Pleasant Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2010, 03:14 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
In response to post #36....

Martin, yesterday you mentioned living in a wealthier region of a first world country, as such, I imagine that you live in an environment that is not the average. Bear in mind that although a wide array of modern technology, although available, is not necessarily achievable, by a significant portion of the world.

So, did these various technologies make life easier? As a whole, yes, I think they did. Certainly they also brought with them new troubles. But the difficulties gained, pale in comparison to the benefits acquired. As I said in a recent post, the ability for a significant portion of humanity, to adopt the leisurely(by contrast) life style that it does, is thanks entirely due to the advancement of technology. If you will, consider for a moment the clovis point. It was a spear head, that was heavily used in the area that I live, several thousand years ago; and it was a dramatic alteration of lifestyle for those using it. However, it also brought with it, it's own troubles. Now, one needed to search for a stable quantity, of quality stone, in order to support and facilitate the continued production of this new technology. In addition, one needed to take the time and effort to actually learn the necessary skills to create these heads, not an easy feat, and from there, ensure it's continued production, so that the survival of yourself and those around you, was easier.

I often hear people, harking back to the golden era, as I like to call it. The era where life was simpler, we didn't have all of this technology, and stuff we didn't need, we didn't have people who can wield a gun, with effectively no skill at all, and blow someones brain out the back of their skull, who has had decades of experience in martial combat. We did not have atomic weaponry, we did not have troublesome vehicles, we did not have a continuous feed connecting our lives to those around us; one could easily 'get away' from it all; now your pager reminds you that you have an appointment in two hours at the nearby cafe.

And that same life, was often short, brutal, and full of miseries.

I could continue for an extended period of time, but I will only be rehearsing the same thing, in slightly different form. What it really comes down to though, is that the golden era we may so often think of...is a warped perception created from our minds. At least now, we need not watch our children suffer and die at the hands of a bacterial infection, while we uselessly stand by and are powerless to stop it. Science, and the advancement of technology and our understanding of the universe, even if it comes with negative applications, is a greater feat than I think we can possibly imagine.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 04:39 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 02:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 02:12 PM)ulfark Wrote:  but that might still be a valid point. we also claim gun manufacturers are bad and not just those who use them.the reason science is deemed innocent of say molecular dividing that led to the atomic bomb is because it also led to other important things that were benificiary to mankind.

No. Like martin, you're confusing science with its applications. Science is just study. What you do with the results of that study has nothing to do with the science itself.

So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 05:05 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 04:39 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?

Science shouldn't be held accountable for how people use new discoveries.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 05:20 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 05:05 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 04:39 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?

Science shouldn't be held accountable for how people use new discoveries.

Anybody else care to weigh in on my comment and Ashley's comment?
(25-04-2010 03:14 PM)Ceryle Wrote:  In response to post #36....

Martin, yesterday you mentioned living in a wealthier region of a first world country, as such, I imagine that you live in an environment that is not the average. Bear in mind that although a wide array of modern technology, although available, is not necessarily achievable, by a significant portion of the world.

So, did these various technologies make life easier? As a whole, yes, I think they did. Certainly they also brought with them new troubles. But the difficulties gained, pale in comparison to the benefits acquired. As I said in a recent post, the ability for a significant portion of humanity, to adopt the leisurely(by contrast) life style that it does, is thanks entirely due to the advancement of technology. If you will, consider for a moment the clovis point. It was a spear head, that was heavily used in the area that I live, several thousand years ago; and it was a dramatic alteration of lifestyle for those using it. However, it also brought with it, it's own troubles. Now, one needed to search for a stable quantity, of quality stone, in order to support and facilitate the continued production of this new technology. In addition, one needed to take the time and effort to actually learn the necessary skills to create these heads, not an easy feat, and from there, ensure it's continued production, so that the survival of yourself and those around you, was easier.

I often hear people, harking back to the golden era, as I like to call it. The era where life was simpler, we didn't have all of this technology, and stuff we didn't need, we didn't have people who can wield a gun, with effectively no skill at all, and blow someones brain out the back of their skull, who has had decades of experience in martial combat. We did not have atomic weaponry, we did not have troublesome vehicles, we did not have a continuous feed connecting our lives to those around us; one could easily 'get away' from it all; now your pager reminds you that you have an appointment in two hours at the nearby cafe.

And that same life, was often short, brutal, and full of miseries.

I could continue for an extended period of time, but I will only be rehearsing the same thing, in slightly different form. What it really comes down to though, is that the golden era we may so often think of...is a warped perception created from our minds. At least now, we need not watch our children suffer and die at the hands of a bacterial infection, while we uselessly stand by and are powerless to stop it. Science, and the advancement of technology and our understanding of the universe, even if it comes with negative applications, is a greater feat than I think we can possibly imagine.

I am not talking of a Golden era, I am talking about the future. So we don't have have to watch our kids die today, but your kids might die in the future because of antibiotic resistant strains. We had good bullet proof vests and then we came up with "cop killer" bullets, which leads us to a new vest that I saw a report on that will stop the "cop killer" and the bullet manufacturer’s, I am sure are making a new bullet that will penetrate that vest.

Do you really think people would spend 10 billion on a Hadron Collider to find the Higgs Boson. I can't wait to see what will come out of that!
(25-04-2010 05:05 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 04:39 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?

Science shouldn't be held accountable for how people use new discoveries.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 05:39 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 04:39 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?

Do you hold gravity accountable for the people who died by falling? No? What about the people who discovered that gravity can be used to make objects accelerate to a level where they can crush, maim, and kill? Are they responsible for every time someone dropped a rock on someone?
Facts are facts, martin. What you do with them has nothing to do with it. You aren't objecting to science. You are objecting to its applications. Science is the acquisition of knowledge, not the application of it.

Quote:I am not talking of a Golden era, I am talking about the future. So we don't have have to watch our kids die today, but your kids might die in the future because of antibiotic resistant strains. We had good bullet proof vests and then we came up with "cop killer" bullets, which leads us to a new vest that I saw a report on that will stop the "cop killer" and the bullet manufacturer’s, I am sure are making a new bullet that will penetrate that vest.

Again, you're objecting to the applications rather than science itself.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 05:50 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 05:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 04:39 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, "science" should be held accountable for what people do with "it's" creation?

Do you hold gravity accountable for the people who died by falling? No? What about the people who discovered that gravity can be used to make objects accelerate to a level where they can crush, maim, and kill? Are they responsible for every time someone dropped a rock on someone?
Facts are facts, martin. What you do with them has nothing to do with it. You aren't objecting to science. You are objecting to its applications. Science is the acquisition of knowledge, not the application of it.

Quote:I am not talking of a Golden era, I am talking about the future. So we don't have have to watch our kids die today, but your kids might die in the future because of antibiotic resistant strains. We had good bullet proof vests and then we came up with "cop killer" bullets, which leads us to a new vest that I saw a report on that will stop the "cop killer" and the bullet manufacturer’s, I am sure are making a new bullet that will penetrate that vest.

Again, you're objecting to the applications rather than science itself.

So...Let me ask you a question when it comes to God, do you blame Him, or do you blame what people have done with His creation?
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 05:57 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
You're asking if I think the problem of evil is a valid objection to theism? First of all, no, but I won't go into the details here, as that isn't the topic at hand. Secondly, stop trying to change the subject.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 06:15 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 05:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So...Let me ask you a question when it comes to God, do you blame Him, or do you blame what people have done with His creation?

That's an interesting question. Obviously, we can't really blame god, since we don't believe he exists. Here is a difference between god and science; science is a way to gain knowledge, comparable to reading a book. Science gives us facts, information of how our world works. These facts do not think, they merely are. God would have to think to be any kind of a god. science doesn't think, scientists do. You can't blame a book when it informs you of a brutal fact. You can blame the author, and if the reader does a misdeed from reading the book, then you can blame him. But the book is object, it holds information, and it doesn't think. It doesn't will something to be. It is a book.

Science is a way to learn about our world. It just gives us information, what we do with the information is up to us. Science is a tool of learning, god is the creator. Science tells, god does. Science tells us what cancer is, god gives us cancer. See the difference?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 06:29 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 06:15 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 05:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  So...Let me ask you a question when it comes to God, do you blame Him, or do you blame what people have done with His creation?

That's an interesting question. Obviously, we can't really blame god, since we don't believe he exists. Here is a difference between god and science; science is a way to gain knowledge, comparable to reading a book. Science gives us facts, information of how our world works. These facts do not think, they merely are. God would have to think to be any kind of a god. science doesn't think, scientists do. You can't blame a book when it informs you of a brutal fact. You can blame the author, and if the reader does a misdeed from reading the book, then you can blame him. But the book is object, it holds information, and it doesn't think. It doesn't will something to be. It is a book.

Science is a way to learn about our world. It just gives us information, what we do with the information is up to us. Science is a tool of learning, god is the creator. Science tells, god does. Science tells us what cancer is, god gives us cancer. See the difference?

You are not even close! No disrespect because I think very highly of the way you think and respond, but dig deeper and think more.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 06:43 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
By default, I would require myself to to blame Yahweh.

If I were an omnipotent(all powerful), omnipresent(everywhere), Omniscient(all knowing), {I will leave out omni-benevolent for the time being.} entity, then the very act of creating the universe(i.e. everything), would mean that I not only knew of every single event that would occur, but would have the ability to alter it before happening, an infinite amount of time prior to its occurrence.

I would know of every single event no matter how small, and I would allow it to happen. Despite, having the ability to generate an environment, wherein the consequences of that event would not be dependent upon its initiation.

Therefore, I argue that such an argument, in and of itself is illogical and flawed. As, being part of that very creation, Yahweh would have engineered every event to ever take place, involving the interactions between humanity and their environment.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: