Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > No reason for a rift between science and religion?

Pages: (37) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:37    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:31) K.E. Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler. And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast. Anything ont topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again? Don't let the pixies get you. Louis Huh? Look if you want to discuss the philosphical implications of wanking goats then don't let me stop you. As far as mescalin goes, it doesn't go far enough, especially since it was banned in Coca Cola. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:53    I never discuss the philosophical implications of wanking goats. Remember: Greek heritage. Goats don't need wanking, they are sluts and they are asking for it. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or simply do hot knives with an eight of an ounce of it. Your choice. Although I advise staying away from a lung or a bath bong. They tend to get a little lairy. Louis -------------- Bye.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,12:00    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:53) I never discuss the philosophical implications of wanking goats. Remember: Greek heritage. Goats don't need wanking, they are sluts and they are asking for it. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or simply do hot knives with an eight of an ounce of it. Your choice. Although I advise staying away from a lung or a bath bong. They tend to get a little lairy. Louis Well, thats just dandy! Hot knives always make me want to stab myself...after I've stabbed everyone esle. Sleep, sleep kind man, be careful not to wake up dead. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:00    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23) Which, of course, is precisely my point.[/quote] Lenny, If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about? Exactly what was at the beginning of this thread: Do science and religion necessarily conflict? My postulate is;  no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things.   YOU were the one who then made the assertion that science (or reason, or rationality, or something) CAN deal with subjective things.   Are you now withdrawing that assertion? If so, we have nothing to argue about. If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes".  Or "is abortion wrong".  Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk".   Show us how it's done. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:06    Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,11:37) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:31) K.E. Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler. And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast. Anything on topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again? Don't let the pixies get you. Louis Huh? Look if you want to discuss the philosphical implications of wanking goats then don't let me stop you. As far as mescalin goes, it doesn't go far enough, especially since it was banned in Coca Cola. Good lord, what is it with you Brits and barnyard animals? It's almost as bad as that whole crossdressing thing. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:08    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23) Reason tells us a huge amount about subjective concepts when those concepts are in context, as I have been bangin on about now until I am exceedingly sick of it. And as I have already shown, reason tells us nothing at all about any subjective matter, other than what *you*have already told *it*. If I tell you "beauty is X, Y and Z", then yes, by golly, you can use your reason and logic to tell me whether this or that thing has X, Y or Z and is therefore "beautiful" under my definition. Alas, what your logic and reason can NOT do, is simply tell me what X, Y and Z are.  Not unless *I* tell you first.   Logic and reason simply can't answer the question. All it can do is accept MY answer as a "given" precondition. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:15    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:00) Do science and religion necessarily conflict? My postulate is; ?no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things. Example: "...are brunettes hotter than blondes? ? Lenny - What feels ill-formed about this question - and I think this is what (in part) Louis is objecting to - is that you are insisting that this is an inherently subjective question, but ask it in a form that inherently excludes subjects. You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV. Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:21    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:15) You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV. Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE. Well heck, that's sort of the point, isn't it . . . . It CAN'T be treated as an objective matter (independent of POV) because it AIN'T one. Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions.  It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:22    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:00) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23) Which, of course, is precisely my point. Lenny, If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about?[/quote] Exactly what was at the beginning of this thread: Do science and religion necessarily conflict? My postulate is; ?no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things. ? YOU were the one who then made the assertion that science (or reason, or rationality, or something) CAN deal with subjective things. ? Are you now withdrawing that assertion? If so, we have nothing to argue about. If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ? Show us how it's done. But Lenny, How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions. I am pretty damn sure that you know that any answer that is definite could be shown to have instances where the opposite answer is more reasonable. I would agree hpwever that science and religion do not have to be in conflict. I also think that they have been in the past and present (although I only know of a few religions where that is the case).

