Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is Righteousness a Mechanism


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, end3 said:

So you are going to say that the behavior of my father has not directly affected me and generations to come AFTER the research is confident that this is the case, and then not apply that to the same statement in the Bible?   Really?

 

How can I possibly comment on that?

 

And even if I did, I could only deal in the facts and not the religious correlations and connections you see by faith.

 

All of that comes from within you.

 

But the facts are separate.

 

You falsely connect the facts to your faith because you desperately want to do so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

How can I possibly comment on that?

 

And even if I did, I could only deal in the facts and not the religious correlations and connections you see by faith.

 

All of that comes from within you.

 

But the facts are separate.

 

You falsely connect the facts to your faith because you desperately want to do so.

 

 

There is no religious correlation!  It's was a statement in the Bible that has now been proven through science!!  And somehow  you are assigning my faith to this correlation????  Good god BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, end3 said:

There is no religious correlation!  It's was a statement in the Bible that has now been proven through science!!  And somehow  you are assigning my faith to this correlation????  Good god BAA.

 

No.

 

Science doesn't do proof.  How many times have you been told that... and not just by me?

 

Your faith is causing you to see this correlation.

 

It's not within science's remit to make any correlations with any religious belief.

 

If a scientist does so, then they do so privately and personally, not professionally.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

No.

 

Science doesn't do proof.  How many times have you been told that... and not just by me?

 

Your faith is causing you to see this correlation.

 

It's not within science's remit to make any correlations with any religious belief.

 

If a scientist does so, then they do so privately and personally, not professionally.

 

 

No, nothing to do with faith on this one.....it's just fact at this point.  And btw, it's not illegal for scientists to follow observations....just sayin.  Somehow someone has convinced you that you are only allow to rigidly follow extreme certainties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, end3 said:

No, nothing to do with faith on this one.....it's just fact at this point.  And btw, it's not illegal for scientists to follow observations....just sayin.  Somehow someone has convinced you that you are only allow to rigidly follow extreme certainties. 

 

It's in the job description.  (Ask the Redneck Prof, RogueScholar or Bhim.)

 

If you can't separate your religious faith from your scientific work, then you're simply not being professional.

 

Someone...  https://profmattstrassler.com/

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, end3 said:

There is no religious correlation!  It's was a statement in the Bible that has now been proven through science!!  And somehow  you are assigning my faith to this correlation????  Good god BAA.

 

Chapter and verse, if ya got it, please. I wanna go look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

It's in the job description.  (Ask the Redneck Prof, RogueScholar or Bhim.)

 

If you can't separate your religious faith from your scientific work, then you're simply not being professional.

 

Someone...  https://profmattstrassler.com/

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

 

You have read this, right?  I have not chosen facts at will but have logically applied the evidence to the statements made about reality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Chapter and verse, if ya got it, please. I wanna go look.

If you search "sins of the father"M, several verses come up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, end3 said:

You have read this, right?  I have not chosen facts at will but have logically applied the evidence to the statements made about reality.  

 

Yes.  I have.  And I've understood it properly too.  

 

(C'mon!  Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it?  Get real!)

 

It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work.

 

They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End.

 

These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE.

 

Why?  Because science is agnostic.

 

There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science.

 

There is only faith-free, agnostic science.  Period.

 

Got it now?

 

Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.  Ecclesiastes 1:5

 

End3,  The bible says that the sun rises and goes down.  Does science support this claim?

 

We're not going to get into epigenetics, or even genetics, until we establish some basic parameters about science versus belief.  Thanks.

 

Have a good day,

TRP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.  Ecclesiastes 1:5

 

End3,  The bible says that the sun rises and goes down.  Does science support this claim?

 

We're not going to get into epigenetics, or even genetics, until we establish some basic parameters about science versus belief.  Thanks.

 

Have a good day,

TRP

People say their throat hurts but don't actually describe the physiology nor mechanism....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Yes.  I have.  And I've understood it properly too.  

 

(C'mon!  Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it?  Get real!)

 

It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work.

 

They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End.

 

These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE.

 

Why?  Because science is agnostic.

 

There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science.

 

There is only faith-free, agnostic science.  Period.

 

Got it now?

 

Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying?

I'm showing no bias.... sorry you don't understand that in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
50 minutes ago, end3 said:

People say their throat hurts but don't actually describe the physiology nor mechanism....

That's avoiding the question.  Does science support the claim that the sun rises?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's avoiding the question.  Does science support the claim that the sun rises?  

Make your point already...

 

Edit: Yeah, I think it actually could depending on the study....  and the time frame of the study....early science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, end3 said:

I'm showing no bias.... sorry you don't understand that in this situation.

 

The lack of understanding is yours.

The cited article describes the only way that science can be conducted by people of different religions.  The only way this can happen is if they treat science as an agnostic discipline that they all agree to follow without personal and private bias getting in the way.  They leave their personal religious views at the door and then collect them (metaphorically speaking) when they leave their workplace.  Privately they can draw whatever conclusion they like about their scientific work.  But publicly they can do no such thing.  That would be a flagrant breach of their necessary objectivity.

 

It therefore follows that any scientific results they publish are also agnostic and totally divorced from any religious bias.

Privately a scientist can express their religious views, but publicly they cannot and must not.  A worked example of this from history is this scientist.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam  Salaam was a devout Muslim but he kept his private, religious beliefs totally separate from his public work.  He never claimed that he saw the hand of Allah in his work.  He never claimed that the writings of  Mohammed in the Quran were vindicated by the findings of science.  He kept his work and his religion - separate.

 

By doing this he was able to work closely with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg  ...who is an atheist from an Orthodox Jewish background and...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Lee_Glashow ...who is a humanist.  None of these three scientists let their personal beliefs interfere in any way with their scientific work.  Which is exactly what the Matt Strassler article referred to.  https://profmattstrassler.com/

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

Science is agnostic because it is a tool that people of different faiths, religions and beliefs must use together.

If they insist that science support only their particular beliefs, then they cannot work together and science grinds to a halt.  Therefore, there's only one type of science for every one - agnostic science.  

.

.

.

The fundamental mistake you are making is this.

You take agnostic scientific information and see connections in it with your Christian beliefs.  What is happening here is that YOU are making this connection, NOT the scientists who published that information.  Do you see the difference?   Their work was done without religious bias but when you see it you believe (by religious faith) that it confirms your Christian faith.  So, who is behaving religiously in this equation?  Only you.  The scientists did their work without bringing their own religious beliefs into it, but when you see it you see it through the eyes of your faith.

 

Of course you exercise your freedom to believe that science confirms your Christian faith!

But what you can't do is to claim that the scientists doing the work know and also believe as you do.

That's an absolute no-no!   :nono:

 

I'll ask again.  Do you see the difference?  Do you see that science itself is strictly agnostic, but you are the one who sees it as confirming your Christian faith?

 

Please answer me.  This is important.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

The lack of understanding is yours.

The cited article describes the only way that science can be conducted by people of different religions.  The only way this can happen is if they treat science as an agnostic discipline that they all agree to follow without personal and private bias getting in the way.  They leave their personal religious views at the door and then collect them (metaphorically speaking) when they leave their workplace.  Privately they can draw whatever conclusion they like about their scientific work.  But publicly they can do no such thing.  That would be a flagrant breach of their necessary objectivity.

 

It therefore follows that any scientific results they publish are also agnostic and totally divorced from any religious bias.

Privately a scientist can express their religious views, but publicly they cannot and must not.  A worked example of this from history is this scientist.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam  Salaam was a devout Muslim but he kept his private, religious beliefs totally separate from his public work.  He never claimed that he saw the hand of Allah in his work.  He never claimed that the writings of  Mohammed in the Quran were vindicated by the findings of science.  He kept his work and his religion - separate.

 

By doing this he was able to work closely with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg  ...who is an atheist from an Orthodox Jewish background and...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Lee_Glashow ...who is a humanist.  None of these three scientists let their personal beliefs interfere in any way with their scientific work.  Which is exactly what the Matt Strassler article referred to.  https://profmattstrassler.com/

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

Science is agnostic because it is a tool that people of different faiths, religions and beliefs must use together.

If they insist that science support only their particular beliefs, then they cannot work together and science grinds to a halt.  Therefore, there's only one type of science for every one - agnostic science.  

.

.

.

The fundamental mistake you are making is this.

You take agnostic scientific information and see connections in it with your Christian beliefs.  What is happening here is that YOU are making this connection, NOT the scientists who published that information.  Do you see the difference?   Their work was done without religious bias but when you see it you believe (by religious faith) that it confirms your Christian faith.  So, who is behaving religiously in this equation?  Only you.  The scientists did their work without bringing their own religious beliefs into it, but when you see it you see it through the eyes of your faith.

 

Of course you exercise your freedom to believe that science confirms your Christian faith!

But what you can't do is to claim that the scientists doing the work know and also believe as you do.

That's an absolute no-no!   :nono:

 

I'll ask again.  Do you see the difference?  Do you see that science itself is strictly agnostic, but you are the one who sees it as confirming your Christian faith?

 

Please answer me.  This is important.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you don't understand sir, is the experiment is conducted independently of the post-study application.  I have an amazing time understanding how you are this slow and confused.

 

Edit:  Wasn't that the point of you prior post, that we might THEN use the data to explain reality???????????  You made  yourself wonderfully UNCLEAR by supposing this study was made with some religious bias and saying I did it.  Do YOU understand the fucking difference.  Gheeze BAA, get your shit together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Make your point already...

 

Edit: Yeah, I think it actually could depending on the study....  and the time frame of the study....early science. 

End3, does science support the claim that the sun rises?  

 

The point is fixing to be "science exists because christians can't answer questions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

End3, does science support the claim that the sun rises?  

 

The point is fixing to be "science exists because christians can't answer questions."

Yes it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, end3 said:

If you search "sins of the father"M, several verses come up.  

 

Thanks, Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, end3 said:

What you don't understand sir, is the experiment is conducted independently of the post-study application.  I have an amazing time understanding how you are this slow and confused.

 

Which experiment are you alluding to, End?

Which study are you referring to?

 

Please specify.

 

1 hour ago, end3 said:

Edit:  Wasn't that the point of you prior post, that we might THEN use the data to explain reality???????????  You made  yourself wonderfully UNCLEAR by supposing this study was made with some religious bias and saying I did it.  Do YOU understand the fucking difference.  Gheeze BAA, get your shit together.

 

If you take agnostic science and THEN use it to make connections with your religion, to explain reality THEN you are twisting something that is agnostic into something that isn't.

 

Science has no religious bias when it is being performed and no religious bias when it is published.

 

But if a Muslim, a Sikh or a Christian THEN sees connections between that science and their particular faith, they are imposing their beliefs on that agnostic science... AFTER THE FACT!

 

That is what you are doing, End.

 

Can't you see that?

 

That is your particular bias you are IMPOSING on the otherwise agnostic science.

 

Please tell me that you can see how this works!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Which experiment are you alluding to, End?

Which study are you referring to?

 

Please specify.

 

 

If you take agnostic science and THEN use it to make connections with your religion, to explain reality THEN you are twisting something that is agnostic into something that isn't.

 

Science has no religious bias when it is being performed and no religious bias when it is published.

 

But if a Muslim, a Sikh or a Christian THEN sees connections between that science and their particular faith, they are imposing their beliefs on that agnostic science... AFTER THE FACT!

 

That is what you are doing, End.

 

Can't you see that?

 

That is your particular bias you are IMPOSING on the otherwise agnostic science.

 

Please tell me that you can see how this works!

Did you not read the word independent that I put in my last post....lN DE PEN DENT.  The fact that someone uses the research to give light to explanation is IN DE PEN DENT of the fucking science.  YES!!!!! YES!!!!! YES!!!! I fucking understand that.  God you are thick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, end3 said:

  Deleted post, please ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  17 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Yes.  I have.  And I've understood it properly too.  

(C'mon!  Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it?  Get real!)

It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work.

They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End.

These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE.

Why?  Because science is agnostic.

There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science.

There is only faith-free, agnostic science.  Period.

Got it now?

 

Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying?

I'm showing no bias.... sorry you don't understand that in this situation.

 

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

 

End,

 

If you understand that science is always independent of religion, then when someone (like you) uses it to explain reality in terms of their religion, they are imposing their bias on it.

 

So Yes, you are showing bias.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 hours ago, end3 said:

Yes it does.

No.  It does not.  

 

What science tells us is that the sun remains more or less in a fixed position while the earth revolves in a lateral planetary orbit around it.  Moreover, the sun cannot "rise" over the earth; because there is no "up" or "down" in space.  However, from our lowly vantage point, we perceive the sun to rise in the East and go down in the West.  It is only our perception, though; it is not reality, nor a mechanism, nor a "fact".

 

What BAA has been patiently trying to get you to see is that you are allowing your perception to interfere with, and take the place of, the reality as defined by science.  Indeed, you are attempting to force science to conform to your perception.  Just as you have done with the sun rising in the sky.  You would like for science to support the claim; because the bible makes the claim, and you have pre-determined to believe the bible.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work with genetics, epigenetics, or "righteousness" any better than it works with the sun.  The sun does not rise; and "righteousness" is not written into our DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  It does not.  

 

What science tells us is that the sun remains more or less in a fixed position while the earth revolves in a lateral planetary orbit around it.  Moreover, the sun cannot "rise" over the earth; because there is no "up" or "down" in space.  However, from our lowly vantage point, we perceive the sun to rise in the East and go down in the West.  It is only our perception, though; it is not reality, nor a mechanism, nor a "fact".

 

What BAA has been patiently trying to get you to see is that you are allowing your perception to interfere with, and take the place of, the reality as defined by science.  Indeed, you are attempting to force science to conform to your perception.  Just as you have done with the sun rising in the sky.  You would like for science to support the claim; because the bible makes the claim, and you have pre-determined to believe the bible.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work with genetics, epigenetics, or "righteousness" any better than it works with the sun.  The sun does not rise; and "righteousness" is not written into our DNA.

 

Prof,

 

Perhaps End's unique take on subjectivity allows him to believe that reality does conform to his perceptions.  

 

Perhaps he thinks it's entirely justified for him to force science to conform to his perception.  

 

(Just speculating, btw.)

 

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.