Science today
-
Josh Gray wrote:
cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
There were mainstreamer liberals defending her as well. Not quite everyone has fallen into the I hate everyone who disagrees wi9th me camps.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
liberals defending her as well
From what?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
No, Stan, it is you who have proved his point many times over and when called on it have proudly proclaimed that you indeed want a country where majority dicatorships and thought police rule.
No, he proved my point. We all want dictatorship and thought police. You, and Tim no less than I. Its just that you want different thoughts to be policed and you want it governed by a elite ruling class (which would include yourself, of course). Libertarianism is the greatest lie of all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, I really don't care what you think. Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want. By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:23 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
liberals defending her as well
From what?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
From what?
Geeze, Stan, keep up with the news, will yah? From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
From what?
Geeze, Stan, keep up with the news, will yah? From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan, I really don't care what you think. Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want. By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:23 PM
Oakman wrote:
Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want.
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Oakman wrote:
By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Ilion. They all stick together, you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want.
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Oakman wrote:
By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Absolutely.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
why should I be the only one?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Why pick the most subjective evidence of evolution to compare to the objective evidence of relativity when a better comparison exists?
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Fisticuffs wrote:
It sure sounds like you're rejecting their conclusion that this fossil is a common ancestor of humans and other primates.
No it doesn't. It sounds like I'm questioning the motives of those promoting subjective scientific conclusions as absolute fact.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet and, frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet and, frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data. The theory of evolution will always have a tougher time providing irrefutable, directly objectifiable evidence to support it. Thats not my fault.
Fisticuffs wrote:
frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself
As would I.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data. The theory of evolution will always have a tougher time providing irrefutable, directly objectifiable evidence to support it. Thats not my fault.
Fisticuffs wrote:
frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself
As would I.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data.
If you wanted to demonstrate a point about subjective versus objective, why not compare it directly to the more objective data of evolution itself instead of that in an entirely different branch of science? Words. Mean. Things. Public opinion on the strength of evolutionary science is bad enough as it is, fostering the illusion that the fossil record is the bulk of evolutionary theory is irresponsible at best.
- F
-
Synaptrik wrote:
The Land of Nod. Q.E.D.
In the absence of any quoted passage, I have no idea what this refers to.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Asks for what?
The Holy Spirit, who is given with evidence to the individual.
John Carson wrote:
Does everyone who is determined to believe in God manage to do so?
I don't think so, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
The Holy Spirit, who is given with evidence to the individual.
So saying out loud: "I want the Holy Spirit" is all that is needed to get proof? I'm sure the answer is no. I think this is all just sophistry. As a practical matter, people who ask for the Holy Spirit are generally already more or less convinced. Proof is not freely available to everyone who asks for it at all. At best, "proof" is available to those who already more or less believe and want to be more convinced. What they may end up with, of course, is merely inner conviction, not proof in any remotely scientific sense. Suppose there is some fact that it is of vital interest to your children to believe, e.g., that being hit by a car is bad for your health. Are you going to do all in your power to convince them of that fact? Or are you going to play silly games about proof being available to those who want it. If you did the latter, I wouldn't believe for a second that you loved your children. Equally, should God exist, I don't believe for a second that he loves people. This has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with being provided accurate information as a basis for decision making.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
So the passage banning the eating of shellfish is part of the core message?
It's not bad advice, in the context of the times. And, the food laws are explicitly voided in the NT.
John Carson wrote:
Or is the core message only to be found in the New Testament?
It's mostly in the NT, yes.
John Carson wrote:
That includes all the rules telling women what to do (cover their heads, keep silent in church, obey their husbands...)?
Some of the rules given, are given in the context of the times, and come down to a fundamental that persists - do your best not to offend other people. And yes, wives should obey their husbands, so long as the husband also cherishes the wife and would die for her. Too many bible belt wife beaters forget that bit.
John Carson wrote:
The parts telling slave owners what to do?
In the context of a slave owning society, I would totally defend the bible's advice to be a fair master, yes.
John Carson wrote:
Do they count as passages about "the nature of God".
Yes, in that they talk about God's desire to seperate His people.
John Carson wrote:
Do we take all the instructions on "what to do" in the Sermon on the Mount literally?
Which parts are you thinking of ? The sermon on the mount was, strictly speaking, part of the OT, but I can't think off hand of any bad advice in there.
John Carson wrote:
I don't think you can offer any coherent criteria specifying in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value.
OK, well, I did, so, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.
John Carson wrote:
It is interesting that you seem unwilling to commit to a belief in the accuracy of anything historical in the Bible --- unless perhaps it gets in under cover of revealing the nature of God. Again, I wonder why, in such a case, you think the Bible reliable on anything.
I didn't say that, either. Not at all. I said that things like Gen 1-2 are not designed to be total scientific truth, and that a science journal is not what the Bible is about. (rest not answered for time, I
Christian Graus wrote:
It's not bad advice, in the context of the times. And, the food laws are explicitly voided in the NT.
"Part of the core message" or "not bad advice"? If you read Leviticus 11, then I think you will find it is full of nonsensical advice. As to the food laws being "explicitly voided", I read in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-18):
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Christian Graus wrote:
Some of the rules given, are given in the context of the times, and come down to a fundamental that persists - do your best not to offend other people.
Again, I don't think people can give a coherent rule for distinguishing the "context of the times" stuff from the fundamentals. In practice, commandments are relegated to "context of the times" once they give sufficient offence to the ethics of current times.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yes, wives should obey their husbands, so long as the husband also cherishes the wife and would die for her.
I don't believe that there is any "so long as" in the the Biblical injunction (though perhaps, per Oakman, it is there in the original language --- but likely not).
Christian Graus wrote:
In the context of a slave owning society, I would totally defend the bible's advice to be a fair master, yes.
Interesting. It is perfectly possible for a slave owner to free his slaves and there are many recorded instances of just that. So you think that is inappropriate.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, in that they talk about God's desire to seperate His people.
So God really did order mass slaughter?
Christian Graus wrote:
Which parts are you thinking of ? The sermon on the mount was, strictly speaking, part of the OT, but I can't think off hand of any bad advice in there.
It is in Matthew, so I don't know how you classify that as Old Testament. For bad advice, how about:
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you
-
I wonder about your obsession with the bible. It kinda appears to me that you might be subject to a reversal of Pascal's Wager. Vigorously trying to disprove it so there's nothing to lose by denying it.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
It kinda appears to me that you might be subject to a reversal of Pascal's Wager.
Does it now.