Sciences vs. Religion

[glennr25]

My apologies, but I can't be more specific than that. It's why science claims things as "theory", like evolution. Every scientist agrees it happened, but there are trillions of pieces of information to piece together, and since we lack evidence for a lot of it, the theory can only ever keep changing and improving.

If you want something rigid and inflexible to rule your world, try religion!



Yep, those scientists are so damned rich! Look at how many of them there are on the Forbes rich list!

As to money, check out how much your blogger pal makes from the ads splattered all over his site.

Look, you're welcome to believe what you like, but your nonsensical posts are not really arguing a point so much as going "Waaa, I hate science!".

I'll never understand why people feel that way, but since you're typing messages on a keyboard attached to/inside a computer, using the internet, powered by electricity, fibre-optic cables, servers and binary codes all given to us by science, it all seems a bit hypocritical.

If you practiced what you preached and did a bit of research, you would have found that Denis Rancourt is a well-known scientist. He is not just some blogger.

Where did I say I hate science? I'm a science-fiction writer. Take a gander at the quote below--from one of the most popular science fiction books ever written.

[The Atheist]

Oh, quelle surprise!

It's not as though the author of the blog, one Denis G Rancourt has anything to be a little sour grapes about, is it?

Maybe you should donate to his legal defence fund? Is your posting merely an attempt to gain hits and money for his legal fund?

Are you, in fact, Dennis G Rancourt?

[glennr25]

You keep making baseless assumptions. Hey! Kinda like a scientist.

[glennr25]

We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nikola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

[The Atheist]

You keep making baseless assumptions. Hey! Kinda like a scientist.

Completely wrong again, sorry.

Like science, I am asking questions rather than assuming.

Have you ever considered being right about something? It's free of charge, you know.

We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home.

Looks like you're determined to. Fine by me - my job means I can take a quick 5 minutes here anytime I feel like it, and because you keep making totally erroneous posts, I'll keep playing.

The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions.

And there you go - 100% incorrect again.

You yourself say it even!

These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.

More nonsense.

You say people rule science? Point to them. Tell me which institution and people "govern science".

Note: your pal Rancourt has been barred from one university. He is still able to pursue scientific interests and publish his work. He is not in any meaning of the word "barred" from science. Even complete muppets like Behe are not barred from science. Laughed at, sure, but not barred.

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.

The person who is trying to discern which to believe has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

I'd answer that, but since it doesn't meet the standard of "better than word salad" I won't try.

[glennr25]

People don't rule science? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this stuff yourself? Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

As for Rancourt, his reputation has been taken away from him, thus his future as a practitioner of science is rather bleak. The powers that be decided to make a mockery of him because he wanted to tell the TRUTH.

[The Atheist]

People don't rule science? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this stuff yourself? Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Which scientist was piloting the Enola Gay that day? Which scientific institution ordered it to drop the bombs?

Seriously, your posts are becoming crazier by the post.

You credit science with the Hiroshima bombing, despite the fact that the attack was ordered by, and committed by, non-scientists, while laughingly deriding science on that keyboard I mentioned above. (That you also had no answer to.)

As for Rancourt, his reputation has been taken away from him, thus his future as a practitioner of science is rather bleak. The powers that be decided to make a mockery of him because he wanted to tell the TRUTH.

Well, of course. It's always about THE TRUTH, isn't it?

Tell me.

How come your boy Rancourt - a scientist - is believable when all other scientists are not?

Be honest - what relationship do you have to Rancourt? Why are you supporting him so fervently, accepting his word as THE TRUTH, while simultaneously calling all other scientists cheats & frauds?

Thanks in advance - I think you really should clear that up.

[YesNo]

We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

I agree. We are the ones responsible for the decisions we make and the authorities we accept. I view shunning and sarcasm as hints of underlying irrationality.

[glennr25]

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion. Again, decide for yourself what you want to believe. I'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs.

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/

[MorpheusSandman]

Here's a good article

I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.

[glennr25]

Which scientist was piloting the Enola Gay that day? Which scientific institution ordered it to drop the bombs?

Seriously, your posts are becoming crazier by the post.

You credit science with the Hiroshima bombing, despite the fact that the attack was ordered by, and committed by, non-scientists, while laughingly deriding science on that keyboard I mentioned above. (That you also had no answer to.)



Well, of course. It's always about THE TRUTH, isn't it?

Tell me.

How come your boy Rancourt - a scientist - is believable when all other scientists are not?

Be honest - what relationship do you have to Rancourt? Why are you supporting him so fervently, accepting his word as THE TRUTH, while simultaneously calling all other scientists cheats & frauds?

Thanks in advance - I think you really should clear that up.

The Enola Gay was the vehicle. Science is the reason the atom bomb exists in the first place. How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?

I'm not saying he's believable. He created a shadow of a doubt on various topics covered within the institution of science, and he's been shunned from the scientific community. To me, when you try to silence someone because he's writing about things he BELIEVES (key word) in, then it's obvious the institution is trying to discredit him. Where else have we heard this before?

[The Atheist]

So, you do like some scientists - those with an anti-science agenda.

I love the way you're disproving all of your own premises by posting the ravings of scientists who write anti-science agendas. You're making it awfully plain that you're willing to sacrifice your anti-scientist scruples as long as they agree with your rather silly premises.

Anyway, from the link you generously provided, your guy makes good points.

Except that numbers 1-10 are all actually false.

You know, quite a few scientists are anti-science. Even Nobel chemistry prize winner, Kary Mullis is both anti-AGW and an AIDS denier, and he has seen little green men from outer space. I really do recommend you use him rather then the two feebletons you've picked so far.

Mullis has gravitas, and demonstrably no need of sour grapes; he achieved the pinnacle of success in science and has nobody to be beholden to.

Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

[The Atheist]

I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.

Ah, you obviously saw all the same mistakes I did!

[The Atheist]

The Enola Gay was the vehicle. Science was the reason the atom bombs existed in the first place. How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?

Oh yeah, Godwin the thread. That'll turn out well.

To me, when you try to silence someone because he's writing about things he BELIEVES in, then it's obvious the institution is trying to discredit him. Where else have we heard this before?

Al Qaida? NAMBLA? The KKK? Stormfront?

I give up, which one do you mean?

[glennr25]

I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.

Of course it did. Isn't that what any true believer of religion would say to back their beliefs?