Why do you care if people believe your god tales?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why do you care if people believe your god tales?

From a current thread:

Holding a negative view of atheists seems to be a requirement to bolster up some theologies. Holding a realistic view would cause to many cherished doctrines to crash to the ground.

"It is all a big conspiracy. The five percent (5%) who are Atheists are ganged up against we seventy percent (70%) who are Christians -- and they have a bunch of smart people and scientists on their side."

Of course, the spread of non-belief threatens the livelihood and status of preachers. But, why does it seem to so upset everyday believers? Does disbelief of others affect their own beliefs?

[DavidLeon]

And yet, with evidence science still finds a need for self correction.

Exactly.

Science corrects itself as new and more accurate information becomes available. It does NOT claim to have final answers. It is a method for learning about the universe we inhabit. Notice that when errors are found (and corrected) in scientific work, it is scientists who make the discoveries and corrections -- not theologians or apologists.

A system that claims to have final answers is just tooting its horn. A system that claims answers are written in an ancient book is an exercise in self-delusion.

Exactly what answers are you talking about? Science, when, for example, it speculates on whether or not man can build a machine that flies, or how apes interact, is always wrong and laughing at the poor brothers who work on a flying machine or the secretary who goes out and lives with the apes and they, not science, are the ones who have the answers. Then, and only then, science jumps on their coattails. Science can't even manage to get their own funding unless they sell out to the highest bidder.

What answers have religions claimed to have? Do you seriously think that religion was invented by man to provide answers for man? They would have to invent the answers. Science and religion are two sides of a coin. Neither have any answers. They have questions.

People who hate religion do so because it is destructive and they perceive it as a threat to their questions. The same reasons people hate science. It's a distraction like politics and sports. Bread and circuses. The playground for ideologues, the fighting rink for propaganda. Science and religion aren't looking for answers they're hiding from them. As long as you have questions you don't have the answers.

[Zzyzx]

[DavidLeon]

[brunumb]

Then all of those chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction science has created might prove to be useful someday, huh?

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

Discovered by Eratosthenes, a theist, Copernicus, Lutheran, and Wallerius, a theologian.

Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is independent of the religious beliefs of the people involved. They did not make their discoveries through the practice of religion.

[DavidLeon]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is independent of the religious beliefs of the people involved. They did not make their discoveries through the practice of religion.

Then of what harm is theism to science? It's abject unaccountability in the guise of self correction?

[brunumb]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

No. Please read the part I bolded. It means that from your point of view all of that 'stuff' can be attributed to God. We just found it. But, just like fire, it can be used for good or bad. Fire can be used for cooking and keeping warm, or for burning heretics.

[Zzyzx]

[DavidLeon]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

No. Please read the part I bolded. It means that from your point of view all of that 'stuff' can be attributed to God. We just found it. But, just like fire, it can be used for good or bad. Fire can be used for cooking and keeping warm, or for burning heretics.

I read it. I know what you meant. What man does with fire isn't necessarily the fault of science or, for that matter God. Especially if you insist there is no God. You see the dilemma. Don't ask me to defend religion, I loath religion. Not one religion that ever existed was true, even to itself, and never will be. It's human nature to . . . muck everything up.

In a debate on self correction in science I've repeatedly asked for examples of science needing to correct itself and I'm not getting any. Not that I doubt that they're there I just doubt you can easily accept them. That makes you appear as similar to those whom you criticize. The kettle calling the pot black. This suggests to me, with nearly a quarter of a century of personal experience with atheist vs. theist debate on the subject that there is dogmatic tendencies in, not science, but ideologues who promote it in order to justify, affirm, and rationalize the paradigm they misrepresent to an equal extent as those they criticize. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[DavidLeon]

[brunumb]

In a debate on self correction in science I've repeatedly asked for examples of science needing to correct itself and I'm not getting any.

Sleeping through science classes has its disadvantages. Atomic theory has undergone quite a number of corrective changes. Initially, observations of the patterns produced by packing spheres and those in crystals, suggested that atoms themselves were tiny solid spheres. When the electron was discovered it was necessary to modify the structure of the atom to allow for those negatively charged particles and the yet to be discovered positive matter that was required to render atoms neutral. Thus we got Thomson's Plum Pudding model. The famous gold foil experiment conducted by Rutherford again required a change to the structure to explain the observations. The nucleus with orbiting electrons became the best model explaining all observations to that date. Later the proton was discovered, and later again the neutron. The basic model has since been thoroughly shaken up with the discovery of numerous other subatomic particles and the complications of quantum mechanics. All that aside, even now, considering atoms to be tiny, indestructible spheres is adequate for the layman to help understand basic concepts regarding matter.

Sometimes the data we have can lead to more than one satisfactory explanation. When the wrong one, for whatever reason, is generally accepted as correct, that is not really the fault of science. Fallible human thinking can always lead to mistakes. The beauty of science is that such faults can usually be exposed when more information is obtained. That's how self-correction works. The hindrance to it can come from dogmatic acceptance of the status quo and refusal to accept the need for change. That is simply a human fault.