Pleasant Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2010, 09:39 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 09:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The war on cancer started in 1970, I was 10, cancer rates peaked in 1991. While I have no evidence right now of what I am going to say, I am sure they had been rising every year before 1970 till 1991. Look at all the things that we know now that cause cancer, for the most part man made.

I think what is happening is that you are extending "science" to everything that is produced from science. Science can allow us to built and do new things, some of which can and do cause cancer, but science isn't that. If it is man-made(I'm not arguing that we create cancer causes), then it is likely to have only been made possible through scientific discoveries. But we don't consider the two one of the same. Science allows us to give ourselves cancer, but it itself doesn't give us cancer.

Lets say there are two different labs, and they both make a new discovery via science. Both labs now have the ability to produce something new, something that has the side effect of cancer. Only one lab decides to go through with it, and produce this new object. The other lab, although through science it has reached the same information at the first lab, the scientists don't produce the deadly object.

The information given by science gives us power to create, but it still take human hands, with human minds that have human intentions, to use this information to built new things for better or for worse. Although science is part of a process that can produce harmful things to humanity, it can also produce helpful things. Often times the information discovered by science can be used in both negative and positive ways. Rather than blaming science, I place the blame on the people who use the information given by science for harm.

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, 09:41 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
"Look at all the things that we know now that cause cancer, for the most part man made."

And what I am arguing, is that, cancer was created by god. How? Why do biological organisms, such as homo sapiens, suffer from the occasional mutation in the reproduction of their cells, thereby causing a deluge of reproduction, resulting in cancer? Technically, humanity could just have easily been made so that it's form would not be susceptible to such an aberration. Or better yet, the universe could have been made, so that even the idea of cancer would not exist.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 09:56 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 09:41 PM)Ceryle Wrote:  "Look at all the things that we know now that cause cancer, for the most part man made."

And what I am arguing, is that, cancer was created by god. How? Why do biological organisms, such as homo sapiens, suffer from the occasional mutation in the reproduction of their cells, thereby causing a deluge of reproduction, resulting in cancer? Technically, humanity could just have easily been made so that it's form would not be susceptible to such an aberration. Or better yet, the universe could have been made, so that even the idea of cancer would not exist.

if i remember right radiation knocks a electron out of orbit around a atom. and without that electron the atom cant combine with other atoms causing cancer etc and in acute poisening the walking ghost phase vomiting feeling sick feeling better than internal bleeding and dead in days. but back to point how do you expect to make everything in this world invulnerable to everything. god cant make a rock heavier than he can lift it because than he cant lift it. either of which defies the statement he is all powerfull. the theory god is all powerfull is impossible to defend but that he is powerfull within the boundaries of logic is still defendable.

and such a perfect world isnt necessarily perfect under closer inspection. many have tried to write a utopia but how many were accepted by society to be true utopias. in short i say the perfect world uncluding all the complicated factors we have today is impossible to make without losing something we hold important. chaos brings destruction but also freedom to choose what we want, to forcefully build a world to everybody's liking is impossible.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 09:58 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
Ulfark, is the Christian god perfect?
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 10:09 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 09:39 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 09:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The war on cancer started in 1970, I was 10, cancer rates peaked in 1991. While I have no evidence right now of what I am going to say, I am sure they had been rising every year before 1970 till 1991. Look at all the things that we know now that cause cancer, for the most part man made.

I think what is happening is that you are extending "science" to everything that is produced from science. Science can allow us to built and do new things, some of which can and do cause cancer, but science isn't that. If it is man-made(I'm not arguing that we create cancer causes), then it is likely to have only been made possible through scientific discoveries. But we don't consider the two one of the same. Science allows us to give ourselves cancer, but it itself doesn't give us cancer.

Lets say there are two different labs, and they both make a new discovery via science. Both labs now have the ability to produce something new, something that has the side effect of cancer. Only one lab decides to go through with it, and produce this new object. The other lab, although through science it has reached the same information at the first lab, the scientists don't produce the deadly object.

The information given by science gives us power to create, but it still take human hands, with human minds that have human intentions, to use this information to built new things for better or for worse. Although science is part of a process that can produce harmful things to humanity, it can also produce helpful things. Often times the information discovered by science can be used in both negative and positive ways. Rather than blaming science, I place the blame on the people who use the information given by science for harm.

That is what I am saying with God, God creates man destroys and blames God. Science creates man destroys and we should blame science.
(25-04-2010 09:56 PM)ulfark Wrote:  
(25-04-2010 09:41 PM)Ceryle Wrote:  "Look at all the things that we know now that cause cancer, for the most part man made."

And what I am arguing, is that, cancer was created by god. How? Why do biological organisms, such as homo sapiens, suffer from the occasional mutation in the reproduction of their cells, thereby causing a deluge of reproduction, resulting in cancer? Technically, humanity could just have easily been made so that it's form would not be susceptible to such an aberration. Or better yet, the universe could have been made, so that even the idea of cancer would not exist.

if i remember right radiation knocks a electron out of orbit around a atom. and without that electron the atom cant combine with other atoms causing cancer etc and in acute poisening the walking ghost phase vomiting feeling sick feeling better than internal bleeding and dead in days. but back to point how do you expect to make everything in this world invulnerable to everything. god cant make a rock heavier than he can lift it because than he cant lift it. either of which defies the statement he is all powerfull. the theory god is all powerfull is impossible to defend but that he is powerfull within the boundaries of logic is still defendable.

and such a perfect world isnt necessarily perfect under closer inspection. many have tried to write a utopia but how many were accepted by society to be true utopias. in short i say the perfect world uncluding all the complicated factors we have today is impossible to make without losing something we hold important. chaos brings destruction but also freedom to choose what we want, to forcefully build a world to everybody's liking is impossible.

Trust me those on this site will never understand what you just said.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 10:12 PM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
Because if the Christian god is perfect, infallible if you will, then such a measly feat should be nothing to such an entity. If Humanity is 'corrupt', then god made them 'corrupt', when it created them.

For the record, I don't think that humanity is 'corrupt'; I also happen to not think that a god of any sort exists.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 10:35 PM
RE: Pleasant Discussion
(25-04-2010 10:09 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  That is what I am saying with God, God creates man destroys and blames God. Science creates man destroys and we should blame science.

Well, we get back to just how interactive god is in the world. However, you are talking about that with Ceryle, so I'll leave it be. You assert that god cannot change our actions, thus preserving free will. Again, I don't want to get side-tracked, and you're already having that conversion. So, given that our actions are our own, and god cannot be blamed for that which he doesn't control, he cannot be rightfully blamed for human fault. So, I think that man cannot blame god for his own destructive ways, given your view on god to be correct. I've already been over why I think isn't to blame for it's own misuse.

I've heard you before, you don't believe god is to blame for man's flaws either. Are you saying that by the logic that god is to blame for man's destructive ways, science is also to blame?

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
26-04-2010, 08:17 AM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
ok back to the is science evil bit i finally thought of something interesting. science is the aquisition of knowledge but just obtaining that knowledge can have harmfull effects on those who learn it but never do anything with it. for instance history is a well respected science field but to say intimately study the horrors of mankind during wartime especially or crimescene's will disturb your conscience especially if it is your job to know what goes on in the mind of a killer. to know the horrors of mankind makes you have a more pessimistic view on life and those who only see another death after another on cnn belief the world is unsafer than it really is. though the last one is inaccurate knowledge. point remains many people remain happy because they dont know all the bad things in life and focus on the good. ignorance is bliss. if you informed people of every likelihood of bad things that could happen to them they would be not be pleased about it and science enables people to live with that knowledge whether they like it or not.

ps no silly hillbilly or rednecks too stupid to read jokes please

also if you learn knowledge you want to use it no matter what it is. it is tempting to brag about how much you know right. i know you probably did so at some point. i already did when i was a small child, my family remembers it. so you did too unless you got nothing to brag about. for the same reason knowledge to perform dangerous acts such as the mechanics of a fire is severely restricted for the general public i think and hope never tried to be honest. so a random serial killer cant engineer a flash over or backdraft and kill some firefighters.

in conclusion knowing stuff alters the way your mind works or thinks some more than others and in some cases it can lead to nervous breakdowns or traumatic stress disorders. and they did nothing they just knew it.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 08:25 AM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bliss.

Even if I were miserable because of it, I would prefer to not be living a lie.

What happens to the psyche of a child, when you tell them, wholeheartedly and with no shred of doubt, that they will burn in the eternal fires of hell, being tortured forevermore, if they ever turn their back on their faith?
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 09:07 AM
 
RE: Pleasant Discussion
well i never said that faith only had positive things to say that is something i leave to martin. but you are right it would be interesting to examine a child's psyche from a psycological point of view after being indoctrinated with a normal/moderate and extreme religions.

but in general i think they have to believe no questions asked till they are older and starting to pertinently ask questions and they are nipped in the bud with horror stories.

but martin will set me straight on that. wont you martin

nobody respond please except martin.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: