morality god and science a book

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 03:35pm

In theory everything is good.

Even Nazism? Even murder? Even rape?

It is perception that ruins things that ,in theory, could be good.

Ahh, so it was just everyone's perception of Nazism that resulted in millions of deaths. Gotcha.

our damned morals are what ruins the good in things.

Which ones? Not secular humanist morals. Maybe Judeo-Christian-Muslim morals...

All that my book is doing is being the devils advocate. It is here to stir up conversatoin and ask more questions.

Playing devil's advocate is good when both sides of a story have equal weight, but there's no reason to play such a role when it's already been well-established that religion and science do not mix.

It's here to further make you think what if it was that way where would i be if it was that way. And further more it plays both fields it is for science and it is for religion it is for science and religion it goes through theories and hypothesis and just gives what i think answers and further questions can be.

Religion goes on unsupported assumption. Religion's "reasoning" methods bear absolutely nothing resembling a likeness to the scientific method. Science gives actual, testable answers. Religion gives hearsay.

The main thing it is meant to do is draw attention to it'self. It is something new and inventive. From my point of view at least. How many 16 year olds have you met that are getting there first book being published about scinece religion and morality with a slite twist of government into it it's nearing 60 pages right now and it is going to be around two hundred with two seperate section todays view purely fact based and then the first half which is completely opinion based...

You've got a publisher? Who?

Anyway, you're 16, and you have absolutely no authority on science that you can use as a basis on comparison to religion. The basic flaw in your approach is that you are, right off the bat, seeking to go from the perspective that science and religion can mix, instead of studying both and coming to the conclusion that that is the case. I realize you want to approach it from a different perspective, but step back and think to yourself, "Is this perspective valid." The answer is no.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 07:24pm

Drundal wrote:Even Nazism? Even murder? Even rape?

The Garmans thought fascism would bring new life to Germany. So yes, in theory that was good, although most people now realize that it was a pretty stupid theory.

Rape? Let's ask patkelly:

patkelly wrote:Sex is far removed from violence and the two have very little in common. In spite of the current wave of anti-sex hysteria the fact still remains that the far greater majority of sexual encounters, irregardless of age or age differences, is experienced as pleasurable. It is only religious inspired social guilt, remorse, fear and regret that can turn the wondrous beauty of sex into something ugly and perverse.

So as you can see, any sexual intercourse is good, regardless of whether it was coerced or not.

As for murder - that's how you deal with people who believe in stupid theories like the two above.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 07:34pm

The Garmans thought fascism would bring new life to Germany. So yes, in theory that was good, although most people now realize that it was a pretty stupid theory.

Red herring. We're talking about Nazism, not simple fascism. Nazism required that the Jews be exterminated. Just because it may have been good for the German people does not mean it isn't evil. If I steal from someone, it's good for me because I get money, but does that mean that the act of stealing is intrinsically good?

I can't believe I'm explaining this to you. Surely you can see the flaws in ridiculous proclamations like, "In theory, everything is good."

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-19 07:35pm

Read the last line. He's being sarcastic

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 07:37pm

No, he simply said that the "theory" of fascism was good, but turned out to be stupid. I assume that, in context, he was blaming the implementation, completely dismissing the possibility that the idea itself might be flawed, which is most certainly was.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 07:48pm

Durandal wrote:No, he simply said that the "theory" of fascism was good, but turned out to be stupid. I assume that, in context, he was blaming the implementation, completely dismissing the possibility that the idea itself might be flawed, which is most certainly was.

No, I said most people now realize that was a pretty stupid theory. Notice the tense - the theory was stupid from the beginning. I was saying that from a technical standpoint, something can be good in theory but fail in real life precisely because the theory is flawed. Geez.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 09:25pm

data_link wrote:
Durandal wrote:No, he simply said that the "theory" of fascism was good, but turned out to be stupid. I assume that, in context, he was blaming the implementation, completely dismissing the possibility that the idea itself might be flawed, which is most certainly was.
No, I said most people now realize that was a pretty stupid theory. Notice the tense - the theory was stupid from the beginning. I was saying that from a technical standpoint, something can be good in theory but fail in real life precisely because the theory is flawed. Geez.

