Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

First topic message reminder :

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

DR, Sheldon,
My post to which you refer was in reply to yours that said science was not responsible, humans were.

So in fact you said ?????? there was no such thing as scientists just humans.

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,  My post to which you refer was in reply to yours that said science was not responsible, humans were.

That is true. I know this because I have referred back to it and quoted it with both time and date for clarity.

Polyglide wrote: So in fact you said ?????? there was no such thing as  scientists just humans.

That is not true, not even close. Science is a process, it isn't human and therefore isn't sentient, it cannot therefore be blamed for how the knowledge it provides is used. Scientists are human, science is not, this is the point I have been making for some time that you don't seem able to understand. However in your response you said:

by polyglide on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:46 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
Then on that basis it is not applicable to give credit to scientists for anything, everything has been done by humans, your lack of logic is beyond compare.

This obviously implies scientists are not human, so I asked you to clarify:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:50 pm
Scientists 'are human'. Did you not know this?

You then responded with:

by polyglide on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:55 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
So now you are saying that scientists are not seperate and are not responsible in their own right,

Then I asked:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:24 pm
Separate from humans? In what sense? I've no idea what you're trying to claim here or what possible relevance it has.

I'm still asking and you have yet to answer in what way 'YOU' are claiming scientists are separate from humans? Have you an answer? Or do you just not know that there is a fundamental difference between science and scientists in that the former is an insentient process and the latter the humans who use it?

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not know if anyone has ever explained that you take what is written in respect of the subject in question.

Scientists are seperate from other humans that do not persue science just as builder is seperate from a person who sells dolls, we were talking about occupations.

polyglide wrote: Scientists are seperate from other humans that do not persue science

This was your claim:

polyglide wrote: Dr, Sheldon, Then on that basis it is not applicable to give credit to scientists for anything, everything has been done by humans, your lack of logic is beyond compare. to use them.

I said that science is not to blame for how humans use the knowledge we get from it, because it's an insentient process, it's not human. How on earth does that mean scientists can't take credit for the good work they do? Or that other humans can? Is this another of those bizarre red herrings you love to use to obfuscate?

One last time science is an insentient process, it isn't human, and can't therefore be culpable for how the knowledge we get from it is used, that is entirely the fault of humans, and how they use it, regardless of their occupation. Why you even mention occupations I have no idea as this was not remotely my point. You understand that science has a very different definition to scientists, don't you?

By the way it's separate not seperate, and pursue not persue. So claiming I can't understand what's written is somewhat ironic given how many times you've been told this. Why not address the post for once and leave the childish sniping at other peoples language skills alone, given the remedial display of English in your posts it's not a direction you want to go in, trust me.

Dr, Sheldon,
As usual you have me lost.

A scientist is one who is involved in any one of the many scientific persuits.

An occupation is anyhing that a person does for a living or as a hobby etc;

Anyone engaged in science as a means of earning a living is in an occupation.

Any scientist who developes anything either detrimental or advantagious is resposible for anything that follows.

I said that science is not to blame for how humans use the knowledge we get from it, because it's an insentient process, it's not human. How on earth does that mean scientists can't take credit for the good work they do? Or that other humans can? Is this another of those bizarre red herrings you love to use to obfuscate?
Science and scientists are two entirely different things. You have repeatedly blamed science,  even though science is an insentient process.  Humans are to blame for how that process is used, not the process itself. I simply can't dumb that down anymore I'm afraid.  


This obfuscation over occupations is utterly irrelevant to that point, and the thread. I never mentioned occupations and am at a loss as to what relevance you think it has.

Dr, Sheldon,
Please learn to read exactly what is written and what it means.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Please learn to read exactly what is written and what it means.

You claimed science was to blame for how the knowledge it provides us with is used. I pointed out that....by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 1:00 pm

I said that science is not to blame for how humans use the knowledge we get from it, because it's an insentient process, it's not human. How on earth does that mean scientists can't take credit for the good work they do? Or that other humans can? Is this another of those bizarre red herrings you love to use to obfuscate?
Science and scientists are two entirely different things. You have repeatedly blamed science, even though science is an insentient process. Humans are to blame for how that process is used, not the process itself. I simply can't dumb that down anymore I'm afraid.

What is it your claiming to have said that I have misunderstood, and why?

