Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[AirCobra]

Hi!

It is wrong to compare Science and Religion in the area of morality. Science is about studying how our universe works, and how we can improve our lives with technology. Ultimately, if our earth survives long enough, Science will prove that God exists, and that God created the universe.

I do not want any laws or legal code that is based on religion, because if I don't agree with the religion, I won't agree with the laws (like Sharia, based on the Muslim religion).

I want a legal code that is based on what my society decides will work best for itself.

Situation: Is it ok to kill someone to take something from them?
Answer: No. That negatively affects the society. It is undesireable, so it is illegal.
No religion involved.

cliff
NBO

Cliff,
If we talk about the American system, its laws and philosophies were based in Christian principle. Its just the way it is and it does not mean we live in a theocracy. In some societies it is okay for you to kill someone and take their things. In fact it is the entire basis for evolutionary theory is it not?, survival of the fittest. So how then do you overcome you natural instincts? It is our morals and sense of right an wrong that prevent most of us from killing to meet our needs. Those morals come from our culture, and Western culture has been based in Judeo-Christian morals for over a thousand years. The only thing inborn in all of us is not a sense of right and wrong, but an inborn survival instinct that makes us first want to act for our own benefit. Do you really think if you never disciplined a toddler that it is wrong to punch a kid and take his toy, that eventually he would just figure it out on his own? That natural inborn selfishness would just go away? What if you rewarded a toddler for punching a kid? would he then stop doing it because deep down inside he knows its wrong? Our society and culture dictate what is right and wrong, and we happen to live in a society based in Judeo-Christian morals and ethics. I don't understand why you find this disagreeable and would even equate it with Shiria.
John Adams said "Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue." I hope you can see the distinction in what Adams said. A Christian moral foundation does not mean a theocracy since there is a distinction between Christian philosophy and say a Christian denominational religion. I think our education system is so screwed up that people have confused the two to the point it appears that they don't understand their own society and government. America as the FF's created and understood and as we understand it today could not exist without a people rooted in a Judeo-Christian moral philosophy. If Biblical principle played no part in our law and society this would be an much different nation. Not necessarily an immoral nation, but certainly not "American" as we understand it.

 

[AirCobra]

Funny, I have lived in non-Christian countries were murder was illegal too. And I can think of lots of laws that we have, that were not passed down from religious decree. Its not in the Bible that anyone under 16 can not drive.

Morality does not require religion, it requires a thinking person who can discern between right and wrong, who can think of something besides just ones self.

Well what is right and wrong exactly? Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? Was your morality inborn?

 

[shagadelic]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I dont want to read all 9 pages of this thread, but you are not quite correct in your "gravity is just a theory" mindset. Perhaps your 15 year old wunderkind can set you straight, and as a $200/hr Captain I would've assumed you'd have known this, but gravity is not a "theory" but rather one of Sir Isaac Newton's laws.

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

 

[AirCobra]

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

Turns out perhaps you are both sort of right and both sort of wrong.

http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/newton.htm#law

Is [Newtonian] gravity a theory or a law?

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. In a scientific context, "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly put-down "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. A statement that cannot be disproved by experiment may still be highly respectable but it's simply not part of any experimental science (it could be mathematics, philosophy or religion, but it's not physics). Now that we have the basic vocabulary straight, we may discuss gravity itself...
Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is obvious all around us. As such, it's begging for a scientific theory to describe it accurately and consistently. The rules within a theory are called laws and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. Loosely stated:

Two things always attract in direct proportion to their masses and
in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. ​

However, the Newtonian laws are not the ultimate laws of gravity. We do know that General Relativity (GR) provides more accurate experimental predictions in extreme conditions (e.g., a residual discrepancy in the motion of the perihelion of Mercury is not explained by Newtonian theory but is accounted for by GR).
Does this mean Newtonian theory is wrong ? Of course not. Until we have a theory of everything (if such a thing exists) any physical theory has its own range of applicability where its predications are accurate at a stated level of precision (stating the accuracy is very important in Science; an experimental prediction is meaningless if it does not come with a margin for error). The Newtonian theory is darn good at predicting the motion of planets within the Solar System to many decimal places... That's all we ask of it.
Even General Relativity is certainly not the ultimate theory of gravitation. We know that much because GR is a classical theory, as opposed to a quantum theory. So, GR is not mathematically compatible with the quantum phenomena which become so obvious at very small scales...
Science is mostly a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it so nice and exciting. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory. Without such a framework, scientific discourse would be crippled into utter uselessness.

 

[flyguy75000]

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

Actually, shagafag, YOU were the one that said "gravity is just a theory". Re-read where I quoted you. So possibly I was illustrating to everyone here that YOU, yes you, shagafag, don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes away from being a c0cksmoker on flightinfo and go blow your boyfriend before you come on here and pop off with your gayness.

 

[shagadelic]

Actually, shagafag, YOU were the one that said "gravity is just a theory". Re-read where I quoted you. So possibly I was illustrating to everyone here that YOU, yes you, shagafag, don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes away from being a c0cksmoker on flightinfo and go blow your boyfriend before you come on here and pop off with your gayness.

