Christianity and science

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #44

"Google fact checks", are based on opinions of Progressive Google employees.

You're quoting an opinion piece.

Cyber Ninjas was run by a Trump supporter, and even they had to agree that Trump had lost Arizona.

Georgia had enough invalid ballots to change the count, if you didn't count them.

You may be convinced of that, but the legal experts apparently weren't.

Haven't you heard?!?! It's ALL a conspiracy against donny trump (intelligence and morality must be a conspiracy against him as well, as they both seem to go against him and his values).
It's fun to watch so many pro-donny politicians now turn against him when they see he doesn't have what it takes - and never did.

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class? Oh, wait a minute, that was a lie, and he only had one degree and graduated near the bottom of his class. At least Biden never hijacked speeches from other people. Oh, wait a minute, he did take speeches from other people as his own. Yeah, and don't you hate that Trump reduced the unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, and women to an all-time low, and increased wages and purchasing power, and gave the U.S. energy independence, and put through the Abraham peace accords in the middle east, and increased U.S. manufacturing, made the Nato allies pay their fair share, and improve their defense position, while investing in our military, set N.Korea straight, and pointed out how corrupt the media is. Yeah, I hate that too. Biden was fooling around with his friend's wife before the guy died and wound up marrying her. I am sure in your book adultery is okay, and fornicating is not okay. Remember, as you judge others so shall you be judged. Remember, he was originally a Democrat, and therefore apparently led astray. It takes a while to get on the straight and narrow.
What "legal experts"? Is that CNN's legal commentator, Jeffrey Toobin, who was found masturbating on Zoom? Yeah, that guy has things well in hand. He takes care of all of my legal work.

I certainly haven't been singing Biden's praises; I was merely pointing out that he won the election.

While the other guy.....

.....pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord, exacerbating the climate crisis
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... te-change/

......moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, increasing tension in the middle east
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42250340

.....started a disastrous trade war with China
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... t-america/

.....called the media names when they ran stories he didn't like and praised people who assaulted them
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... li-velshi/

.....ran an administration which cruelly separated immigrant children from their families
https://www.americanoversight.org/inves ... t-children

......and after he lost re-election, regaled a throng of his followers with a rambling speech full of accusations which would end up failing in court, then sent those followers to the capitol saying that he would be with them before going home and watching the destruction they unleashed on TV instead.

Hail to the Chief.

And the legal experts I mentioned were the judges, lawyers and constitutional scholars who recognized that there was no case to be made for massive voter fraud.

And with that said, I will gladly follow brunumb's suggestion and take the rest of this to a political forum.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch.

The science you are referring to, which has given us the things you have referred to, such as the computer, phone and TV, is not the same field of science which attempts to convince us the human has evolved from the ape. One, would have nothing to do with the other. It is two completely different fields. Moreover, the computer, phone, and the TV have been demonstrated to work. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt. It seems to me you are suggesting, since science had gotten many things correct, then we should all simply give ourselves over to science, and believe whatever it tells us without any sort of questions? My point again is, the computer, phone and TV, have been demonstrated. The human evolving from the ape, has not been demonstrated. You seem to be suggesting, since I have a computer, phone and TV, this should convince me, the human evolved from the ape?

Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

Well, I have just addressed to issue of the human evolving from the ape, in that it has not been demonstrated to have occurred. As far as, "abortion, and homosexuality" I do not know what science has demonstrated as far as they are concerned?

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book

As far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with the "book". I believe science is wonderful. However, this certainly does not mean I simply accept the opinion of scientists, who have not demonstrated what they are claiming. In other words, my thinking process is not, "well I have a computer, phone and a TV, so I guess I have to accept opinion of the majority of scientists.

Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself

I have no "distrust of science". Science is wonderful and has given us many wonderful things. Moreover, science has demonstrated many different things. However, there are many things which science has not demonstrated, and may never be able to demonstrate one way or the other. It would be with these things where we are left to the opinion of the scientists, and I am not under the impression that the opinion of the majority, would demonstrate anything.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #44

"Google fact checks", are based on opinions of Progressive Google employees.

You're quoting an opinion piece.

Cyber Ninjas was run by a Trump supporter, and even they had to agree that Trump had lost Arizona.

Georgia had enough invalid ballots to change the count, if you didn't count them.

You may be convinced of that, but the legal experts apparently weren't.

