It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists believe in God!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by v4vendetta
I just want to say that i believe in science and evolution AND i also believe in God. All you hardcore scientists crack me up if you say there is no god, i mean its really funny! check this; when a scientist 'crosses his fingers' in the hope his experiment is a success, who or what the hell is he 'hoping' to? holla...
i do agree with the scientist crossees and stuff but i wouldnt believe in evolution i would have no problem believing in evolution if someone could prove it the only hard core evidence tthey have is the geologis time table for right now i havent found one "proof" of evolution that couldnt be disproved you bring me some evidence and maybe ill believe




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by v4vendetta
praying and hoping are the same thing!!! think about it. I never said i was a scientist, i just agree with them on evolution and physics, and cos i beleive in god dont neccessarily mean i beleive in the old testament...
yeah but the only true god is the one who created us and you CANNOT believe what scientists sa y about evolution if you believe what they say in phisics they contradict ea. other the law of thermodynamics and the laws that state everty thing that exists owes its existance to a greater power



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Holla? What the hell does that mean?

Praying and hoping are by definition certainly NOT the same thing.

Hope is an internal feeling that you want something to happen.
Prayer is externally asking the invisible man who lives in the sky to do it for you.

Also, where is the conspiracy angle here? It seems to me like you just wanted to come in and state a fact without giving any evidence.
wha t he means is that all hope is not really prayer but all prayer definately is hope and god is not invisible meaning cant be seen with the eyes but invisible as beyond eyesight another thing is that he does not live in the clouds he lives on a literal planet called heaven even though heaven as a whole is a group of many heavens



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by v4vendetta
i get you bruv! but i kind of accept everybody's religions (including scientists) and when "I" pray im not asking for god to do anything cos i know its up to me to do whatever it is, so in a way im also hoping. i still reckon prayer and hope are the same thing. hope is just a scientific word for it...
lol



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
Scientists believe in god? You make it sound as though Science is the antithesis of religion. It is not.
The very man who came up with the scientific method which we still use today was a devout Muslim.

Ibn al-Haytham





It is the antithesis of ignorance, superstition, and dogma.


HA HA HA HA Is THAT what they TOLD YOU!?!?

In an ideal world maybe but Science is so full of egotistical dogmatic, terminally self righteous elitist maniacs with their intellectual snobbery it's sickening.

- Con



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Science is a methodology. The only thing it is full of is objectivity. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should think about just why that is the case.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by v4vendetta
 


........you're ignorant......end of story



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by v4vendetta
 


........you're ignorant......end of story



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Science is so full of egotistical dogmatic

Science cannot accommodate dogma. Are there some scientists who are dogmatic? Yeah, sure. Scientists are a broad spectrum of humanity so you're going get a bit of everything the human condition has to offer. However, those types of scientists tend to be overthrown in the light of evidence and reason.

terminally self righteous elitist maniacs

Ad hominem

with their intellectual snobbery it's sickening

Ad hominem... aaaannnnnd, to a certain degree I think they have the right to be. They have spent years rigorously studying, learning, testing, publishing, revisioning, and advancing the knowledge of mankind. I'd be pretty pissed too if I put the time and effort needed to become an expert in the field and have my work undermined some religious fundamentalists nutjobs with mostly high-school level (or at the very least a poor grasp, and that's being generous) education on the material they're discussing telling them they're wrong because some dusty old religious book (pick one, there's several to chose from) says so.

Seriously, put yourself in their shoes for a moment.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
What was the conspiracy part? Did I miss it? I am not being sarcastic, I just can't tell what the conspiracy is. I am a bit new here though, so...

As far scientists believing in GOD, why not? Why would this surprise anyone? It's not as if science and faith are mutually exclusive.

I actually knew one physicist who believed that he was merely there to discover what GOD had created. We had many amazing talks.

He was a scientist who never missed church and I was a religious studies student who was an atheist. We never thought there was any irony involved.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

Science cannot accommodate dogma


Science not ONLY accomodates it, many many of the most celebrated Scientists today say "Dogmatism" is now the Science of the day and you can't get around it. To just make a blanket assertion that Science cannot accomodate doesn't make it so.



Are there some scientists who are dogmatic? Yeah, sure


First, I will ask that you not patronize me as if to assume the only Science I know is my 6th grade Science Fair. Secondly, if I have any questions, Ill formulate them myself. I think it's academic there are dogmatic Scientists moreover I am going to ask where or what your area of Science is since you keep referring to them as if they more familiar to you, more like Colleagues at the lab you work at?



Ad hominem


Ya THINK!


i]with their intellectual snobbery it's sickening

Ad hominem... aaaannnnnd, to a certain degree I think they have the right to be.



[They have spent years rigorously studying, learning, testing, publishing, revisioning, and advancing the knowledge of mankind.


Look guy,, I don't care if they deficate Gold Buillion, I don't exhalt anyone that thinks they have a right to be a snob, to do so gives many others the right to bring their uppity attitudes back down to earth, drag em outside standing right next to them in the middle of the afternoon and show em the suns gonna shine on both of us.

As for what they do to advance the knowledge of Mankind,, some do, but the Science they call Darwinian evolution, I rate just below used car salesman when it comes to there integrity and honesty. As for the knowledge? They still think we are the product of molecules to man macro evolution, NOT because they have any proof, but because it fits their Atheism and is a tool to advance it. The dogamatism so rampant in that area of Science, is to keep it from sharing spotlight with any other theory especially those where the evidence might suggest a creator where such evidence is abruptly discarded as "Bad evidence". Dogma at it's best.



I'd be pretty pissed too if I put the time and effort needed to become an expert in the field and have my work undermined some religious fundamentalists nutjobs with mostly high-school level (or at the very least a poor grasp, and that's being generous) education on the material they're discussing telling them they're wrong because some dusty old religious book (pick one, there's several to chose from) says so.


I find it rather ironic you would point out an Ad-hom in my post and then follow it with your own talking about some hipothetical accomplished Scientist who apparentley in your version of this story, worked very hard all his life but for some reason, this formally educated Doctorate in Biology whatever, suddenly forgets the science of cause and effect and forgets to stay at cause while some "Nutjob" or to be more specific a "religious fundamentalist" who, (if I am following you correct) has little to no knowledge or education in Science with the only stable datum he holds as his standard of truth is some dusty old Book. (probably has to blow al the cob webs off it and the cloud of dust must really annoy the Scientist. Now you are saying this nutjob ( A Christian Ill bet) actually "undermines" the real smart guy?

How is this done?

Seems to me if I had all that goin for me,, I wouldn't be threatened at all and have a hard time understanding why you have this seemingly insecure angst you have experienced vicariously via the effect of the Science character in your story? I worked in Canoga Park CA for many years and traveled all over the country for Redken Laboratories where we had a slogan for the chemistry called the Beauty of Science lol

Most of the Scientists there would have probably reminded you of your Nutjob in your story. Many were Christians also and had collections of dusty old Books like,, oh the Bible.

They also had enough intelligence to be secure in there self concept knowing no "Nutjob" can undermine what they have without their consent.

Interesting story, but seems a little out of line with real world events and human behavior. Just too convoluted to ring true.



Seriously, put yourself in their shoes for a moment.


I don't have a problem putting myself in their shoes, it's the part where I have to remove my spine and half my brain that I don't want to participate.

- Con






[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Science is a methodology. The only thing it is full of is objectivity. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should think about just why that is the case.


So Science is the study of methods? Or are you saying methodology is the study of Science? Dave, anytime you want to have a debate on english Vocabulary just let me know. Hell even a game of Dictionary would be fun convincing you, that your presumptuous, passive aggressive suggestions I need to have YOU enlighten me on the meaning of Science would be tantamount to having Joe Blow at the municipal Golf Course pro shop, telling tiger woods how to use a sand wedge.

Furthermore if your objectivity wasn't so Bias about what you think is wrong with my objectivity, you wouldn't look so much like you have the problem.

Not me.

- Con

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


many many of the most celebrated Scientists today say "Dogmatism" is now the Science of the day and you can't get around it.

What scientists? Who? If there's so many, perhaps you wouldn't mind putting up some sourced quotes.

Science cannot endure dogma, because Science must stay flexible in it's views and be prepared to change them in light of new evidence. Science doesn't advance with dogmatic beliefs, because dogmatic beliefs are unchanging, and if you read even one peer reviewed scientific journal on a semi-regular basis you'll know they are progressing. Rapidly. Science has a proven track record of success. This isn't possible with dogmatic attitudes. Dogma is what has kept religion in the dark ages, while Science and reason has advanced humanity's capabilities beyond our ancestors wildest dreams.

First, I will ask that you not patronize me as if to assume the only Science I know is my 6th grade Science Fair.

Prove me wrong then.

Ill formulate them myself. I think it's academic there are dogmatic Scientists moreover I am going to ask where or what your area of Science is since you keep referring to them as if they more familiar to you, more like Colleagues at the lab you work at?

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

I don't exhalt anyone that thinks they have a right to be a snob

Most of them aren't snobs, but they do tend to have a short tolerance for anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter anyhow. You don't have to like them. Their personality, whether snobbish or easy going, is of little consequence to the validity or invalidity of their research.

As for what they do to advance the knowledge of Mankind,, some do, but the Science they call Darwinian evolution, I rate just below used car salesman when it comes to there integrity and honesty.

I see. You want to reap the benefits of science only where it's convenient for you and where it doesn't offend you, but will simply throw out decades of research and libraries worth of knowledge on the subject just because you don't like it what it has to say. You just blow them off, calling them charlatains and liars... despite testable, observable, and reproducible results. Oh, but Nuclear Physicists... you're A-OK with that, huh, probably without even looking into the matters they research either.

They still think we are the product of molecules to man macro evolution, NOT because they have any proof, but because it fits their Atheism and is a tool to advance it.

You claim that I make a blanket statement about dogma in science, yet you make the blanket statement that "All Evolutionists are Atheists". Hypocracy much? Further, what would it matter if some of the are Atheists or not? Are you bias against Atheists? Do you hate them? Why should a belief in an untestable and unobservable phenomena which you cannot use to make predictions have anything to do with real test results in the REAL world?

especially those where the evidence might suggest a creator

Um, there is no evidence to support a creator. Sorry, I thought you got the memo.

where such evidence is abruptly discarded as "Bad evidence".

Bad science is bad science - whether it's in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It gets weeded out. A lot. If "creationist science" hadn't been bad science to begin with, it wouldn't have been discredited.

Now you are saying this nutjob ( A Christian Ill bet) actually "undermines" the real smart guy?

I would cite George Bush as an example, although he has far more education than most creationists. Simple minded folk flock around simple slogans and simple answers which don't require them to think much. These same "simple" people tend to vote and raise "simple" kids. I'm sure you realize the danger of a generation of uneducated, anti-intellectual, children has for the future.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by v4vendetta
the title of this thread was scientist believe in god,
now i wanna ask what the difference between praying and hoping is?


Yes there is no difference.. both are wishful thinking.. I suppose the only difference is that you don't generally pray for harm..



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Just a further point.. any "scientist who believes the world is six thousand years old, is not a scientist...



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Paid scientists with an agenda in favor of macro-evolution and atheism or just anti-christian proponents are extremists and, yet, they seem to hold their personal devotees in sway.

What's wrong with that?
They are the ones teaching our children sometimes, since many who won't tow the line for macro-evolution get fired.
Censorship.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Many were Christians also and had collections of dusty old Books like,, oh the Bible.

Oh, I don't doubt that. As said I said above, there's quite a lot of scientists - even evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, etc, who read the bible and go to church. Science is not the antithesis of religion or vice versa. The nutjobs are the ones who tend to hold a strictly literal view of the bible at the cost of sacrificing reality. These are the people pushing the Creationist movement.

You know, like "Dr" Kent Hovind with his multiple PhDs who know couldn't even pass a high school science class, perish the thought of actually teaching one.

Yes, those people are nutjobs. Flat out. This isn't to say that all Christians are, or that anyone from any religion necessarily is. Don Exodus, who's videos I've shown often is a Christian. Robert Bakker the famous paleontologist is a pentecostal preacher. I myself am Catholic. Well, more of a deist really, but with RC leanings. And yes, we all accept Evolution.

That's what really strikes me... I even believe in a creator GOD, though I'm not a creationist. So figure that one out.

They also had enough intelligence to be secure in there self concept knowing no "Nutjob" can undermine what they have without their consent.

It's not the research they're undermining. It's public opinion, and where anti-intellectualism will lead this nation. If Creationists have their way, and the outline of the Wedge document is fulfilled, then this nation will have a very serious problem on it's hands. Science will continue to grow and advance mankind, especially in Europe and Asia. America, though... well, they don't really want to see it come to that.

I don't have a problem putting myself in their shoes, it's the part where I have to remove my spine and half my brain that I don't want to participate.

Well, if Evolutionary scientists are so brainless and spineless - then it should be absolutely no problem for a fully brained god-child like you to tromp them in the academic arena. So write a paper and submit it for peer review detailing how and why they're wrong. Or better yet, actually try to write one that - rather than attack Evolution as Creationists are so apt to do... try to be original and prove Creationism with reasoned logic and imperial physical evidence. Win that Nobel Prize, for God, brother.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Paid scientists with an agenda in favor of macro-evolution and atheism or just anti-christian proponents are extremists and, yet, they seem to hold their personal devotees in sway.

Paid scientists? You suggest they work for free? Everybody who does work is paid, else you're a slave, but here's a shocker - Science doesn't really pay well at all. If you think being a scientist makes you rich, you're sadly mistaken.

Though, I have to say, some of the biggest and most vocal proponents of Creationism/ID are Evangelical preachers. You know, the "God's for Sale" ones with their Mega Churches praying who are all to willing to embezzle money from their institutions (Jerry F.) or sell you libraries of "God's Good Word" on DVD for the low low price of an arm and a leg. (Kent. H) Tax free of course, well, for him anyhow. (I should probably past-tense that) Etc.

Oh, and speaking of religious leaders - it should be noted, yet again, that the last three popes have either accepted or supported acceptance of Evolution. Another point to the already well established idea that "Science isn't the antithesis of Religion or vice versa".

They are the ones teaching our children sometimes, since many who won't tow the line for macro-evolution get fired.

There is no such thing as "Micro" and "Macro" evolution. There is only Evolution. The only difference between the supposed two, is time scale. What you propose is like saying there is such a think as "Micro" and "Macro" Continental Drift.

Censorship.

It's not censorship. It's insubordination and displaying a lack of knowledge on the subject. If a science teacher refused to teach that the world was round, and instead insisted on teaching their students that it was flat - they should expect to get reprimanded. The same would be true of a medical teacher who insisted on not teaching their students about pathogens and instead insisted on teaching them the Four Humors, Miasma, and blood letting.


[edit on 23-6-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

Paid scientists? You suggest they work for free? Everybody who does work is paid, else you're a slave, but here's a shocker - Science doesn't really pay well at all. If you think being a scientist makes you rich, you're sadly mistaken.


Professors, university researchers, curriculum specialists.
They don't get paid well?


Though, I have to say, some of the biggest and most vocal proponents of Creationism/ID are Evangelical preachers. You know, the "God's for Sale" ones with their Mega Churches praying who are all to willing to embezzle money from their institutions (Jerry F.) or sell you libraries of "God's Good Word" on DVD for the low low price of an arm and a leg. (Kent. H) Tax free of course, well, for him anyhow. (I should probably past-tense that) Etc.


Well, that is about the only $$$ for creationism.
Most preachers actually have to work to get by.



Oh, and speaking of religious leaders - it should be noted, yet again, that the last three popes have either accepted or supported acceptance of Evolution. Another point to the already well established idea that "Science isn't the antithesis of Religion or vice versa".


pope john paul II actually said muslims, hindus and everyone else was equally right (as long as they came under the tent of the 'church'.)



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Professors, university researchers, curriculum specialists.
They don't get paid well?


Not as well as someone of their intelligence and time in school could be making. Compared to doctors, lawyers, CEOs, IT managers, etc. On average, a biologist makes roughly 22% more than the national average yearly salary. Many of them don't get paid much more than a good trucker with a low accident history would make. Especially not the ones who are still in collage.

Well, that is about the only $$$ for creationism.
Most preachers actually have to work to get by.


Yet you never see even the most famous of Scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, making anywhere near as much money as even mediocre Evangelists with their own product line. And yes, there's quite a few of them. It's actually a very commercial business. Just look at, say, Christian Rock for example. Lots of money made there.

Science tends to rely more on grants and outside funding, because they generally don't produce a sell-able product. They produce knowledge. Evolutionary biologists, for example, don't make commercial products.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join