I said evolution is "just a theory" just like gravity is "just a theory". A theory means a whole hell of a lot, it's not a hypothesis. People like to say evolution is not a fact, it's "just a theory". THAT is my point. Evolution rises to the same level as all the other established theories in science. You said yourself you didn't read the thread, so I think you missed the context.

 

[AirCobra]

Originally Posted by shagadelic
Just like gravity is "just a theory", or germ theory, or the theory of relativity. FYI, the term "theory" in science doesn't refer to a hypothesis like it does to a laymen. A "scientific theory" can be disproved, but hasn't been and continues to answer questions and is able to predict. If I drop an apple, I know the theory of gravity tells me it will fall, and does every time. If I look in a strata of rocks that date to the Jurassic period, I should find dinosaurs and their contemporaries, and guess what, I do, every time. You would think if evolution were not a fact they would find just one bunny rabbit in the Cambrian strata. They haven't because bunny rabbits didn't exist back then, just the bunny's common ancestor.

The only way this works is if you can say with complete certainty exactly which species existed in the Jurassic and which ones had become extinct. Can you honestly say you know exactly when the last dinosaur died out and when the first bunny appeared with 100% accuracy? That you know for a fact not a single species from the Jurassic was around say in the last century even. I will ask then how come someone caught a living fish from a species that was supposedly extinct for 65 million years? And how about the recent discover of living dinosaur tissue by Dr. Mary Scwitzer that will likely prove how little we understand about fossilization and throws into question any ideas we have on the true age of dinosaurs. All your post says to me is you would make a very poor scientist, no religion is necessary. Lets skip Dairus and talk about Darwin:

Do you think like Darwin did that Black people were less evolved than humans?

What about Darwin's principle of sexual selection that has been proven wholly inaccurate. Wouldn't you say it is a pretty big part of evolutionary theory to proven total BS? What else may Darwin have been wrong about, or are we just going to continue to try and bend everything into an Darwinian framework no matter how poorly it fits? Is that your kind of science because it seems that way to me.

All I have seen from your posts is you think you have all the answers which to me is a primary indicator of you being the kind of closed minded fundamentalist you attribute to religious people. Perhaps if you had an interest in science outside trying to disprove the existence of God you would actually learn something.

 

[whaleroast]

Wiccans should be relabled as Thickens.

 

[shagadelic]

The only way this works is if you can say with complete certainty exactly which species existed in the Jurassic and which ones had become extinct. Can you honestly say you know exactly when the last dinosaur died out and when the first bunny appeared with 100% accuracy? That you know for a fact not a single species from the Jurassic was around say in the last century even.

There is no evidence a dinosaur existed last century. None. Show me the evidence, and I reevaluate what I believe to be true. I am perfectly able to change my mind if the evidence doesn't work anymore. Why would I believe a dinosaur existed last century? I can't say it's not true with 100 percent certainty, just like I couldn't say with absolute certainty that there is no god, or with absolute certainty that there is not a leprechaun living in my garden. All are equal in that they have no evidence for their existence.

Darwin's theory has been greatly refined with the more evidence we've acquired, just as Newton's theory of gravity has been refined through the theory of relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means their initial theories didn't explain everything. Darwin had no idea about gene theory, just like Newton knew nothing of E=MC2. These later contributions enhanced, but did not disprove, the earlier work. Darwin believed species evolved through natural selection. It was his idea, but that has nothing to do with the science today, as it is much beyond his limited understanding of it. No one tries to make the ideas fit what he believed, just that his general idea of evolution through natural selection is correct based on the mountains of evidence that continue to support the theory.
You can point to everything you can to try to say Darwin didn't understand the entire process, but that doesn't change the fact that no one can disprove it, and it would be so easy to disprove. Of course he didn't understand. Hell, we didn't even know about DNA for another 100 years after his life. You guys think science has to be right all the time, 100 percent of the time, or it's bunk and your superstition wins. Let's make a list of every time science went against the church and check the scoreboard. Ummmm, my money's on science.

Back to the fossil record...Find me one dog buried in a strata older than a dinosaur, which should be easy to do if evolution is false. Find ONE. Just find ONE instance where a mammal is in an older strata. That's all it takes. You seem to think by trying to poke holes in the established science, by default, your crazy ideas are right. That's a logical fallacy, as it is clearly not a 50/50 outcome. There is science, and then there are literally thousands of competing crackpot claims. So stop throwing stones, and offer up what you think is correct, then give the evidence backing it up so we can test it for ourselves. Like I said, I'm completely open to new ideas, if they are backed up by evidence. 2000 year old spooky texts written by magic men high on peyote don't count as evidence, btw.

 

[shagadelic]

Wiccans should be relabled as Thickens.

Ummmmm.....I don't get it. Explain maybe?

Thickens:

1 a : to become dense <the mist thickened> b : to become concentrated in numbers, mass, or frequency
2 : to grow blurred or obscure
3 : to grow broader or bulkier
4 : to grow complicated or keen <the plot thickens>
transitive verb
1 a : to make thick, dense, or viscous in consistency <thicken gravy with flour> b : to make close or compact
2 : to increase the depth or diameter of
3 : to make inarticulate : blur <alcohol thickened his speech>