So, Nazism was still a good theory, but it was just flawed in ways that demanded the deaths of millions of Jews? Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 09:40pm

Durandal wrote:
data_link wrote:
Durandal wrote:No, he simply said that the "theory" of fascism was good, but turned out to be stupid. I assume that, in context, he was blaming the implementation, completely dismissing the possibility that the idea itself might be flawed, which is most certainly was.
No, I said most people now realize that was a pretty stupid theory. Notice the tense - the theory was stupid from the beginning. I was saying that from a technical standpoint, something can be good in theory but fail in real life precisely because the theory is flawed. Geez.
So, Nazism was still a good theory, but it was just flawed in ways that demanded the deaths of millions of Jews? Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

I never said Nazism was a good theory. In fact, it was an incredibly stupid theory. I only said that according to the theory, the death of millions of jews was a good thing. I NEVER SAID THE THEORY WAS EVEN REMOTELY VALID! WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 09:47pm

I never said Nazism was a good theory. In fact, it was an incredibly stupid theory. I only said that according to the theory, the death of millions of jews was a good thing.

Then it was a red herring. No one gives a shit what the theory thinks of itself.

I NEVER SAID THE THEORY WAS EVEN REMOTELY VALID! WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

I was saying that from a technical standpoint, something can be good in theory but fail in real life precisely because the theory is flawed. Geez.

Choose your words more carefully. You're a mess of self-contradiction. If a theory is so flawed that it fails miserably in real life, then it wasn't a good theory.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 09:52pm

Durandal wrote:Then it was a red herring. No one gives a shit what the theory thinks of itself.

Geez. Are you really too dense to realize that it was a JOKE? Forgive me for trying to add a little semantic humor to the form.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 09:56pm

By the way, I love how you can't seem to realize the difference between mentioning that a specific theory endorses an obviously flawed concept and attempting to endorse either the theory or the concept. Do you also flame people that sarcastically suggest "of course we should kill anyone who doesn't share our religion. God says so."?

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-11-19 10:31pm

So, Nazism was still a good theory, but it was just flawed in ways that demanded the deaths of millions of Jews? Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Does Godwin's Law apply here?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 11:52pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
So, Nazism was still a good theory, but it was just flawed in ways that demanded the deaths of millions of Jews? Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Does Godwin's Law apply here?

That depends. What's Godwin's Law?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-20 02:39am

data_link wrote:
Durandal wrote:Then it was a red herring. No one gives a shit what the theory thinks of itself.
Geez. Are you really too dense to realize that it was a JOKE? Forgive me for trying to add a little semantic humor to the form.

A joke which you continued to argue. Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

By the way, I love how you can't seem to realize the difference between mentioning that a specific theory endorses an obviously flawed concept and attempting to endorse either the theory or the concept. Do you also flame people that sarcastically suggest "of course we should kill anyone who doesn't share our religion. God says so."?

You said that Nazism was good for the Germans, and therefore an inherently good theory, then you said it was flawed. Make up your fucking mind.

By the way, Godwin's Law states that, as a thread grows larger, the probability of comparing one's opponent to Hitler or Nazi Germany approaches 1.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-20 02:47am

Durandal wrote:
data_link wrote:
Durandal wrote:Then it was a red herring. No one gives a shit what the theory thinks of itself.
Geez. Are you really too dense to realize that it was a JOKE? Forgive me for trying to add a little semantic humor to the form.
A joke which you continued to argue. Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

By the way, I love how you can't seem to realize the difference between mentioning that a specific theory endorses an obviously flawed concept and attempting to endorse either the theory or the concept. Do you also flame people that sarcastically suggest "of course we should kill anyone who doesn't share our religion. God says so."?
You said that Nazism was good for the Germans, and therefore an inherently good theory, then you said it was flawed. Make up your fucking mind.

By the way, Godwin's Law states that, as a thread grows larger, the probability of comparing one's opponent to Hitler or Nazi Germany approaches 1.

I'm not backpedaling. I'm saying that the whole thing was sarcasm to begin with - a statement of fact. My only point was that by the technical definition, your sarcastic remark about in theory everything in good would actually be correct, since for just about any fucked up thing there is a theory that either supports or requires it. A point that you failed to fucking grasp. Tell me Drundal, why is it that when I point out that a cdertain group of people thinks that something is good that I'm saying I think it is good, especially when I use Patkelly to prove that rape is good in my next sentence? Did it ever occour to you that maybe I was saying that the respective theories were equally fucked up?

As for Godwin's law - you were the one who complied with it, not me.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-20 02:55am

I'm not backpedaling. I'm saying that the whole thing was sarcasm to begin with - a statement of fact. My only point was that by the technical definition, your sarcastic remark about in theory everything in good would actually be correct, since for just about any fucked up thing there is a theory that either supports or requires it. A point that you failed to fucking grasp.

I still don't see what you're trying to say. From my end, you make absolutely no sense. Every idea in this context is considered a theory (i.e. Nazism, anal sex, whatever). I said that not every theory is intrinsically good, and I am correct, because Nazism is not intrinsically good. Are you agreeing with me or contradicting me? Pick one or the other.

Tell me Drundal, why is it that when I point out that a cdertain group of people thinks that something is good that I'm saying I think it is good, especially when I use Patkelly to prove that rape is good in my next sentence? Did it ever occour to you that maybe I was saying that the respective theories were equally fucked up?

I don't care if certain groups of people think it's good. That doesn't give any validity to the theory.

As for Godwin's law - you were the one who complied with it, not me.

When did I compare you to Nazis?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-20 03:09am

I still don't see what you're trying to say. From my end, you make absolutely no sense. Every idea in this context is considered a theory (i.e. Nazism, anal sex, whatever). I said that not every theory is intrinsically good, and I am correct, because Nazism is not intrinsically good. Are you agreeing with me or contradicting me? Pick one or the other.

Both. I am agreeing with your main point - that saying everything is good in theory is a statement that is completely fucked up. I am only disagreeing on a purely semantic issue because that statement is technically true - everything is good in theory, which is why the fact that something is good in theory is fucking irrelevant unless the theory actually has validity. I am supporting your argument, dumbass.

I don't care if certain groups of people think it's good. That doesn't give any validity to the theory.

Which is my whole fucking point.

When did I compare you to Nazis?

When you accused me of trying to defend their ideology.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-11-20 04:21am

Godwin's Law states that over a long enough period of time, any thread will degenerate into Nazi references. It also states that the first party to do so automatically conceeds any debate underway. Of course, that would shut down half the threads on this website, but whatever.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-21 12:15pm

Data_link, I think the problem sometimes is that your sarcasm lacks style. It lacks that witty edge that twists the whole point subtly and lets people know that it all ties together into a single humorous remark. Without that style, sarcasm either comes off as dry, misguided Devils's Advocate, or a stupid argument that goes against the main point.

Possible Solution: Writing class.
My Solution: None. The Sky Pixie doesn't seem to like you.

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-21 03:54pm

Anyway, you're 16, and you have absolutely no authority on science that you can use as a basis on comparison to religion. The basic flaw in your approach is that you are, right off the bat, seeking to go from the perspective that science and religion can mix, instead of studying both and coming to the conclusion that that is the case. I realize you want to approach it from a different perspective, but step back and think to yourself, "Is this perspective valid." The answer is no.

i have studied both. I have been studying science and religion for the past year or so and is what inspired me to write the book in the first place. I might not be well known but that doesn't mean i don't have an authority to put my perspective on the market and yes i have a publicist i also have an editor. so don't assume i'm just some dumb kid playing around with the idea of being an author or something. I'm national amatuer poet of the year i have a plaque and a medal. I have also been published in two books and a couple newspapers. i don't think that you are even open to the idea at all your opinion is very biased and one sided and i think that you are the one that doesn't have any real facts to back up your assumptions

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-21 04:03pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data_link, I think the problem sometimes is that your sarcasm lacks style. It lacks that witty edge that twists the whole point subtly and lets people know that it all ties together into a single humorous remark. Without that style, sarcasm either comes off as dry, misguided Devils's Advocate, or a stupid argument that goes against the main point.

I understood from the very begining. In theory everything is good. meaning that any theory can be perceived as good in some sense or light. Nazism to the nazis was a good theory. Although to society it was not. They themselves thought getting rid of the jews would better society. so in a sense they were trying to do good, but they were doing it in a bad way. The fact is anyone can argue that something was or is good. it all comes down to a difference in opinion

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-21 06:01pm

punkgothhippie wrote: i have studied both. I have been studying science and religion for the past year or so and is what inspired me to write the book in the first place.

Sorry, that won't do. I've studied science for five years in college, and it took the first two to adquire some firm basis in the basic concepts.
One year is not enough, specially at sixteen and by self learning.

You have no basis to digress about science, not seriously, anyway. Go to a good college first, and learn.

If you do that, you'll realize there's no way science lacks religion.

I might not be well known but that doesn't mean i don't have an authority to put my perspective on the market and yes i have a publicist i also have an editor.

who?

so don't assume i'm just some dumb kid playing around with the idea of being an author or something. I'm national amatuer poet of the year i have a plaque and a medal.
I have also been published in two books and a couple newspapers.

Yet, your english grammar and spelling are way poorer than mine, a non native speaker. A serious writer would never allow himself to type in your fashion. So, you'll excuse me if I ask to be pointed to those books.

i don't think that you are even open to the idea at all your opinion is very biased and one sided and i think that you are the one that doesn't have any real facts to back up your assumptions

No, you are yet to explain your position. You haven't explained how science lacks religion. Do it, and back up those claims.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 06:51pm

i have studied both. I have been studying science and religion for the past year or so and is what inspired me to write the book in the first place.

Wow, a whole year! *cough, cough*
I've been studying it for twice as long at university, and I'll be studying it for another 3 years or so, not counting grad school. You've failed to impress me.

I might not be well known but that doesn't mean i don't have an authority to put my perspective on the market and yes i have a publicist i also have an editor. so don't assume i'm just some dumb kid playing around with the idea of being an author or something.

Everyone has the right to put their perspective on the market. That doesn't mean that you have the authority to legitimately comment on science, which you obviously know nothing about. The only thing you can offer is a layman's perspective, which is worthless. Science isn't some sort of role you can study for a little while and grasp fully, like actors do. It takes years of education and fuckloads of work, and quite frankly, I'm insulted that someone as scientifically ignorant as you is getting the go-ahead to write a book on science with no formal education in the field by virtue of being a good poet.

I'm national amatuer poet of the year i have a plaque and a medal. I have also been published in two books and a couple newspapers.

You write poems. This does not give you the authority to comment on religion and its contributions to science. Try not to overblow your qualifications. Poets are far from the types of people who should be commenting on science. When's the last time you conducted research in a lab? Or wrote up a lab report? Or did field research? Or wrote a theory based on observed evidence and had it published in a journal? Have you even taken algebra-based physics, or even advanced algebra?

i don't think that you are even open to the idea at all your opinion is very biased and one sided and i think that you are the one that doesn't have any real facts to back up your assumptions

Golden mean fallacy. I'm sick of ultra-leftist morons who try to take an obviously clear-cut issue and try to compromise on it. I'm a science major. I know what science is. You're in high school. You obviously don't know what science is. I've given you the reasons why science and religion don't mix – which anyone with even a basic knowledge of science should be able to grasp – and you've gleefully ignored them, comfortable in your own delusions of scientific adequacy. End of story. The two don't mix. Get over it.

Get it through your head. Religion contributes nothing to science. It is impossible for it to do so. Religion makes zero testable predictions; it doesn't offer any useful descriptive terms (in fact, it offers the exact opposite, useless, redundant, nondescriptive terms), and it is based purely on hearsay. Religion is fantasy; science is fact.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 06:56pm

Oh, and data_link, whatever. Just be sure to include <sarcasm> tags, next time, or something.

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-12-12 11:02am

Sorry that i have been gone for such a long time, and that it has taken me such a long time to respond to argue my point further. Although you all have many valid points, i would like to quote Einstein, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Now i would like you to tell me how science and religion cannot mix. They obviously can because it has been done and there are many courses i have seen that teach general theories on the convergence of science and religion. i would also like to quote from a journal i have read, "After centuries of battle, scientists and theologians are finally forging a grand unified theory. Think eternity = MC (squared)." I think i'll try for a few more quotes this by Jacques Monod 1970 winner of the Nobel Prize, "the ancient covenant is in pieces: man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance." Monod believed he had proven god does not in fact exist at all. steven weinberg then retaliated in 1977 with ,"The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also sems pointless." in 1981 the national academy of sciences declared, "Religion and science are seperate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought." Recently though Astronomer Allan sondage declared that the big bang can only be explained as a miracle. Charles townes a nobel prize winning physicist stated once - discoveries of physics seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law - biologist christian de duve also nobel prize winning has stated science argues neither for nor against the existance of deities there is no sense in which atheism is enforced or established by science - and francis collins director of of the national human genome research institute insists that " a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings."
In recent years science has begun to back away from it's case closed attitude toward the transcendant unknown recently there have been many conferances that bring together physicists and theologians at places such as the smythsonian and harvard. and the american association for the advancement of science now sponcors a "dialogue on sceince thics and religion." and scientists who once shrugged at faith are now retracting statements such as e.o. wilson stephen jay gould and carl sagan-they are now endorsing some form of reconciliation between science and religion.

So now i ask why you denounce my writing so whole heartedly.