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.

 

Rated Greatest Scientist in History (a Christian)

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by WorldObserver
Well Newton also studied very deeply into Alchemy and had a profound belief in the existence of the Philosopher’s Stone. So does this make him an Occultist? Isn’t an Occultist the opposite of a Christian? You see, you are taking a very narrow view of Newton to try and win your argument that Christianity is somehow the only true religion. You need to view these things in relation to the times that Newton lived in. In my opinion Newton is the greatest scientist that ever lived but I care not for what god or book he gave homage to, only the brilliance of his mind and actions.

There was a wider view in those days... Newton was a Christian, no doubt. Christianity and science are not irreconcilable.
Vicky Some scientists who were or are Christians


I like your syncretistic approach.

However; the efforts of reconcilliation from both theist and metaphysical parts are sofar doing more harm than good. Mostly because they hijack logic/scientific principles and twist these principles into a pseudo-science, which for anyone slightly familiar with logic/science appears ridiculous, and even for the 'uneducated' is useless on pragmatic grounds.

It's a self-defeating method.

Being a 'metaphysicist' myself, I would like to see some common communication-ground (for a start). But not at the price of reducing intellectual potentials to idiocy level.
edit on 13-2-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I like your syncretistic approach.

However; the efforts of reconcilliation from both theist and metaphysical parts are sofar doing more harm than good. Mostly because they hijack logic/scientific principles and twist these principles into a pseudo-science, which for anyone slightly familiar with logic/science appears ridiculous, and even for the 'uneducated' is useless on pragmatic grounds.

It's a self-defeating method.

Being a 'metaphysicist' myself, I would like to see some common communication-ground (for a start). But not at the price of reducing intellectual potentials to idiocy level.

I believe your online translator is failing you, there is no cohesion in your logic and refute...

now you're a metaphysicist ? I thought in the other topic you worked for 10+ years as a psychologist ?

make up your mind and get comprehensible



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Einstein was also a religionist, and the last of the 'great ones' supporting an all-round Newton model. Einstein did this in opposition to the Copenhagen group, which claimed (and eventually proved) the validity of quantum-theory.

The irony is, that the scientific methodology leading to the watchmaker-universe of Newton and Einstein (paralled by Calvin on theist ground) outgrew itself and later scientists as Bohr, Schröedinger and Heisenberg reduced Newton's position to macro-cosmology, actually making theist cosmogonic claims rather invalid, leaving theism with only the worn-out clichée: 'Intelligent design' as an 'argument' on macro-cosmic scale.

So getting all hero-worshipping on Newton is meaningless in a contemporary debate logic/science/religion (which doesn't diminish his achievement by initating the procedure on certain aspects of science).



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by bogomil
I like your syncretistic approach.

However; the efforts of reconcilliation from both theist and metaphysical parts are sofar doing more harm than good. Mostly because they hijack logic/scientific principles and twist these principles into a pseudo-science, which for anyone slightly familiar with logic/science appears ridiculous, and even for the 'uneducated' is useless on pragmatic grounds.

It's a self-defeating method.

Being a 'metaphysicist' myself, I would like to see some common communication-ground (for a start). But not at the price of reducing intellectual potentials to idiocy level.

I believe your online translator is failing you, there is no cohesion in your logic and refute...

now you're a metaphysicist ? I thought in the other topic you worked for 10+ years as a psychologist ?

make up your mind and get comprehensible


Psychology (and some other soft social sciences) is my formal 4-5 year university educational background.

Metaphysics is a life-long amateur interest (and as such also a 'position' in this context).

Your recent interest in my person is ofcourse flattering, but the extent you take it to hardly relevant. I will restrict my responses to you to topic-relevance and disregard any further personal comments on your part, as they only can serve to derail the thread.
edit on 13-2-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seedofchucky
He was only christian because of the lack of the scientific method at that time.

His reason and logic were blurred due to his period of life. If he was here today..........


You cannot answer that question.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by ijoyisback
Stop making this sight out of a religious war. You can't covert anyone to your beliefs.


facts are facts jack, "deny ignorance"!
edit on 9-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)


Returning to what probably is relevant to the thread (Rustami should know as the author), I question the above.

What 'facts'?

That Newton was a great scientist, not having all answers; .....

....or VIA Newton postulate, that theistic claims are 'facts'.