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:25    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:21) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:15) You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV. Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE. Well heck, that's sort of the point, isn't it . . . . It CAN'T be treated as an objective matter (independent of POV) because it AIN'T one. Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions. ?It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing. Agreed. But it (science) is still making inroads when it does that.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:58    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:21) Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions. ?It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing. Certainly what Gilbert Ryle and B.F. Skinner would have argued. (God rest their radically and methodologically (respectively) behavioral souls.) Further, there are large and very interesting experimental literatures within psychology and cognitive science that demonstrate that persons themselves often have shockingly little reliable access to the antecedents and consequences of their own subjective states, as well as of the environmental factors that shape what they "feel" to be subjective judgments, decisions, etc. We often learn more about their subjective states by confining our attention to objectively accessible/observable phenomena than can be learned by querying the subject him or herself. Introspection discloses surprisingly little about the bases for our behaviors and decisions - although we stubbornly model ourselves as unfettered agents. In fact, as I muse on this topic, I would argue that science (and specifically cognitive psychology) has a great deal to say about the subjective, in some instances by way of subtraction. It is clear that we aren't the quite the agents we fancy ourselves to be, and have somewhat over-valorized subjective agency and experience. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:58    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22) If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ? Show us how it's done.[/quote] But Lenny, How could those questions possibly be answered? Ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you're getting somewhere . . . . They CAN'T be objectively answered.  Not by science, not by logic, not by kohlinar.  (Not by religion, either.) That being the whole point. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:02    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:58) Further, there are large and very interesting experimental literatures within psychology and cognitive science that demonstrate that persons themselves often have shockingly little reliable access to the antecedents and consequences of their own subjective states, as well as of the environmental factors that shape what they "feel" to be subjective judgments, decisions, etc. We often learn more about their subjective states by confining our attention to objectively accessible/observable phenomena than can be learned by querying the subject him or herself. Introspection discloses surprisingly little about the bases for our behaviors and decisions - although we stubbornly model ourselves as unfettered agents. In fact, as I muse on this topic, I would argue that science (and specifically cognitive psychology) has a great deal to say about the subjective, in some instances by way of subtraction. It is clear that we aren't the quite the agents we fancy ourselves to be, and have somewhat over-valorized subjective agency and experience. Indeed. ?No one has said otherwise. What science CAN'T do, though, is tell us whether abortion is wrong, or what I should do with a wallet full of money I find on the sidewalk, or whether brunettes are cuter than blondes. As I said before, even if we discover right down to the molecular level why person X holds this opinion and person Y holds that one, that STILL doesn't tell us which opinion is correct. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:07    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22) If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ? Show us how it's done.[/quote] But Lenny, How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions. In what way are they "dishonest"? In what way are they "meaningless"?  In what way are they "beside the point"? They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times.  Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering.   I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:08    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:58) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22) If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ? Show us how it's done. But Lenny, How could those questions possibly be answered? Ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you're getting somewhere . . . . They CAN'T be objectively answered. ?Not by science, not by logic, not by kohlinar. ?(Not by religion, either.) That being the whole point.[/quote] How can they be subjectively (or any other way) answered Lenny? Can you answer the question "are blondes hotter than brunnettes" without altering the question? If you do that I am willing to bet that I can give you an example (or 2) where you would dissagree with your original answer. Edited to change here to where.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:16    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:07) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22) If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ? Show us how it's done. But Lenny, How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions.[/quote] In what way are they "dishonest"? In what way are they "meaningless"? ?In what way are they "beside the point"? They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times. ?Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering. ? I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these. I consider the questions "dishonest" because they are framed with a yes/no answer intended to be the answer. We both know that any yes/no answer can be shown to be wrong in certain circumstances. They seem like a kinda lawyer/political trap to me than honest questions that can be answered universally. Abortion right/wrong can be answered both ways but only when many other circumtances are known. The same applies to murder and wallet theft.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:17    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Without a beholder, or group of them, what the heck would the term "beauty" (or "cute" or "hot") even mean? As for Lenny's complaint from a while back that defining all the terms of the question would answer it - well yes, understanding the meaning of a question is a large part of answering it. Maybe even the most important part. (Remember "word problems" in elementary school math?) Henry

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:40    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2007,15:17) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Without a beholder, or group of them, what the heck would the term "beauty" (or "cute" or "hot") even mean? ... Henry I completely agree with that. I also kinda agree with Lenny (with reservations) and Louis (also with resevations).

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:56    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,16:02) What science CAN'T do, though, is tell us whether abortion is wrong, or what I should do with a wallet full of money I find on the sidewalk, or whether brunettes are cuter than blondes. Vis wallets and abortions, I wonder if such questions are inaccessible to science not so much because they are "subjective" versus "objective," but rather because they are "normative" versus "objective." Answers to such questions are typically supplied by communities rather than individuals delving into subjective depths (as much as they like to believe otherwise), and the "free floating rationales" (per Dennett in "Breaking the Spell") for those normative responses often lie at the group/community level rather than the individual. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:00    who is the question meaningful to?  The person asking the question!  Who answers the question? the person asking the question!  How hard is this to understand.  How does the person answer the question?  Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence?  That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't.  If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that.  If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that.  Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one.  Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case?  No!  As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer.  For abortion, we just don't know.  For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer.  We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it.  The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid. If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't?  And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind?  No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves.  There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set.  How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around?  My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear.  "What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?" regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing:  science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:12    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00) who is the question meaningful to? ?The person asking the question! ?Who answers the question? the person asking the question! ?How hard is this to understand. ?How does the person answer the question? ?Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence? ?That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't. ?If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that. ?If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that. ?Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one. ?Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case? ?No! ?As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer. ?For abortion, we just don't know. ?For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer. ?We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it. ?The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid. If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't? ?And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind? ?No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves. ?There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set. ?How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around? ?My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear. ?"What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?" regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing: ?science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be. Pure trollbait. Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:36    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00) who is the question meaningful to?  The person asking the question!  Who answers the question? the person asking the question!  How hard is this to understand.  How does the person answer the question?  Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence?  That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't.  If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that.  If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that.  Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one.  Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case?  No!  As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer.  For abortion, we just don't know.  For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer.  We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it.  The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid. If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't?  And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind?  No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves.  There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set.  How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around?  My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear.  "What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?" regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing:  science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be. Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:52    Quote Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best. Quote Pure trollbait. Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly. (etc.) I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all). That upsets you? I don't get it. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:01    As for the question of whether there's a rift between science and religion - imnsho without adding a bunch more detail, that's way too vague for a yes or no answer. There's no logical contradiction between the ToE (for example) and a generic theism. But believers in specific theisms do sometimes make claims and attach them to their theologies. Henry

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:02    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,16:52) ? Quote Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best. ?   Quote Pure trollbait. Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly. (etc.) I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all). That upsets you? I don't get it. Fair point but I see it differently. IMO Louis has made points and gone to lengths to explain them. I have not seen skeptic go to anywhere near the same effort. The reason that I feel abusive is that I can see Louis making an effort to explain but I do not see the same effort being done reciprocally.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:17    If you're looking for a word count then you will continue to be disappointed.  This is not a difficult concept and Louis has repeated his point to the extreme.  The reason he feels he must beat the dead horse is because he refuses to acknowledge that differing opinions even exist.  If anyone here has taken an introductory philosophy or ethics class you'll agree that these concepts are basic.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:57    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,16:52) Quote Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best. Quote Pure trollbait. Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly. (etc.) I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all). That upsets you? I don't get it. Bear in mind I was not abusing skeptic in him/herself, I hold no real opinion either way of him/her. I don't even know what gender (s)he is. However, that post was unbelivably pretentious psuedo intellectual posing of the highest order. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:58    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,15:08) How can they be subjectively (or any other way) answered Lenny? They can't.   That's the whole point. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:59    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,15:16) They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times. ?Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering. ? I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these.[/quote] I consider the questions "dishonest" because they are framed with a yes/no answer intended to be the answer. We both know that any yes/no answer can be shown to be wrong in certain circumstances. That of course being the whole POINT. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,20:02    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00) who is the question meaningful to? ?The person asking the question! ?Who answers the question? the person asking the question! ?How hard is this to understand. ?How does the person answer the question? ?Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence? ?That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't. ?If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that. ?If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that. ?Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one. ?Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case? ?No! ? Well, you started out OK. But then veered off into the weeds . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Pages: (37) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard