes. Anyone else’s and you’d have to ask them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.