Haven't you heard?!?! It's ALL a conspiracy against donny trump (intelligence and morality must be a conspiracy against him as well, as they both seem to go against him and his values).
It's fun to watch so many pro-donny politicians now turn against him when they see he doesn't have what it takes - and never did.

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class? Oh, wait a minute, that was a lie, and he only had one degree and graduated near the bottom of his class. At least Biden never hijacked speeches from other people. Oh, wait a minute, he did take speeches from other people as his own. Yeah, and don't you hate that Trump reduced the unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, and women to an all-time low, and increased wages and purchasing power, and gave the U.S. energy independence, and put through the Abraham peace accords in the middle east, and increased U.S. manufacturing, made the Nato allies pay their fair share, and improve their defense position, while investing in our military, set N.Korea straight, and pointed out how corrupt the media is. Yeah, I hate that too. Biden was fooling around with his friend's wife before the guy died and wound up marrying her. I am sure in your book adultery is okay, and fornicating is not okay. Remember, as you judge others so shall you be judged. Remember, he was originally a Democrat, and therefore apparently led astray. It takes a while to get on the straight and narrow.
What "legal experts"? Is that CNN's legal commentator, Jeffrey Toobin, who was found masturbating on Zoom? Yeah, that guy has things well in hand. He takes care of all of my legal work.

I certainly haven't been singing Biden's praises; I was merely pointing out that he won the election.

While the other guy.....

.....pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord, exacerbating the climate crisis
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... te-change/

......moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, increasing tension in the middle east
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42250340

.....started a disastrous trade war with China
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... t-america/

.....called the media names when they ran stories he didn't like and praised people who assaulted them
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... li-velshi/

.....ran an administration which cruelly separated immigrant children from their families
https://www.americanoversight.org/inves ... t-children

......and after he lost re-election, regaled a throng of his followers with a rambling speech full of accusations which would end up failing in court, then sent those followers to the capitol saying that he would be with them before going home and watching the destruction they unleashed on TV instead.

Hail to the Chief.

And the legal experts I mentioned were the judges, lawyers and constitutional scholars who recognized that there was no case to be made for massive voter fraud.

And with that said, I will gladly follow brunumb's suggestion and take the rest of this to a political forum.

The type of lawyers and constitutional scholars that support your point of view would be in the type of the Progressive Barak Obama, who presently does not have a license to practice law, and is probably pulling Biden's strings from his basement, from whatever climate warming sinking low water beach he is currently living on. The OP is "science" versus "Christianity", which has become political. Science is turning against Biden's political science, and the EU put out a report that boosters can reduce a person's immunity. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/10/20 ... ll-986734/ Also, the reviews show ordinary masks do not work. https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/mas ... ial-policy Even the CDC admit that "On March 5, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report admitting that face masks do not provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), and potentially worsen infection risk." https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2021/03/ ... nst-covid/ The clouds are forming, and you are well come to recede to your friend's ocean front basement.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #63

Even the CDC admit that "On March 5, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report admitting that face masks do not provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), and potentially worsen infection risk."

I don't know much about the "luis46" you link to here, but I took his advice and sought the truth for myself. What I found was this CDC page, updated after 3/5/21:

"Data were added from studies published since the last update. These studies address the association of mask wearing with new infections, including infections related to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. All of these studies demonstrated a benefit." (bolding mine)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Your River Cities Reader link is to an article with several links within, but most of them are from several years past and it looks like none of them are studies on mask effectiveness against the novel coronavirus which showed up in 2019.

And the "bizpacreview" link took me to an article on that Jeffrey Toobin thing again.

That isn't my idea of research.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #63

Even the CDC admit that "On March 5, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report admitting that face masks do not provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), and potentially worsen infection risk."

I don't know much about the "luis46" you link to here, but I took his advice and sought the truth for myself. What I found was this CDC page, updated after 3/5/21:

"Data were added from studies published since the last update. These studies address the association of mask wearing with new infections, including infections related to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. All of these studies demonstrated a benefit." (bolding mine)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html

Your River Cities Reader link is to an article with several links within, but most of them are from several years past and it looks like none of them are studies on mask effectiveness against the novel coronavirus which showed up in 2019.

And the "bizpacreview" link took me to an article on that Jeffrey Toobin thing again.

That isn't my idea of research.

Your "demonstrating a benefit", is like saying of little benefit. Cloth masks have now been relegated to a fashion statement. If you think Biden's order for 1 billion N95 masks are going to be ready for your use tomorrow, I think you are dreaming. What good have they done you in the last year? It takes a while for China to package and send that many masks. Have you ever worn a N95 masks? Do you know how long you can wear one, and how often they have to be changed? Do you know the price and availability of N95 masks? Do you know anything about masks other than what CNN tells you? https://www.kwtx.com/2022/01/08/health- ... -covid-19/ It was Fauci who initially said masks were worthless against any virus, but today, apparently, he thinks that two or three may be affective. Are you saying that Toobin wasn't caught masturbating on a Zoom call, and was not laid off because of it? Try watching a video of the Zoom call:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #65

Do you know anything about masks other than what CNN tells you?

Yeah----I know what the CDC tell me.

Are you saying that Toobin wasn't caught masturbating on a Zoom call, and was not laid off because of it?

No, I'm saying that you seem to be making a desperate attempt to make that seem relevant.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #65

Do you know anything about masks other than what CNN tells you?

Yeah----I know what the CDC tell me.

Are you saying that Toobin wasn't caught masturbating on a Zoom call, and was not laid off because of it?

No, I'm saying that you seem to be making a desperate attempt to make that seem relevant.

You used "legal experts" as your basis. Toobin is CNN's "legal expert". He apologized for his stupid judgment. His "judgment" is less than adequate in his CNN presentations.

The "CDC" and Fauci told you that the covid virus didn't come from the Wuhan lab. Do you believe that? What kind of masks do the CDC now suggest that you use? Are masks and the vax affective against getting the newest covid? Is it the same masks you have been using for the last two years, or is that now considered window dressing? Did Biden just say the Federal government can't beat the covid, and you are to look to your local governments. How does Florida deal with masks and the vax? https://www.breitbart.com/health/2022/0 ... -vaccines/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #67
As I thought I had explained, the legal experts I mentioned included judges and lawyers who were involved with the court cases. You're the one taking everything back to CNN, not me.

And mask recommendations are being updated in light of the differences in the Omicron strain of the virus because that's how science works.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #67
As I thought I had explained, the legal experts I mentioned included judges and lawyers who were involved with the court cases. You're the one taking everything back to CNN, not me.

And mask recommendations are being updated in light of the differences in the Omicron strain of the virus because that's how science works.

I thought you knew, Toobin is an ex-lawyer, and now a supposed expert on law. Maybe you should be specific on these 60 experts who said there was no evidence of illegal actions. When the Progressives get thrown out in 2022, and CNN has to show the evidence because of overwhelming evidence, then the CNN viewers will not be happy with their skewed viewpoints. Clinton's law firm lawyer has already been convicted of lying with regard to getting rid of Trump. Investigations are ongoing as to further charges. The "deep state", the fake media, and their supporters will be dug up by smaller local governments. That is why there is a rush to steal all future elections by getting rid of the present Senate rules, to federalize elections, increase the number of Senate electors, and the number of Supreme Court Justices, and go to a no proof write in voting scheme. When Virginia went Republican, a lot of the rats started seeing the writing on the wall and are trying to get under a rock. Harris pretty much lost all of her advisors, even when Biden often calls her "president". Science works via peer review. The elites have squashed all peer reviews by way of Tech platforms and the Biden administration asking Tech to block anything which differs from their narrative. The administration view may have readjusted, but if you watch them, they still wear the cloth masks, because you can't get N95, even if you could find someone who would wear those things.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #69
I didn't refer to sixty experts; I referred to sixty cases. If the evidence of widespread fraud was so abundant, why weren't those pushing the fraud narrative able to present it when the time came?

The ridiculous 60-vote-majority Senate filibuster [which isn't in the Constitution], nine Supreme Court justices to represent 300,000,000+ people, gerrymandered districts, dark money.....those are real obstacles to democracy, and it doesn't help when people believe that an election was stolen just because the Sore Loser said so.

Science is about accepting evidence and not simply assuming that it's been "squashed" when you don't like it. Part of being mature is knowing how to accept a loss and move on. It isn't calling media "fake" when they don't tell you what you want to be told. It isn't standing in Dealy Plaza waiting for JFK Jr. to reappear years after he died in a plane crash. It isn't storming a pizza restaurant to free captive children from a basement that doesn't exist. It isn't believing that the world is flat.....and/or controlled by lizard people.

I don't think Biden has been a very good president, but president he is and I accept that. Accepting things as they are isn't always easy or gratifying, but it's where we all have to start if we're going to make things any better.