Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.

oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.

one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.

but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.

But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.

You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.

Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...

Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."

Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.

Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.

William of Ockham-- English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.

Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.

Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.

The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All true.
And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
So what was your point?

 

[BreezeWood]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.

Boss: It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.

Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1844

Marx: The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

He argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In Marx's view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world.

... is the demand for their real happiness. - - - > Boss, is the progression a persecution of Christianity (religion) or simply the failure of the Scriptural religions to fulfill the original parishioners goals ?

Boss: That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, but it is intrinsic. Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen.

... but it is intrinsic.

Boss: Stalin era

Yes, the human spiritual faith prevailed even with tyrannic atheist communists doing their best to stomp it out of the hearts of man. To now formulate the argument that "atheism didn't matter" in light of what the history clearly shows, is total and complete ignorance.

with your "second coming" Boss, is it only through you our intrinsic beliefs must be verified ?

Boss: The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

... where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature ...


it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?

.

 

[Boss]

You're born with the ability to do magic tricks?

C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!

Well you are. Sorry if you thought magicians obtained some super-ability or something, they don't. They have the same human ability as you and I, believe it or not!

Ya, the ability to LEARN!!! Not some intrinsic ability to do magic! That's MAYBE the dumbest thing you've ever said.

Yes, you have to learn how to use your born-with ability. I said that.
This is probably the dumbest thing you've ever misinterpreted.

 

[Hollie]

Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.

oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.

one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.

but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.

But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.

You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.

Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...

Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."

Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.

Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.

William of Ockham-- English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.

Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.

Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.

The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.

You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a “Christian” when the schools were run by the Church? Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?

I also found it curious to note that you… forgot…. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his life’s work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.

We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.

My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths today than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Do you want to know the time and date of every lunar eclipse for the 1,000 years? Well, you could ask an astronomer or, you could ask a prayer leader at the Pakistani madrassah.

 

[Boss]

oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.

one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.

but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.

But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.

You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.

Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...

Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."

Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.

Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.

William of Ockham-- English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.

Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.

Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.

The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All true.
And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
So what was your point?

Well my list only covers the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, since that was the point I was contradicting from another poster. But we see here that you are yet again taking what I said in response to one argument, and composing a completely new argument to juxtapose my statement with, so that you can pretend to "win" the argument. I'm sure you think this talent makes you clever, but it actually just makes you a dishonest retard.

Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

Francis Collins-- Man who mapped the human genome. Calls it: The Language of God.

Wernher von Braun-- One of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s. He was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in an the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs.

Werner Heisenberg-- German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory. He was a practising Lutheran.

Max Planck-- The founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science", stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.

George Washington Carver-- Scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.

Ian Barbour-- Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion.

This is just a tiny sampling of some of the more recognizable names in 'modern' science. So we see that "as time has gone on" this has certainly not changed. There are still a great many people in science who have deep spiritual belief in God. I will tell you like I told the other ignorant fool, to cling to your belief that "real scientists" don't believe in God, is a delusion.

 

[Boss]

The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.

No, actually the ignorant view is that which contends religion was somehow responsible for the "dark ages" when it was religious scientists who brought forth the age of enlightenment. Nothing I posted was either ignorant or untrue.

You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a “Christian” when the schools were run by the Church? Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?

The funny thing is, about 85% of all humans on the planet to this day are spiritual. You are among the VAST minority of fools who reject God. I find it surprising that Galileo had two daughters who were nuns if he (their father) did not believe in God.

I also found it curious to note that you… forgot…. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his life’s work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.
We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.

Wow... Guess you missed the part where I said basically that?

Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy... He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

Same goes for Descartes and others of the time. I'm not sugarcoating it, they were definitely persecuted by the religious leaders of their time because they often contradicted the long-standing teachings of the Church. That said, they were certainly not Atheists or seculars leading some crusade to bring us out of the Dark Ages into Enlightenment. They were largely religious people who fought and succeeded in bringing reform to the teachings of the Church as well as advancement of modern science.

My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery...

And as history shows, it has often been religious believers in the very same God who brought forth reform and change to the Church's view through their works in science. The only thing I am dismissing is this DELUSION that non-religious scientists have fought a mythical battle against the believers in God and prevailed. It's a wild fanatical claim that you may wish were true, but it simply isn't.

 

[Boss]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.

Boss: It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.

... is the demand for their real happiness. - - - > Boss, is the progression a persecution of Christianity (religion) or simply the failure of the Scriptural religions to fulfill the original parishioners goals ?

... but it is intrinsic.

Boss: Stalin era

Yes, the human spiritual faith prevailed even with tyrannic atheist communists doing their best to stomp it out of the hearts of man. To now formulate the argument that "atheism didn't matter" in light of what the history clearly shows, is total and complete ignorance.

with your "second coming" Boss, is it only through you our intrinsic beliefs must be verified ?

Boss: The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

... where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature ...


it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?

.

What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.

 

[Hollie]

The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.

No, actually the ignorant view is that which contends religion was somehow responsible for the "dark ages" when it was religious scientists who brought forth the age of enlightenment. Nothing I posted was either ignorant or untrue.

Wow. That was quite the sidestep. It was the over-reaching of the church that kept Europe saddled in the Dark Ages. It was religious scientists who were Christian because the church controlled the schools. It was religious (Christian) scientists who were persecuted by the Christian clergy.

You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a “Christian” when the schools were run by the Church? Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?

The funny thing is, about 85% of all humans on the planet to this day are spiritual. You are among the VAST minority of fools who reject God. I find it surprising that Galileo had two daughters who were nuns if he (their father) did not believe in God.

Funny thing is, "spiritual" does not necessarily mean belief in human constructed gods nor does it imply belief in your gods.

Most of the planet does not believe in your gods. Funny, huh?

As noted several times now, it's not surprising that Galileo was a Christian as Christianity was the dominant religion and the church controlled the schools.

I also found it curious to note that you… forgot…. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his life’s work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.
We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.

Wow... Guess you missed the part where I said basically that?

Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy... He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

Wow.... Guess you missed where you said nothing remotely like basically that

Same goes for Descartes and others of the time. I'm not sugarcoating it, they were definitely persecuted by the religious leaders of their time because they often contradicted the long-standing teachings of the Church. That said, they were certainly not Atheists or seculars leading some crusade to bring us out of the Dark Ages into Enlightenment. They were largely religious people who fought and succeeded in bringing reform to the teachings of the Church as well as advancement of modern science.

How nice. What a shame the teachings of the church caused all those other poor slobs to die at the hand of the church.

My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery...

And as history shows, it has often been religious believers in the very same God who brought forth reform and change to the Church's view through their works in science. The only thing I am dismissing is this DELUSION that non-religious scientists have fought a mythical battle against the believers in God and prevailed. It's a wild fanatical claim that you may wish were true, but it simply isn't.

What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.

 

[thebrucebeat]

But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.

You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.

Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...

Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."

Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.

Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.

William of Ockham-- English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.

René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.

Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.

Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.

The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All true.
And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
So what was your point?

Well my list only covers the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, since that was the point I was contradicting from another poster. But we see here that you are yet again taking what I said in response to one argument, and composing a completely new argument to juxtapose my statement with, so that you can pretend to "win" the argument. I'm sure you think this talent makes you clever, but it actually just makes you a dishonest retard.

Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

Francis Collins-- Man who mapped the human genome. Calls it: The Language of God.

Wernher von Braun-- One of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s. He was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in an the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs.

Werner Heisenberg-- German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory. He was a practising Lutheran.

Max Planck-- The founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science", stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.

George Washington Carver-- Scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.

Ian Barbour-- Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion.

This is just a tiny sampling of some of the more recognizable names in 'modern' science. So we see that "as time has gone on" this has certainly not changed. There are still a great many people in science who have deep spiritual belief in God. I will tell you like I told the other ignorant fool, to cling to your belief that "real scientists" don't believe in God, is a delusion.

Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line. He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.
Your outliers don't change the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today. You provide nothing that counters that argument.
The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.
Wouldn't recognize your posts without the child-like invectives.

 

[Boss]

Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line.

Your sig line is one of many quotes from Einstein regarding religion.

I posted his answer to the direct question as to whether he believed in God. I actually believe his personal beliefs were akin to my own, a Spiritual God does exist but it's not a humanistic incarnation.

He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.

"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

...the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today.

I disagree. You've continually tried to misconstrue my statements and make me out to be a Christian apologist or some sort of religious zealot, despite my constant refutation of the claims.

The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.

LMAO... Well, since science never has or never will be dependent on unfounded explanation, I guess that's a good thing!

 

[Boss]

What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.

LMAO... Yes... most notably by other Christians who practiced science.

 

[Hollie]

What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.

LMAO... Yes... most notably by other Christians who practiced science.

LMAO... Yes.... Christians persecuting and causing untold misery at the expense of other Christians.

Those gods, they're such kidders.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line.

Your sig line is one of many quotes from Einstein regarding religion.

I posted his answer to the direct question as to whether he believed in God. I actually believe his personal beliefs were akin to my own, a Spiritual God does exist but it's not a humanistic incarnation.

He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.

"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

...the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today.

I disagree. You've continually tried to misconstrue my statements and make me out to be a Christian apologist or some sort of religious zealot, despite my constant refutation of the claims.

The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.

LMAO... Well, since science never has or never will be dependent on unfounded explanation, I guess that's a good thing![/QUOTE]

I don't misconstrue you to be a Christian apologist.
I see you as an entirely inept "Spiritual Nature" apologist.
As to the red part, you're right.
That is your department.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.

LMAO... Yes... most notably by other Christians who practiced science.

You may be able to argue that, but it can be debated.
What can't be is that it is no longer the case. As more and more is revealed, fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.

 

[Boss]

fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.

Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.

Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.

And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!

 

[thebrucebeat]

fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.

Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.

Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.

And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!

LOL!!!
I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
Now, not so much.
Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
Entertaining as hell, though.
It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.

 

[BreezeWood]

What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.

it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?

well the explanation is derived by reading the post ... not my job to do that for you.

... reading your rendition of History is answer enough.

.

 

[Boss]

What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.

it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?

well the explanation is derived by reading the post ... not my job to do that for you.

... reading your rendition of History is answer enough.

.

Well, I read your post but your question is like a Rubik's Cube, I can't discern what you are asking. Is it a rhetorical question and you're trying to make a statement?

Basis for my belief?:
I understand and communicate with a guiding spiritual force.

Why would I embrace Christianity?:
I don't. I've repeatedly stated that I do not embrace, endorse or otherwise affiliate with any organized religion. I will defend Christians or any other peaceful religion against hateful godless persecution.

Not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being?: Because Communism is the precursor for a godless Atheist society. And I haven't speculated on an inert being.

Have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival?:
I've never abandoned the forces of good and evil in my belief, nor have I rejected God's creatures as integral for the purpose of my survival.

I find your five-headed question to be insulting and offensive to what I actually believe and what I have articulated here as my beliefs. It hasn't seemed to matter how much I've tried to clarify my beliefs to you, I just keep getting these perverse distortions of what you imagine I believe, thrown back in my face. Meanwhile, you totally ignore me when I ask for you to explain your own spiritual beliefs.

 

[Boss]

fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.

Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.

Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.

And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!

LOL!!!
I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
Now, not so much.
Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
Entertaining as hell, though.
It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.

But I haven't lost my mind.

Early scientists or modern scientists... doesn't matter, they can be both scientists and believers in God, and I proved this with two lists of some of our greatest scientific minds. One thing they've never done is invest in the unknowable, that is the antithesis of science. They explore the unknown, that's virtually all science does. You are the one constructing a crutch of "unknowable" out of your sheer ignorance of the unknown.

Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.

But you see, I DO know it! I feel it around me and communicate with it daily. I've felt its blessings in my life. I see its presence in the beauty all around me. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's real, no faith is needed for me to believe it. You will not ever change my mind about it.

 

[orogenicman]

Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.

Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.

And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!

LOL!!!
I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
Now, not so much.
Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
Entertaining as hell, though.
It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.

But I haven't lost my mind.

Most mentally ill people don't realize that they've lost their minds. So don't worry, you aren't alone.