In that case define and clarify "facts" as precisely as possible.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 



Originally posted by Rustami
yes seriously, I did'nt and "stupid" coming from someone who goes out of his way to call God a liar?



Which one? I'm sorry, but I'm not calling any specific deity a liar and I don't go out of my way to do it. Now, if you're talking about the Bible...well, I'm saying it's wrong in places because it is. Of course, the Bible isn't a deity. If you wish to practice a form of idolatry in which you equate your deity with the book of your religion, go ahead. You're breaking your own commandment there.

And it is an entirely stupid thread. The vast majority of the National Academy of Sciences? Atheists. Majority of the Royal Academy? Atheists. The majority of Nobel Laureates? Atheists. The most stable societies on the planet? Primarily atheistic.

Crazy thing: It doesn't matter either way!
The appeal to/argument from authority doesn't mean anything in a logical discourse.




the links provided show quite a few jewish, athiest as well as Christians from various organizations dum-dum





Charles Darwin was an Anglican, but by most accounts he appears to have been largely nominal in his affiliation with the Church of England. Darwin may be better classified as a Unitarian. He was a member of a Unitarian congregation which he attended regularly during at least part of his life.

During Darwin's lifetime, the Unitarian Church was considered a relatively mainstream Protestant Christian denomination, although many of its beliefs even then separated it from other Protestant denominations.
www.adherents.com...



Darwin left religion quite a ways into his studies. I mean, Wikipedia has an entry that talks about it. Sure, he was a Unitarian for a while, but he wasn't a Unitarian his whole life and he did his best work as an atheist.



"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."
He had dropped out of medical studies after two years at Edinburgh, and his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Charles wasn't sure whether he could accept everything in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, he later wrote,

"I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted." www.christiananswers.net...


Big woop, Darwin was born into a theistic society and happened to be influenced by it initially. He was an out and out atheist before he published Origin of Species.



Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy


You mean the most significant biological theory ever is a doctrine of demons? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bovine fecal matter.


Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'.

And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said, “I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.”

Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God.
www.christiananswers.net...


Yeah, it's a lot more complicated than that. This is a very silly, very simplified account of Darwin's movement away from religion.



And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word


...Darwin was a rich man by birth. He would have remained that way whether or not he published the greatest idea in biology.

Evolution is a scientific fact, get over it.




“by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

On another occasion he wrote, “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."


even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them


Ah, so all of the great scientific ideas that came out that weren't Newton are wrong and heresies. I'm sorry, but evolution is fact, and a hell of a lot of atheists have contributed a lot to science. Hell, we might even have scientists more brilliant than Newton today, they merely are living in a world where the problems are more abstract.

Hell, I could sit Newton down for an hour and tell him all sorts of things that he would never have conceived of in his day. I could solve problems that today seem basic but were considered insurmountable for him.

But I must conclude that this thread is stupid. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy. This thread is based around a logical fallacy. How is that not stupid?
edit on 13/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: finished last line.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 



Originally posted by troubleshooter
The Meme is a philosophical concept.


Still a concept. Still something new. Hell, there are all sorts of concepts that modern scientists have come up with.



He was hardly the first to argue for a genetic centred evolution...
...but this too is philosophy as it has not be empirically demonstrated.


True, but he was the one to advance it in the modern era.



Science is the study of the observable and reproducible...
...else it is but philosophy of science.


...no, the philosophy of science is the philosophical meta-analysis of science as a whole.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Yes and no. Einstein himself actually overturned and further explained Newtonian principles and made it so that they could only be applied on a very small range of scales...basically things within atmosphere. The Coppenhagen dudes put a lower end on where Newton applied. Otherwise...great point.

Hell, Einstein himself may be a hero, but even he was wrong. He espoused the idea of a steady-state universe and only relinquished it in the face of overwhelming evidence (because scientists do that, they change their minds when they have evidence that they're wrong).



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


He may have been a Christian, he might not have. We cannot conclude what specifically he was precisely, but we do know that he at least portrayed himself as either a Christian or one who admired Jesus. We also know he believed in some concept of a deity that was very influenced by Abrahamic conceptions.

We do know that he was not an atheist.

