I think you need to put your brain back in neutral take a couple of breaths and relax.Originally Posted by leftrightout
Plague asked from a religious perspective some understanding on the matters he raised.
From my position as a religious believer I gave it to him.
Nothing I said from a religious belief is untrue. Nothing you won't get from other believers
Whether non believers take offence to the religious perspective is irrelevant.
It is what it is and it is the religious perspective
Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual. Sort of makes you wonder why God would create one of the smartest individuals to have ever lived to be both a non-believer and someone who lived a lifestyle that the bible would condemn.
Or was god trying to set an example by proving that those that disobeyed him would be given superior intelligence and the ability to make the lives of everyone around them easier due to advances in engineering and so on....
The so called evidence is pretty strong against the sky santa team.
Maybe we need both cause when we are praying for good health scientists help create a remedy. and we need public holidays
Last edited by hawk; 11-06-2015 at 01:11 PM.
This is the first I have heard about Newton! Where is the factual evidence of both his non-belief and his homosexuality?
Go jetties
Is it possible that both God and science are real?
Can they not coexist?
Go jetties
{puts Premy hat on}
Can you prove these claims?
dunster - pretty sure newton was deeply religious. i have no comment on his sexuality / lack thereof, but he certainly wasn't interested in women.
we will loose
Snake any chance you can answer that??
I am dying to start talking about a subject that is close to my heart and that is the dreaded Plastic Fans
da rapture! lovely bloke.
we will loose
I don't mean to be rude to you leftrightout but actually you're completely wrong here, and the reason you're wrong is central to the discussion.
Yes everyone is arguing about different theories here, but not all theories are created equal.
Have a think about it: science (and the modern world with it) would be in chaos if all theories were treated equally. plague could propose that the observations about gravity are explained by invisible lulz turtles moving everything for teh lulz, and that would be given equal credence as Galileo/Newton's/Einstein's theories.
So it's obvious from that example that we need a way of distinguishing between theories, but how do we do that?
Well put simply, a good theory will satisfy a set of criteria:
1. Must be falsifiable (i.e make predictions which can be tested and potentially proven false) (this is a criterion for any scientific theory, not just a good one)
2. Must be consistent with known observations
3. The bolder the better
4. (Not always true) The simpler the better
The above is a simplified description of it and of course there are debates (if you want to know more I suggest you start reading about the philosophy of science), but generally this is how it works and I'm sure people can appreciate the rationality behind it. You will also note that theories about religion/God goes against nearly all of these criteria, which goes to the next question:
No!
Or at least believing in God would amount of believing in pseudoscience.
As someone mentioned earlier, yes there are lots of religious scientists, but I can assure you that if they ever tried to incorporate their religious beliefs into their scientific work they'd be laughed at.
OK, so can we use this set of criteria to prove/disprove the following:
1. Wilts 100 point game.
2. If Newton was a pillow biter.
I'm actually not joking about this, get at it lads.
yep, this is exactly what I was asking.
Cheers Member.
He will take out ISIS, and the Gypos.
Not all bad imo.
the devil's greatest trick was making the world believe he doesn't exist
Seth!
WE DON'T DO WALKING AWAY !
Kint paraphrasing Baudelaire actually
as with all religions, its just a spook story criminals tell their children at night
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and Newton correspondence in Newton Collection at Trinity Library provides strong evidence of a more than friends relationship between them.
Some of the letters from Fatio mention things like never being able to marry or indeed Fatio saying that he could spend the rest of his life with Newton... and so on.
Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed. Newton on the other hand - he showered Fatio with gifts and money.
When the relationship did end [Fatio started a relationship with another man] Newton fell deeply into depression..... and so on.
There is no evidence that Newton and Fatio actually had a sexual relationship but anyone thinking they didn't would also have been shocked when Freddie Mercury or Ian Thorpe came out.
With respect to religion: Dissenters were not offered fellowships at any of the colleges at Cambridge until the later stages of the 19th Century. As such if you wanted a fellowship you got on board the religion train or they left you at the station - regardless of your talent.
As such, Newton like anyone else in his position would always declare themselves to be a Christian.
Again. go though Newtons papers or indeed the diaries of others and you will find he probably never lectured even though it was a requirement of the Lucasian Chair and he very rarely if ever attended any religious ceremonies - something most unusual for a fellow at Cambridge let alone a Lucasian Professor.
Obviously I haven't been through Newtons entire catalog - nobody has to my knowledge. However, we probably know more about him now than we did 200 years ago.
If I get bored and decide to crack open some boxes I might shoot a few direct quotes from Newtons papers [ copies of course] - although by now they would probably be on the interwebs...
Any letters from me would be full of very funny things and lots of snark.
if you fail to be impressed by such things then thats on you, not me.
Although i do accept gifts and/or cash considerations for any services rendered.
cheers,
Plague.
for those (not hauss, who haveth regequit) interested in the context of the above quote, i'll provide it for you. i kid you not, the very next sentence following this passive quote is one of hate and destruction. the very next sentence!
jesus sent his bros to spread the word. if they weren't recieved, dust your feet and leave. the fate that awaits those who don't recieve the word? apparently, worse than having a city destroyed by fire and brimstone. doesn't jesus know that people hate door-knockers? ****ing god-botherers"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
thankfully, it's all fiction.
even though jesus (who is also god, apparently) is more tolerant in his later years, he's still not that tolerant by current standards. still a giant ****, really.
we will loose
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote