RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 7:36:16 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

Well if I was to say atheism is just another religion CL would appear for the next four pages. I think we’ve all had that argument anyway.

Actually, we already had that argument.

I think Atheists are as full of crap as any believer of any other philosophy.

Believe what you want, just dont insist it is provable empirically.

Agnosticergy

Now you're getting into semantics.

Yes and no.

You disbelieve in a supreme being, a position which is impossible to prove or disprove.

You are also willing to have your mind changed should it be proven. A handy logical tool for one who
believes in something impossible to prove or disprove; you can never be proven wrong.

By your own words, you are an Agnostic who uses as a semantic argument that you believe God exists.

In other words, your approach is "Prove it or it does not exist." coupled with "I think it exists but I dont
have to prove it."

I am not the one playing semantics, CuriousLord.

Sinergy

p.s. I am simply trying to make sure people use the proper terminology to describe their position. I personally believe there is a supreme force of some kind, yet I do not require proof of this supreme force's existence and I also personally doubt that I require or am owed proof of said supreme force's existence. The main reason I feel this way is that I think it anthropomorphizes the divine to ascribe it human attributes or qualities or require it to prove it's existence.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 21

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 7:44:33 PM

christine1

Posts: 6155
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: i'm headed to HIM...
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold

quote:

ORIGINAL: wankerforuse

As i've just heard that in China scientists there have produced manufactured illuminous green pigs honestly.I don't know why humans just can't leave annimals alone.As we are all gods creatures but in no way are us humans in any shape or form do we have any right to think that we are God.As their is only one god and let's not forget that.

Look at it this way....now, when there's a power outage in Arkansas....Elmer can yell "Kids....grab you a pig!!!!"

griswold, you are a gem....

_____________________________

i am woman! er, godzilla! hear me roar!

http://wavcentral.com/cgi-bin/log/log.cgi?id=2856&sound=/sounds/movies/godzilla/roar.mp3

He's the "boom" overwhelming...

He is my Master, my lover, my best friend my everything.

(in reply to Griswold)

Post #: 22

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 7:50:06 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

I assure you, it's either semantics or you misunderstand my position.

I do not believe God doesn't exist. I believe there's no reason to believe God exists. I believe there's reason to believe God does not exist. Therefore, I use a working expectation function, not an assumption. As to whether or not he actually exists, I do not believe one way or the other.

Therefore, I am an agnostic. However, as an agnostic, I have to acknowledge that the possibility of God is, at best, meager and slim. This qualifies me as an "athiest", even if not in the definition which calls for staunch belief.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 23

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:01:33 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I do not believe God doesn't exist.

Double negative.

This sentence means "I believe God exists."

The dictionary term for this would be "Theist." Another way of saying this is "I believe in God."

quote:

As to whether or not he actually exists, I do not believe one way or the other.

See your earlier sentence.

Clarify which one is actually true.

The Agnostic twaddle is simply that. An Agnostic sees God as something that does not require proof and is willing to listen to proof should proof be provided.

Please look up the word "belief" before using it in a sentence. A belief in the moon being made of green cheese does not require proof; the person simply believes it is the case.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 24

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:11:51 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I do not believe God doesn't exist.

Double negative.

This sentence means "I believe God exists."

This is only true if you assume I have a belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

As to whether or not he actually exists, I do not believe one way or the other.

See your earlier sentence.

Clarify which one is actually true.

Both are actually true. I do not have a belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The Agnostic twaddle is simply that. An Agnostic sees God as something that does not require proof and is willing to listen to proof should proof be provided.

Ah! I believe we disagree on what "Agnostic" means. An "Agnostic" doesn't believe in God not needing proof.. they believe that it couldn't be proved or disproved, that it's best not to take a belief. (I'd cite Wikipedia here.) Anyhow, that's my view on the term. Do you have a different interpretation?

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 25

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:16:55 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I do not believe God doesn't exist.

Double negative.

This sentence means "I believe God exists."

This is only true if you assume I have a belief.

No.

I am only asking you to use basic English.

If it does not express your thoughts. Then the onus is on you to express your thoughts in such a way that you
are able to clearly express your ideas.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 26

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:23:32 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

Edit: You know, I'm just pointing out the academic explanation without explaining why it's this way. So, please, allow me to explain. I'd like to use an example very close to this situation so that it may be applied readily.

Say you don't believe that there's a man behind a door. Also, you don't believe that there isn't a man there. You don't know, and, at the moment, you have chosen not to adopt a belief.

Someone asks you, "Do you believe there's not a man behind this door?"

"No, I do not believe that there is not a man behind this door." would be a good answer.

(Below, here, is my previous post, which also works, but I decided to explain it with an example instead.)

*Sigh.* "I do not believe God doesn't exist." correctly convays what I mean. I'm assuming you learned the notion of a "double negative" at some point without the clarification that it only applies to Boolean logical statements. (A Boolean is sorta like when it's one way or the other.. like if I had to either believe in something or believe against it, which would be the case if you made the assumption of a belief.)

In any case, you understand my position now. If you would like, I can take the sentense to an English professor here, but I can assure you it's accurate. Regardless, I'm open for bringing in a professional explanation.

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 1/13/2008 8:27:52 PM >

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 27

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:23:59 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Ah! I believe we disagree on what "Agnostic" means. An "Agnostic" doesn't believe in God not needing proof.. they believe that it couldn't be proved or disproved, that it's best not to take a belief. (I'd cite Wikipedia here.) Anyhow, that's my view on the term. Do you have a different interpretation?

Feel free to cite wikipedia; a source anybody can edit.

Try this one and get back to me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Sinergy

p.s. It always fascinates me when people decide to argue the definitions of words. After I provide 15 examples from sources like the OED or Funk and Wagnalls or Websters, what invariably ends up happening is they stop posting or post this little whiney "well, i thought it meant this" sort of avoidance of having to say "gee, I was wrong" statement.

p.p.s. For those playing the home game, I dont really care how CuriousLord defines the word to support his argument. This would be similar to me saying that everybody is wrong about my definition of the word Dominant because I think the word Dominant means purple, ant-eating, octopods from Venus.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 28

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:30:07 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

Come, now, you're being petty and competative.

Also:

"

2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. "

It's part of the very first definition you linked. Do you not believe that to fit me quite well?

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 29

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:31:55 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

For those playing the home game, I dont really care how CuriousLord defines the word to support his argument. This would be similar to me saying that everybody is wrong about my definition of the word Dominant because I think the word Dominant means purple, ant-eating, octopods from Venus.

This was immature, Singery. Please, see Wikipedia or/and the source you linked to me. They both work.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 30

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:53:20 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I think the word Dominant means purple, ant-eating, octopods from Venus.

It doesn't? That explains why NASA hasn't answered my e-mails.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 31

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 8:54:42 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

For those playing the home game, I dont really care how CuriousLord defines the word to support his argument. This would be similar to me saying that everybody is wrong about my definition of the word Dominant because I think the word Dominant means purple, ant-eating, octopods from Venus.

This was immature, Singery. Please, see Wikipedia or/and the source you linked to me. They both work.

Dictionary definitions tend to revolve around the use of "hard agnosticism," whereas your beliefs are more over in the fuzzy areas. Specifically Agnostic Atheism. I find it a semantic argument allowing one to claim a belief while arguing they dont really believe it.

I tend to go with the original ideals proposed by Thomas Huxley, but if your definitions work for you then go with it.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 32

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:00:01 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

It's the definition that's in Wikipedia, and it's the definition many I've known have used. It does work for me; I just don't want there to be the pretense that I'm inventing or/and misusing this word.

Again, there's no belief; simply I doubt it.. I find it unlikely and an absense of reason to believe in it.

Kind of a dead end for this part of the discussion, I suppose. It seems we had a bit of a semantic offshoot, but ah wells.. better to communicate than not, right? :P

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 33

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:05:18 PM

MissMagnolia

Posts: 3636
Status: offline

WTF is wrong with you people?

No one bitches about pink pigs. Why are green pigs being reviled and treated like second class, erm, pigs?

EQUALITY FOR PIGS OF ALL COLOURS!!

_____________________________

if at first you dont succeed..then skydiving isnt for you

Resident Whip Cracker AND Resident Orbs Of Joy.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 34

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:07:20 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

MM, darling, an Orwell fan such as your dear self knows that some pigs are more equal than others.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to MissMagnolia)

Post #: 35

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:10:26 PM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wankerforuse

As i've just heard that in China scientists there have produced manufactured illuminous green pigs honestly.I don't know why humans just can't leave annimals alone.As we are all gods creatures but in no way are us humans in any shape or form do we have any right to think that we are God.As their is only one god and let's not forget that.

First, which god are you refering to? Assuming Christianty, that God gave Man the world and it's elements to do to as we wish. All the plants, animals, and elements are all here for us so we may explore, experiment, and find how to better ourselves.

We hear "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it" many times. However, Man will always want to be bigger, better, faster, and stronger. We want cures, we want to defeat death, and we all want to be healthy. With those wants, we'll do whatever it takes.

Scientist aren't playing God. They're only making evolutionary changes.

Were the Right Bros playing God when they built the wings we needed to fly?

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to wankerforuse)

Post #: 36

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:22:36 PM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Well I can see that many time scientists are using animals to make headway on things that will be extended to human beings and be beneficial, however, I'm a bit clueless as to the benefit of luminious pigs? Do you have the link? That seems rather pointless to me.

Obviously you've never tried to find a pig on a dark moonless night... next it'll be luminous cows... but I'm holding out for the glow in the dark chickens myself (which will lay glow in the dark eggs, which will be great fun for night time Easter egg hunts).

Oh, an I can easily imagine a market for glow in the dark hair. The Club Kids will love that!

Hey, if we get enough stuff that glows in the dark imagine how much electricity we could save! It'll be fantastic... freaky... but fantastic...

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to laurell3)

Post #: 37

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:35:27 PM

bipolarber

Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline

Interesting. So they've been able to manipulate pig's DNA (one of the closest bio analogs to humans in the animal kingdom) to change their pigmentation. So now they are flourecent green. This means that they have taken a step closer to finding cures for various genetic diseases. Such cellular manipulation could lead to cures for MS, sickle cell anemia, diabetes...

"Scientists are playing God!" Has been the luddite battle cry since Mary Shelly took time out from her opium den parties by the lakeside in Geneva to pen "Frankenstien." Yet, this this same battle cry certainly doesn't mind when science "plays God" enough to eliminate the black death, eliminate smallpox, or make polio a thing of the past. Funny how the religious nutcases bitch about science so much they want to stick their noses into every classroom across the USA to teach kids a fairy tale. Yet, they don't seem to mind the televisions and internet technology that science has provided them, so that they can drain money from the weak minded and the elderly by promising them a place in the afterlife. (i.e. more fairy tales) These are the same pricks who burned Bruno at the stake for saying there might be life elsewhere in the universe, and who threatened both Galileio and his family (specifically his 12 year old daughter) with torture if he kept spouting his blasphemy about the Earth going around the sun.

Fuck religion. Science has given more real answers than any church ever has. Churches have only sought to control my mind, take my money, and sell me down the river.

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 38

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 9:56:06 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's the definition that's in Wikipedia, and it's the definition many I've known have used. It does work for me; I just don't want there to be the pretense that I'm inventing or/and misusing this word.

Wikipedia has 9 different definitions. These all have different meanings.

A good example would be to look up the word "snake" in the dictionary. You can tell me a person got bite by a snake, but what this actually means would depend on whether one is bitten by a garter snake, a lizard snake, a rattlesnake, a black mamba, an anaconda, a...

Please review the definition that applies to you from the source you quoted (wikipedia) and provide it, and then we can have an intelligent discussion about it.

Funk and Wagnallsergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 39

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they ar... - 1/13/2008 10:06:35 PM

subfever

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wankerforuse

As i've just heard that in China scientists there have produced manufactured illuminous green pigs honestly.I don't know why humans just can't leave annimals alone.As we are all gods creatures but in no way are us humans in any shape or form do we have any right to think that we are God.As their is only one god and let's not forget that.

Aw come on, look at the bright side. If they can make glow-in-the-dark pigs now, they'll soon be able to make other glow-in-the-dark animals too. If we eat glow-in-the-dark meat, we'll make glow-in-the-dark poop. So if we ever have to poop at night during a power outage, we'll be able to tell when were done wiping.

< Message edited by subfever -- 1/13/2008 10:07:11 PM >

(in reply to wankerforuse)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094