Larry Sanger Co-founder of Wikipedia becomes a Christian

[MadAsAHatter]

Cracks me up how militant anti Christian’s get… never hear any muslim or jew shit talking from them. When I read the meditations of Marcus Aurelius the first time one quote stuck with me. “A man who doesn’t believe in God will betray his country..” that’s the condensed version anyway. another wise man said “never trust a guy who has never been punched in the face…”

Both sides can get rather "militant." Religious groups tend to argue more amongst themselves about who has the correct belief system. It does seem that the Science/Anti-Christian side does get more defensive about things when challenged though; to the point of being disrespectful. I'm more on the science side of the discussion and am not a fan of organized religion, but I'd never insult someone calling their beliefs garbage stories or fairy tales. I'd also hope those on the religious side would give the same courtesy and not call science a crock of shit. We can disagree without being disrespectful.

 

[VonBonfire]

Both sides can get rather "militant." Religious groups tend to argue more amongst themselves about who has the correct belief system. It does seem that the Science/Anti-Christian side does get more defensive about things when challenged though; to the point of being disrespectful. I'm more on the science side of the discussion and am not a fan of organized religion, but I'd never insult someone calling their beliefs garbage stories or fairy tales. I'd also hope those on the religious side would give the same courtesy and not call science a crock of shit. We can disagree without being disrespectful.

Science is just a substitute for organized religion.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Science is just a substitute for organized religion.

In a way it can be. There's probably more empirical evidence with science; meaning you can set up experiments to test theories, but it can be boiled to having faith in the evidence. Similar to Religions having faith in the gospels and such.

 

[VonBonfire]

In a way it can be. There's probably more empirical evidence with science; meaning you can set up experiments to test theories, but it can be boiled to having faith in the evidence. Similar to Religions having faith in the gospels and such.

The science believer accepts the testimony of the researchers presenting evidence the way I accept the testimony of the apostles, disciples, saints and martyrs. Yet it is interesting to me that they will gladly accept the stories man in lab coat spins but will not accept the stories from a historical source.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

The science believer accepts the testimony of the researchers presenting evidence the way I accept the testimony of the apostles, disciples, saints and martyrs. Yet it is interesting to me that they will gladly accept the stories man in lab coat spins but will not accept the stories from a historical source.

Exactly the point I was making.

Being in the science field for my entire career; I find it very amusing that scientists will claim they are the most open minded people and will follow the evidence where it leads, but will kick and scream to all ends when evidence challenges their view.

 

[VonBonfire]

Exactly the point I was making.

Being in the science field for my entire career; I find it very amusing that scientists will claim they are the most open minded people and will follow the evidence where it leads, but will kick and scream to all ends when evidence challenges their view.

There's your religious aspect. It's taken on faith.

 

[FearTheDeer]

You use science to support your argument then laugh at science that doesn't support your argument.

What “science”? Answers in genesis? lol

Both sides can get rather "militant." Religious groups tend to argue more amongst themselves about who has the correct belief system. It does seem that the Science/Anti-Christian side does get more defensive about things when challenged though; to the point of being disrespectful. I'm more on the science side of the discussion and am not a fan of organized religion, but I'd never insult someone calling their beliefs garbage stories or fairy tales. I'd also hope those on the religious side would give the same courtesy and not call science a crock of shit. We can disagree without being disrespectful.

But there’s nothing “militant” about disagreeing with, or even ridiculing, someone’s beliefs. That’s not “militancy”. That’s just a function of living in a free society where open discourse occurs.

The science believer accepts the testimony of the researchers presenting evidence the way I accept the testimony of the apostles, disciples, saints and martyrs. Yet it is interesting to me that they will gladly accept the stories man in lab coat spins but will not accept the stories from a historical source.

There's your religious aspect. It's taken on faith.

That’s not actually how it works. Nobody takes anyone’s word about their experimental results based on faith. Establishing the reproducibility of previous findings is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that placing some degree of trust - in the presence of independent verification - in a community of experts, is equivalent to religious faith as practiced by the Abrahamic religions. Unless of course you would say the “faith” you have that antibiotics will help your kid’s ear infection - or that water will freeze at 0C under standard climatic conditions - is the same as the “faith” you have in your religious beliefs.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

But there’s nothing “militant” about disagreeing with, or even ridiculing, someone’s beliefs. That’s not “militancy”. That’s just a function of living in a free society where open discourse occurs.

Hence the use of quotes. I was using the word of JBT also knowing he didn't use it in the literal sense of military force. Read between the lines.

That’s not actually how it works. Nobody takes anyone’s word about their experimental results based on faith. Establishing the reproducibility of previous findings is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that placing some degree of trust - in the presence of independent verification - in a community of experts, is equivalent to religious faith as practiced by the Abrahamic religions. Unless of course you would say the “faith” you have that antibiotics will help your kid’s ear infection - or that water will freeze at 0C under standard climatic conditions - is the same as the “faith” you have in your religious beliefs.

In fact; and I'm saying this as an actual scientist, people take the word of experts in good faith. The general public has faith the scientists performed the experiments properly, data was represented in full, and results were presented without bias. To a lesser degree scientific peers take results in faith as well, the difference is the background knowledge to scrutinize the data more intently and ability to retest the experiment themselves. It's not quite the exact same type of faith (secular vs religious, but it's faith none the less and the same principles apply. This is what Von and I were talking about.

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. Both put faith in other people that what's being presented is truth. I've already said the part on the science side. From a religious perspective people put their faith in the bible, saints, church leaders, etc. in the same way. In religion they are the community of experts who independently verify the scriptures. I'm trying to not make an assumption, but it appears you think it's disingenuous because it doesn't align with your views.

 

[Thumbpicker]

Hence the use of quotes. I was using the word of JBT also knowing he didn't use it in the literal sense of military force. Read between the lines.


In fact; and I'm saying this as an actual scientist, people take the word of experts in good faith. The general public has faith the scientists performed the experiments properly, data was represented in full, and results were presented without bias. To a lesser degree scientific peers take results in faith as well, the difference is the background knowledge to scrutinize the data more intently and ability to retest the experiment themselves. It's not quite the exact same type of faith (secular vs religious, but it's faith none the less and the same principles apply. This is what Von and I were talking about.

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. Both put faith in other people that what's being presented is truth. I've already said the part on the science side. From a religious perspective people put their faith in the bible, saints, church leaders, etc. in the same way. In religion they are the community of experts who independently verify the scriptures. I'm trying to not make an assumption, but it appears you think it's disingenuous because it doesn't align with your views.

I did first year science at Uni before I switched over to Commerce/Business. I regulary still watch commentators like Sabine Hossenfelder. She regularly picks holes in a lot of physics researchers papers and comments on the castles made of sand they construct in order to keep them in job and funded. At any rate I'm not science denier but science only tries to explain what is going on in nature. Take string theory for example. It may explain observations in some circumstances but it's a mathematical model and maths doesn't necessary reflect the reality of that is truly going on physically. For example there may be solutions to equations in the maths that don't make sense in reality and reality may or may not have anything to do with strings.

Anyway the long and the short of it is there is still room for God even for intelligent people. Explaining what goes on "ex post" in nature via science doesn't get to root causes necessarily. Any genuine scientist would have to admit that and they don't have all the answers at all. Quite a bit of science is still speculative with a lot of "may haves" in it.

 

[JackBootedThug]

Nobody brought up Islam because the article in OP isn’t about someone converting to Islam. But if it makes this space feel safer, I assure you that my feelings towards Christianity are the same as they are towards Islam - or astrology, homeopathy, human sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl, etc.

Computer programming is not a biological process so I’m not really sure how that applies to our discussion here.

And you’re only right only in the sense that nothing in science is ever really “settled”. Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is probabilistic and provisional. Our understanding of the world and universe is constantly in flux as new shit comes to light, man.

But biological evolution from a single called common ancestor to multicellular life is absolutely accepted as the unifying theory of biology by the relevant scientific community.

Direction if this process by an intelligent being is unnecessary, non-parsimonious, and therefore illogical.

I don’t care what you think….as you don’t care what I think. Just an observation of about 99% of these atheist or anti Christian comments. And I absolutely respect your opinion to believe what you will…I however don’t understand the level of disrespect leveled towards believers. I have a B.S. in biology/pre med….evolution is a theory. Traits can be established in short observable lifetimes of say e. Coli through direct intervention..I know because I have done it…. But to say hey- you don’t believe in evolution so you’re a moron…that argument doesn’t work. Not saying you said that but I’m sure you feel that way. And that’s cool… my issue with non believers is this… you only believe what you see… they go through life with their heads in a box…anything outside of that box can’t be real. And that’s fine… but the level of arrogance from atheists is just tiring. I however will not tolerate any disrespect towards my religion or my savior. I don’t care who that offends either. And all this is not directed towards you…I’m just rambling…

 

[VonBonfire]

Establishing the reproducibility of previous findings is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Except a lot of "science" is just graft, "scientists" looking for more funding i.e job security. The method has been tainted heavily by politics and groups who wish to confirm pre-existing biases.

It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that placing some degree of trust - in the presence of independent verification - in a community of experts, is equivalent to religious faith as practiced by the Abrahamic religions. Unless of course you would say the “faith” you have that antibiotics will help your kid’s ear infection - or that water will freeze at 0C under standard climatic conditions - is the same as the “faith” you have in your religious beliefs.

It's very equivalent to religious faith. Almost identical really. As an orthodox Christian I look to the priesthood, and monks, for guidance towards healing and for expertise in theological accuracy, having "faith" that they are on same sort of expertise spiritually as those scientists are experts you put your trust in are in the physical realm.

 

[84superchamp]

1. Nobody serious believes this. Acknowledging that there are things we do not, and possibly cannot, know about the early or pre-singularity universe is not the same as believing “something can spontaneously come from nothing”.

2. A lack of a definitive explanation concerning the origins of the universe is not evidence in support of your specific and preferred bronze or iron-age superstitions.

That's why it's called "faith".

 

[demondestroyer]

I don’t care what you think….as you don’t care what I think. Just an observation of about 99% of these atheist or anti Christian comments. And I absolutely respect your opinion to believe what you will…I however don’t understand the level of disrespect leveled towards believers. I have a B.S. in biology/pre med….evolution is a theory. Traits can be established in short observable lifetimes of say e. Coli through direct intervention..I know because I have done it…. But to say hey- you don’t believe in evolution so you’re a moron…that argument doesn’t work. Not saying you said that but I’m sure you feel that way. And that’s cool… my issue with non believers is this… you only believe what you see… they go through life with their heads in a box…anything outside of that box can’t be real. And that’s fine… but the level of arrogance from atheists is just tiring. I however will not tolerate any disrespect towards my religion or my savior. I don’t care who that offends either. And all this is not directed towards you…I’m just rambling…

Right!! The world says " show me and I will believe " but Christ says " believe me and I will show you"