Dr, Sheldon,
How very intelligent to realise that science is not a scientist and are entirely different things.

The fact that scientists create things with only one intention makes them 100% responsible for all that follows.

You want them to be applauded for cures and yet not condem them for horrors caused by their creations, funny but not reaky laughable.

You have continually blamed science. Perhaps you should go back through your posts and acknowledge your error,  as your bombast here makes your posts appear either breathtakingly stupid or devoid of integrity. 

I have never suggested scientists are not entirely culpable for their actions, in fact I have stated plainly many times that whilst science is insentient and so is not culpable, humans are entirely culpable for how they use the knowledge science gives, scientists are of course all human. Unfortunately you then suggested scientists were somehow separate from humans, an odd claim given that decisions on how to use scientific knowledge is not the sole domain of scientists. Mea culpa, I should have realised the remedial grasp of English you've thus far displayed would inevitably result in the asinine guff you have responded with. 

Ordinarily I'd gently explain your error, however since you persist in being a childish obnoxious arrogant blowhard I'll respond in kind.

Now since I've finally managed to penetrative your oak like noggin with the obvious fact that science is an insentient process,  perhaps you can tell us why you keep making the imbecilic claim that this process can be in anyway culpable for how the knowledge it provides is used? 
Take your time....

Dr, Sheldon,
I do believe you are either under the influence or just stupid.

If the scientist does not create something that is detrimental then it cannot be used, if the scientist does then the scientist is responsible because without the scientist there would be no chance of using it and in particular when there is only one objective and possible use.

The Bible also warns against science.

You blamed science, not scientists.  So why you're now pretending this isn't the case I don't know. You seem unable to offer a consistent or cogent response, contradicting yourself and seemingly unaware you're doing it. Your posts suggest this is down to your poor grasp of English, so I'll reiterate my point yet again.  

Science is an insentient process and so cannot be culpable for how the knowledge it provides is used. Only the humans who decide how scientific knowledge is used are culpable.  

Of course the bible warns against pursuing knowledge, ignorance is the best way to maintain superstition.

Please desist from your childish ad hominem, your attempts to insult the intellects of others merely parody your tragic posts even more.

Dr, Sheldon,
The best possible protection anyone can have is the truth even if as result someone suffers, you may consider this.

Sententious and cryptic, i love the way some theist when they meet someone who rejects faith in a deity and gives cogent reasoned arguemnts, nearly always sentntiously suggest they either haven't or are incapabe of giving the matter the cogitation it requires.

I digress, you claimed 'repeatedly' that science was culpable for how scientific knowledge is used. Here's an example from this thread:

by polyglide on Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:46 pm
Science has done more harm than good for the future of mankind

I have repeatedly pointed out that science is an insentient process, and can not therefore be culpable, but that humans are. You repeatedly repudiated this with numerous repetitions of your claim above. Then employed a dismal display of semantics on this page, and some of the previous page, where you tried to claim humans were somehow separate from scientists in the context I had used. Nor do I accept your ridiculous and un-evidenced claim that the knowledge it has provided has done more harm than good, this is absurd. It appears you are unprepared to ever admit an error even when it is adorning page after page, yet you baulk at any suggestion you are being dishonest, and now hilariously lecture me on honesty. So forgive me if after your disingenuous misrepresentation of what I have said, and what you have said, and your appalling use of ad hominem if I'm disinclined to be lectured on honesty by you.

Now, one more time:

Science is an insentient process, and cannot therefore be culpable for how the knowledge it provides us is used. The humans who decide how to use that knowledge are entirely culpable for how it is used, and this includes your favourite obsession the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WWII, where the decision was the sole responsibility of a single man, the then president of the USA Harry Truman, who must therefore take the bulk of the responsibility. The scientists who developed the bomb believing correctly that they were in a race to beat the Nazis who were themselves developing such a bomb, and represented by the head of the Manhattan project J.Robert Oppenheimer lobbied president Truman desperately not to use it, when they fully realised it's destructive power. So again more blame attaches to Truman, the Christian son of a baptist minister incidentally, than to Oppenheimer.

"After the war Oppenheimer became chairman of the influential General Advisory Committee of the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission, and used that position to lobby for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. After provoking the ire of many politicians with his outspoken opinions during the Second Red Scare, he had his security clearance revoked in a much-publicized hearing in 1954, and was effectively stripped of his direct political influence; he continued to lecture, write and work in physics. Nine years later President John F. Kennedy awarded (and Lyndon B. Johnson presented) him with the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation."

Dr, Sheldon,
I know what I would like to award to the scientists who developed the nuclear bomb and the chemical weapons that could only be used for detructive purposes the result of which offset any good they have done.

Open your eyes and look at the state of the majority of the world and see what science is heading for.

Nuclear science offers knowledge with many possibilities outside of weaponry,  as does chemistry. You are so subjectively blinkered here that it's hilarious irony for you to tell me to open my eyes. I note again that you don't acknowledge your error in assigning culpability to science for how the knowledge it provides is used. Instead you prefer to disingenuously imply I don't assign culpability to the humans who decide how such knowledge is applied when for many weeks and in multiple threads I have plainly stated precisely the opposite. 

You ought perhaps to bear that in mind next time I cite such dishonesty in your posts,  and you react with insults and angry denials.

Like your dishonesty in that last post in not acknowledging Oppenheimer's lifelong efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms, or his efforts to stop Truman using the bomb on Japan. You prefer repetition and disingenuous hyperbole.

Dr, Sheldon,
Repeating the truth is far better than resorting to both ill infomed and dubious references that have no real meaning regarding the subject in question and personal insults.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Repeating the truth is far better than resorting to both ill infomed and dubious references that have no real meaning regarding the subject in question and personal insults.

Which 'references' are you claiming are dubious, and why? You really donlt like it when people post facts do you, it blows a massive hole in your hyperbole and rhetoric.  As for 'me' resorting to personal insults....you appear to be a bare faced liar with amnesia....

by polyglide on Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:23 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I do believe you are either under the influence or just stupid.

It's not nice to lie about and insult people instead of honestly addressing their posts, Polyglide, it risks making one appear a nasty obnoxious bigot. Why not try again, and look like you actually are capable of adult discussion

Nuclear science offers knowledge with many possibilities outside of weaponry, as does chemistry. You are so subjectively blinkered here that it's hilarious irony for you to tell me to open my eyes. I note again that you don't acknowledge your error in assigning culpability to science for how the knowledge it provides is used. Instead you prefer to disingenuously imply I don't assign culpability to the humans who decide how such knowledge is applied when for many weeks and in multiple threads I have plainly stated precisely the opposite.

You ought perhaps to bear that in mind next time I cite such dishonesty in your posts, and you react with insults and angry denials.

Like your dishonesty in that last post in not acknowledging Oppenheimer's lifelong efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms, or his efforts to stop Truman using the bomb on Japan. You prefer repetition and disingenuous hyperbole.

Do you have an intelligent response? Or indeed any response at all? Or can we now assume your nasty empty rhetoric about science has been exposed for the ignorance and empty biased sham it undoubtedly is.

Dr, Sheldon,
Science has got us into the present state where no one feels safe and the world is on the brink.

You were obviously lost when I explained that a doctor could save a thousand lives but if he took one intentionaly he would still be a murderer and the same applies to science all the good they have done is more than offset with damage they have done.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Science has got us into the present state where no one feels safe and the world is on the brink.

Science is an insentient process, it's humans that decide who we use knowledge, and it's religion that is fuelling almost every conflict around the globe.

Polyglide wrote:You were obviously lost when I explained that a doctor could save a thousand lives but if he took one intentionaly he would still be a murderer and the same applies to science all the good they have done is more than offset with damage they have done.

Nope, I ignored it because it's yet another irrelevant idiotic straw man. I know you seem to love introducing irrelevant straw man polemic but it serves no purpose, and just drives the discourse off topic.

I see you've completely ignored my post again. I know facts annoy you as they destroy your hyperbole laden rhetoric, but have you ever responded to anything with anything salient? Let's try again then.

Nuclear science offers knowledge with many possibilities outside of weaponry, as does chemistry. You are so subjectively blinkered here that it's hilarious irony for you to tell me to open my eyes. I note again that you don't acknowledge your error in assigning culpability to science for how the knowledge it provides is used. Instead you prefer to disingenuously imply I don't assign culpability to the humans who decide how such knowledge is applied when for many weeks and in multiple threads I have plainly stated precisely the opposite. You ought perhaps to bear that in mind next time I cite such dishonesty in your posts, and you react with insults and angry denials. Like your dishonesty in that last post in not acknowledging Oppenheimer's lifelong efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms, or his efforts to stop Truman using the bomb on Japan. You prefer repetition and disingenuous hyperbole.


Do you have an intelligent response? Or indeed any response at all? Or can we now assume your nasty empty rhetoric about science has been exposed for the ignorance and empty biased sham it undoubtedly is.

That's my third time of asking, and having made your asinine un-evidenced claims it seems you have no stomach to justify them by addressing the truth, preferring to lie and claim they are dubious, again with no attempt to evidence why. Your claims are laughable, and you really haven't a clue how to debate anything, or even hold a discussion, it must be why you so often resort to petty ad hominem .

Dr, Sheldon,
Bang, earth ruined by nuclear explosion regarding nuclear power station along with idiots dropping a few atom bombs.

End of world along with scientists etc;

I know, I know, you cannot understand but then how can you when your ego gets in the way constantly

It's sad you think such dismissive disjointed imbecilic rants are reasoned argument. Then it's also sad you think ad hominem represents compelling polemic. It is however perfectly clear you can't make any mature erudite response to my post, hence you are resorting to the same trite dismissal that we see here in post after post, as if typing the word Bang makes such idiotic ramblings any more cogent.

You know I've tried to explain the difference between criticism of an argument and pure ad hominem yet you simply persist. Let's try an example. 

If someone ignored your post and directed a remark to you by hypothetically saying "you're an obnoxious bigoted delusional old retard" you'd be justifiably annoyed, because anyone making such a remark would be using ad hominem in the same way you persist in doing.  So try and aim your remarks at the topic and leave such remarks alone

Dr, Shedlon,
No I would not be annoyed because I would realise the one saying it was deluded and had not the common sense to realise the difference between your ridiculous responses and my correct and detailed analogies etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                 No I would not be annoyed because I would realise the one saying it was deluded and had not the common sense to realise the difference between your ridiculous responses and my correct and detailed analogies etc;

That's because your posts have shown unequivocally that you simply can't differentiate between a criticism of an argument or post, and the use of pure ad hominem you have directed relentlessly at anyone who has disagreed with your beliefs, claims, proselytising and homophobia. Sadly I fear there is little chance of correcting this, especially as you seem under the delusion that your posts are correct and detailed, they're rarely comprehensible, and simply lack any shred of objectivity, often bordering on lacking any shred of sanity. However I'm more than happy for anyone to scroll through tha last couple of pages and read our respective contributions for themselves. Sadly I fear your strident proselytising guff has chased everyone away long ago.

marcolucco,
I feel it the responsibility of everyone to seek as much knowledge as possible to enable one to put as much effort into helping all fellow humans in any way possible.

However, just what kind of knowledge is of most benifit, no one can learn everything?.

I have just gone through Srephen Hawking's Origin of the Universe and it is very interesting but in what way does it feed the starving?.

He is knowlegeable but to what extent as with many others in his field does he make matters any better.

A person with a small allotment who gives another person food to save him/her from starvation is more relevant to mankinds existance.

Not only is it a good thing to seek knowledge it is far better to learn how to implement it for the betterment of all mankind.

Stephen. sorry.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
                I feel it the responsibility of everyone to seek as much knowledge as possible

And our best method for this is science, by any reasonable yardstick.

polyglide wrote:However, just what kind of knowledge is of most benifit, no one can learn everything?.  I have just gone through Srephen Hawking's  Origin of the Universe and it is very interesting but in what way does it feed the starving?.He is knowlegeable but to what extent as with many others in his field does he make matters any better.A person with a small allotment who gives another person food to save him/her from starvation is more relevant to mankinds existance.

This is another straw man argument, as it simply isn't a choice between the two things, how exactly does your fictional good Samaritan sharing their meagre allotment compare to science producing pest resistant crops for the entire globe, or crops that don't require fertilizers, or medical cures for diseases, or eradicating diseases like Smallpox, and in the near future the single largest killer - Malaria, all down to science.

Polyglide wrote:Not only is it a good thing to seek knowledge it is far better to learn how to implement it for the betterment of all mankind.

 

And science is essential for this....