But why did Dendro have to resort to invoke Godwin's law so early?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
remember Rustami, you have alot of people in this thread who have openly... yes I said openly deny Newton as one of the greatest scientific minds simply because he was a Theist.

it is very logical and rational, yep Newton was wrong didn't you know



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


....Newton was wrong. Welcome to nearly nearly a century ago. Quantum physics and relativity show that his models were incomplete at best and wrong at worst. He wasn't perfect. Hell, he gave up on modelling the Solar System because he couldn't get past the complexities of the gravitational interactions.




Discussion of Newton begins at around 4 minutes in the video. For some reason it won't let me embed with it beginning from that time.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Newton was quite possibly the greatest scientific mind ever...but that doesn't mean he was infallible. And it has nothing to do with his theism and everything to do with his own effort and insight. He would have arrived at these conclusions had he been a Christian, Hindu, Atheist, Buddhist, or Pastafarian.

Even the greatest amongst us are fallible.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thanks for your answer.

To avoid turning this into a premature detailed analysis of micro/macro speculations (which may or may not turn up in a later valid context to this thread), my point was more on the lines of relating Einstein's work to the present topic of 'god-men' in a scientific perspective.

And he actually resorted to the standard (almost classical) theist method of starting with the predetermined answer (in his case a universe with non-dice-playing principles) and inventing 'facts' to 'prove' this answer along the way.

To disprove the Copenhagen claims, Einstein for a period used his (in)famous cosmic constant, so his equations couldn't be interpretated in the direction of quantum models. That he eventually gave it up, was ofcourse commendable.

If this was an intentional falsification or not is besides the point. But as an example of the need to keep scientific integrity intact, it's relevant. I've recently been involved in several debates on scientific principles, where my theist opponents seem to be almost completely ignorant on the subject, but still applying pseudo-science indiscriminately as the 'real' thing.

A lot of threads, such as this one, suffer from this most pressing problem of not knowing formal logic/science, but still using it.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


After placing my most recent post, I see, that we maybe ARE turning in the direction of micro/macro cosmos.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


so... Einstein was wrong on things too and had great blunders, Just as Darwin was...

is this the same Neil Tyson who exclaims this about Newton ?



near the end of the video of course... did it change the way he feels about Newton ?
edit on 2/13/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

and to add... the title "God of the gaps" doe not excuse the idea of God it only states that the search is still on, for this is how science arose in the first place.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
is this the same Neil Tyson who told Dawkins how it is... and would not even acknowledge his name ?


who cares what Tyson believes... he is truly analytical and worthy of his title.

to add... isn't it a little funny that Dawkins first response is to think Tyson is a religious man ? exclaiming he is being "rebuked" ?

go back to your tea and biscuits Mr Dawkins



edit on 2/13/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by ijoyisback
Stop making this sight out of a religious war. You can't covert anyone to your beliefs.


facts are facts jack, "deny ignorance"!
edit on 9-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)


Returning to what probably is relevant to the thread (Rustami should know as the author), I question the above.

What 'facts'?

That Newton was a great scientist, not having all answers; .....

....or VIA Newton postulate, that theistic claims are 'facts'.

In that case define and clarify "facts" as precisely as possible.


"Rated Greatest Scientist in History" ???? (in my best Seinfeld voice) "H E L L O "
no one said anything about having all the answers and I alluded to that by mentioning the voice did'nt say "I am Isaac Newton"



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rustami
 

Which one? I'm sorry, but I'm not calling any specific deity a liar and I don't go out of my way to do it. Now, if you're talking about the Bible...well, I'm saying it's wrong in places because it is. Of course, the Bible isn't a deity. If you wish to practice a form of idolatry in which you equate your deity with the book of your religion, go ahead. You're breaking your own commandment there.


Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

although easy enough to deduce using your own words in multiple posts not to mention knowing exactly what I've seen and heard- the scriptures are sufficient, beyond that one can always count on you getting it twisted and as stated before (like in the other thread where you could not answer another one of your twists), I have no interest in playing waste the time false propaganda games

psssst- (you may want to think things through a little longer before making remarks when it comes to studying books or a book and what common sense and a just weighted scale can accomplish!)

as for the rest of your bologne, yes people breath air bla bla bla but you'll never get away from the bloodshed commited by the majority athiest and other unbelievers (in the Son) that exceeds all wars combined since Jesus was concieved and set foot in Jerusalem
edit on 14-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join