The dangerous side of faith
 

This web link shows very clearly the dangerous side of faith.

I had conflicting opinions about whether to post it or not, because I am sure that they will sucker some people in their dangerous views. Be warned, science and religion, or faith, at least, do not mix.

PS This could have had a subject of "The pop side of faith and entrepreneurship"

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

Wow. A really thought provoking thread here instead of just the usual addition to the never ending stream of trite attacks on religion, and the common strawman tactic of painting the most extreme/nutty religious position found as the mainstream religious belief. Thanks for sharing.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dr Don received his B.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that the alternative acronym for BS?

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. A really thought provoking thread here instead of just the usual addition to the never ending stream of trite attacks on religion, and the common strawman tactic of painting the most extreme/nutty religious position found as the mainstream religious belief. Thanks for sharing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing more trite then the attacks on religion is the rebuttals by the religious.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

From their diabetes page:

[ QUOTE ]
If you or someone you love has diabetes (also called hypertension) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

Listen to the fantastic song he wrote to tell families 10 things they can do to have good health.

"Please don't eat the white bread... the good nutrition is gone"

Song on this page

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. A really thought provoking thread here instead of just the usual addition to the never ending stream of trite attacks on religion, and the common strawman tactic of painting the most extreme/nutty religious position found as the mainstream religious belief. Thanks for sharing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a poker forum if you dont want to read anti religous posts maybe you should go to a religous forum

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

hashi,

There is nothing wrong with criticising/questioning religious beliefs. But this is just a typical low content post by Midge, among many in his anti-religious crusade. Furthermore, he shouldn't even be allowed to post such a link without giving a synopsis and his views on same, and how that offers a different perspective than the ones we see here every day, instead of just being repetitive (where the repetition is by class, and not specific example). All he is doing is trolling.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Be warned, science and religion, or faith, at least, do not mix.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. At the beggining of history religion and science were together, until today science still requires some faith.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
From their diabetes page:

[ QUOTE ]
If you or someone you love has diabetes (also called hypertension) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, good catch

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
From their diabetes page:

[ QUOTE ]
If you or someone you love has diabetes (also called hypertension) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypertension is a very common condition associated with diabetes.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From their diabetes page:

[ QUOTE ]
If you or someone you love has diabetes (also called hypertension) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypertension is a very common condition associated with diabetes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they're not one and the same.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Be warned, science and religion, or faith, at least, do not mix.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. At the beggining of history religion and science were together, until today science still requires some faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, ancient religion and modern science don't mix.

Don't get me started on "faith in science" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

both science and religion consist on men searching for knowledge.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
both science and religion consist on men searching for knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a little problem with the concept that religion seeks knowledge. I tend to picture the search for knowledge being an 'open' thing... you have to allow new knowledge to replace old knowledge.

Most of the 'true believers' as a rule reject any new information that contradicts their Faith.

This is incompatible with the search for knowledge... or least truth.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

Believe it or not many scientists reject new information that contradicts theyre theories.
Scientists are also subject of stubborness.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
both science and religion consist on men searching for knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect comment under this thread title.

Make two columns - date 1850.
Left column scientific claims of the day.
Right column religious claims of the day.

Do Again - date 2007

check for changes and additional knowledge.

luckyme

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not many scientists reject new information that contradicts theyre theories.
Scientists are also subject of stubborness.

[/ QUOTE ]


Perfect comment under this thread title.

Make two columns - date 1850.
Left column scientific claims of the day.
Right column religious claims of the day.

Do Again - date 2007

check for changes and additional knowledge and signs of stubbornness.

luckyme

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?
2)The fact that science evolves doesnt mean that scientists are not subject to stubborness.
Example:
Joe thinks A
Luke comes with theory B
Joe reject theory B and sticks with A
Joe dies.
We move on to theory B.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not many scientists reject new information that contradicts theyre theories.
Scientists are also subject of stubborness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as a rule of thumb.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, nowadays science knows much more about the brain and the nature of consciousness. So of course we realize that believing people's "souls" float around in heaven/hell after death is just silly.

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]

1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the 'search for knowledge claim' which I challenged.

what knowledge gained through religion does a christian have today that they didn't have then, or in 1400 for that matter?

Of course xtianity is practiced differently in some places today, religion typically follows secular trends with some serious rearguard conservative laggards. Your claim was about knowledge... I'd like to see that list.
There was a recent prediction on here that in 200 years homosexuality will not be a sin... but that won't come from 'knowledge' that xtrianity discovered it'll come from xtrians getting tired of being laughed at.

luckyme

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

[ QUOTE ]
1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?
2)The fact that science evolves doesnt mean that scientists are not subject to stubborness.
Example:
Joe thinks A
Luke comes with theory B
Joe reject theory B and sticks with A
Joe dies.
We move on to theory B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valenzuela.... If that were true the only theories we would still hold on to would be theories made by folks who are still alive no? Ive heard several interesting stories about professors and the like in my department even (poli sci... hardly science) who had their pet theories crushed and who were respectful to their debunker after of course checking the facts for themselves.... thats science... progress within scientific thought, etc. Some, like in everything, are subject to stubbroness. But I would submit that scientists, when presented with concrete evidence, are among the most rational group as a whole with respect to factoring that new evidence into new and more logical conclusions.

Also I think the real crime in this article is that Dr Don named his son Aidon.... I hate that name

Re: The dangerous side of faith
 

perhaps i should have said some scientist instead of many scientists.

Anyway my point is that treating science as something that has to be away from religion is not necessarrily correct. Religion and science can mix.