| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
10 |
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
You are right David, I should have said "man-made". Nonetheless I think there is science to support the hypothesis that human activities are
affecting climate. For me, the most persuasive evidence includes the (relatively) recent melting of polar ice caps and glacial modifications.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Online
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Nope... Science is the collection and analysis of data, conclusions not set in stone, open mindedness.
Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Online
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ken Bondy
You are right David, I should have said "man-made". Nonetheless I think there is science to support the hypothesis that human activities are
affecting climate. For me, the most persuasive evidence includes the (relatively) recent melting of polar ice caps and glacial modifications.
|
Thanks Ken, I do hear that where polar melting happens on one pole, it is growing on the other... Glaciers do move (melt back and advance). Been to
Yosemite? Thanks to global warming (way back when) we have a beautiful place to visit not covered in ice.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
Ken,
Thanks for weighing in on this. I think we are getting to the nub of it.
"A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion,
global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion."
So if distilled then David's argument goes like this?
Science = Religion
Religion = Science
Religion = Rigidly held belief system not subject to change via new information
Science = Unending series of examination of data with out conclusion
Therefore Science is an unending examination of data with out conclusion that is used to reinforce rigidly held beliefs which is called Religion.
Using this logic by definition science is religion and so all scientific argument is reduced to religious belief, or opinion, including your
statements about science.
I think I am getting the theology and logic here. Please correct me if I am not getting this right.
Iflyfish |
Science is a philosophical system that people use to acquire facts. Science doesn't claim that those are facts. It merely proposes that those who buy
into it accept them as facts. So, first of all, science does not uncover 'the truth'.
The system involves empirical information that will give the same results no matter how often the experiment is reproduced. If we come across such a
phenomena we all buy into it and agree that we now have knowledge.
This approach to finding 'facts' has been wildly successful in history, allowing us to conquer diseases and reaching the moon. We have bought into it
so completely that the approach is no longer questioned and is being used to 'prove' or 'disprove' global warming and man-made global warming.
Good science relies totally on information and has little interest in what the conclusions will be.
I really see little connection between science and religion with the exception that in both cases you have to 'buy into' the system. But beyond that:
one is based upon questioning, information gathering and deductions from that information, and the other is based upon unquestioning belief in a book.
So Science = Religion? I don't agree with that. I find that a conclusion puzzling.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iflyfish
"........"Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL
changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."
You state "Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time."
“Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.”
"WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not
the center of the universe, for example."
You say “science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”. Isn’t this “science” by definition just a religious belief, a
belief that one day may be refuted in the never ending, ongoing, examination of data that is science?
I am not arguing with you, I am confused.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iflyfish- Sorry I had to bail on the board and never saw your subsequent questions. There has been an interesting discussion since I left. I do wish
to make one last contribution along the lines of my earlier post about end-timers, in particular. And yes, Roman Catholic religion stands out for its
encouragement of stewardship of the planet. And you will find similar philosphies in other ancient religions including Judaism and Islam. It's the
latter day Christian fundamantalist religions that appear to be yearning for the rapture that primarily subscribe to positions that are anti-climate
change in the sense that nothing need be done about it. Historically, a substantial number of these adherents were found in the South. And they were
not politically active. We can thank folks like Ralph Reed and his brethren for taking up the political cause. That said, I find it obscenely cynical
that big business is in bed with these folks. The Wall Street guys and the corporate CEOs are far from end-timers. They just want to make money. And
as far as I know, no one has devised a way to "take it with you". So, obviously people who willingly obstruct any process designed to reign-in
man-made pollution on the basis of its cost should not be thought of as end-timers. GWB and his ilk have been and are being played.
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
For a fascinating look at the influence of evangelical religion on American politics and business, read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet. One of the most
frightening books I have ever read, and it's non-fiction.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ken- You're so right!. I picked it up after seeing the author interviewed on TV. What scares me the most is Sharlet's pessimism regarding any sort of
reversal. A few months back, there were several stories floating around about the C Street gang, who personify the absolute certainty of this crowd. I
don't want to make any journalistic recommendations, but in reality, I think Rachel Maddow is the only one who really persued C Street.
I copied a link that provides a decent flavor for this. Be afraid.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Bajahowodd]
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
I later went back to Shell Island to confirm David's findings and came across this scene.
|
|
|
Crusoe
Senior Nomad
Posts: 731
Registered: 10-14-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good one Joe...To funny ++C++
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ken Bondy
For a fascinating look at the influence of evangelical religion on American politics and business, read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet. One of the most
frightening books I have ever read, and it's non-fiction. |
While it really is a myth that history repeats itself, there is some truth in the idea that people repeat history, and in this case, I certainly hope
it is so.
There have been some really strong and influential periods of revivalism at different times in the history of the US. Fortunately, while they left
their mark, they did die down in power and influence. The liberal thought and reason upon which the US was born, once again prevailed.
We can certainly hope that will again be the case----the current wave is growing right now, and they do give good cause for fear.
One thing I recently read was that while the one political party could always depend of the votes of these people, they did not expect these people to
start taking over and running their own candidates, etc.
When a group like the members of the C Street gang only answer to each other, it is not a good thing. Rachel Maddow is one of few real journalists
around these days.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by DianaT]
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
I like your photos. Would like to see more of them. Any kind. You have an eye for photos. Good photo eye. Great photos. Love your photo posts.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
David, I think that this discussion is illuminating and I appreciate your participation as you are knowledgeable about the Theology involved. I have
given this some more thought that I would like to share with you and others.
You state:
You state "Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time."
“Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.” Yet you also say that Science is
Religion. I believe that Skipjack is saying that the method of science involves gathering information and then drawing conclusions about that data. I
understand you to be saying then ones Religious beliefs affect ones beliefs about Science. So that Science is approached with a set of Religious
beliefs that overlay the gathering of evidence.
"WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not
the center of the universe, for example."
You say “science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”. Isn’t this “science” by definition just a religious belief, a
belief that one day may be refuted in the never ending, ongoing, examination of data that is science?
If one defines or redefines Science as a Religion then any “fact” or finding of Science can be discounted as belief and therefore not a fact. Any use
of Science then by Religion is by definition an act of distortion in an attempt to prove its a priori assumptions. This viewpoint leaves us with a
very real dilemma. How can we ever know “facts” if we view the system of generating those “facts” as fundamentally flawed. How can we ever rationally
discuss science if it is just Religious belief? Is it any wonder then that we are in the soup we find ourselves in?
It seems that Bajahowadd and Ken are both saying that Science has been hijacked by Religion and used as a political tool to support the economic
interests of the ruling class. There is of course some precedent for this in the case of Galileo, who was excommunicated and locked up in prison for
asserting the “science (that) proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”.
Skipjack says “I really see little connection between science and religion with the exception that in both cases you have to 'buy into' the system.
But beyond that: one is based upon questioning, information gathering and deductions from that information, and the other is based upon unquestioning
belief in a book.
So Science = Religion? I don't agree with that. I find that a conclusion puzzling."
David says “"Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time.” So it would seem that both Science and
Religion are both reduced to belief or opinion from this perspective, there are no immutable facts to be found, although David does say that Science
can sometimes “prove” things like the earth is not the center of the universe. This does confuse me and is also puzzling to me. It may be that in
David’s Religion the earth is not the center of the Universe and your Religion might concur with that opinion.
This sort of logic does indeed make for difficulty when attempting to do Science. One’s scientific conclusions in this paradigm are always subject to
the charge that you are only expressing an opinion when you say that The Theory of Evolution or Germ Theory is proven fact. This makes for a very
slippery field of dialogue and now I see more clearly why this is so. In this dialogue it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific
Method. One person’s assertion is equal to any other person’s assertion regardless of the experience and knowledge of each person. In this situation
the hospital janitor (who may also be a clergyman) has an opinion about your need for surgery and it carries equal weight as your surgeon. The janitor
can simply say that his religion is different than the physicians and so has equal intellectual status. This is in part why we are still dealing with
issues of parents allowing their children to die when antibiotics can save their lives. They simply do not believe in Germ Theory, they instead
believe in Devine intervention and the power of prayer. This may also be why it is so difficult to separate Church and State and how the Church has
come to have such a powerful influence in the houses of Congress and the White House.
I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with us David. You have said it as clearly as it could be said. I think you have identified the
fundamental issue of why this topic of Global Warming and its causality is so contentious on a Theological level.
It is easy to see in this debate how one could believe in a conspiracy on the part of Environmentalists or on the part of the Ruling Class and
Religion to manipulate the discussion to “prove” ones point of view for political and or economic gain. It is a sad day indeed when we cannot even
agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate. Unfortunately like a child of warring parents the problem child does what it
wants and can wreak havoc on us all. The unfortunate affect of this is that it is very difficult to have real science inform out conclusions about how
to deal with the issues of our forests, air, seas and land. Even observations about the eventual disappearance of the Himalayan Glaciers and the
drying of the Ganges River are simply opinions, religious opinions for that matter.
In the mean time the glaciers recede and the affect of that has the potential to do us all in. Even if one believes that Global Warming is just a
theory I would think that it behooves us all to do what we can to stop it, if that is at all possible. This however is just an opinion based upon my
own value system and of course mine is the same value as yours. The conclusions that we draw from this debate may be a matter of life or death.
If there really is no science that proves Global Warming or that man is causing Global Warming it ought not to stop us from doing things to deal with
what MIGHT be one of the contributing factors in this problem. If we can build redundant stockpiles of nuclear weapons to fight a potential war with
an enemy that might emerge, it would seem we could use the same logic to do what we can do to stop Global Warming even if we currently believe that it
does not exist.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
The Gull
Super Nomad
Posts: 2223
Registered: 8-28-2003
Location: Rancho Descanso, BCN
Member Is Offline
Mood: High
|
|
From this discussion, I conclude:
Sand = Religion
Proof came with the photo of the penguins splashing in the surf.
�I won\'t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.� William F. Buckley, Jr.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
In this dialogue it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific Method. One person’s assertion is equal to any other person’s assertion
regardless of the experience and knowledge of each person.
Iflyfish |
Wow. I can't believe you wrote this.
The very basis of scientific knowledge are experiments that can be repeated at any time by anyone with identical measurements every time. A 'fact' has
no exceptions. If there is a single exception the fact is no longer supportable. How do you come up with the statement that everyone's assertion is of
equal value.
Furthermore:
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
It is a sad day indeed when we cannot even agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate.
Iflyfish |
This statement has left me scratching my head.
Science and religion have virtually nothing in common. Except that their goals (searching for truth) are the same. Science pursues truth through
empirical experiments and measurements and religion does so by pure faith. Religion doesn't require proof. It accepts matters on faith and
subsequently looks for anything to support it. If the data isn't there then it is only a matter of time when it will become available.
The world is not chaotic. A tree that's fallen in the forest without anyone seeing it has still fallen in the forest.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skipjack, I fear that my prose is too dense and difficult to follow. I have tried to carefully restate David's perspective as I understand it and to
this point have tried to not interject my own opinions. At this juncture I will do so.
I believe that the Theological issues raised by David are the following:
1. Science is a set of theories in constant change therefore have no proof of fact....though he says that it is a fact that the earth is not the
center of the universe and that this has been proven by science. I find these statements inconsistent but understandable since David has said that his
beliefs are grounded in religion. I am not trashing his perspective here I am only sharing my conclusions about them.
2. Religion is based upon beliefs that are static, fixed, matters of belief, unproveable by science and therefore static and unchanging...though he
states that the earth has been proved to not be the center of the universe which was one of the main axis around which medieval Christianity pivoted
and that beliefs change.
I also find these statements confusing. I believe that Religion is highly adaptive and one can clearly see a morphing of Religion over time i.e. the
generation three distinct religious belief systems with untold splinter groups growing out of the Abrahamic tradition, the Protestant Reformation etc.
and the adaptation to the findings of science. The Vatican has recently released a paper supporting evolution.
3. Science is a form of Religion and therefore its conclusions are based upon beliefs and propositions that cannot be proved using the scientific
method because they are based upon faith. I see this as a classic redefinition of the issue, redefining science as religion.
In this paradigm it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific Method. In this way of thinking one person’s assertion is equal to any
other person’s assertion regardless of the experience, data or knowledge of each person. This is part of the reason I believe that your scientific
conclusions about the movement of sand are refuted, ( see gull above) just your opinion my man....your opinion equal to all others because it's all
based upon religious belief and in this case your religion is science. This logic is self referential, circular and cannot further the investigation
of climate change through the use of the scientific method. All scientific findings can be debunked by simply calling them religion.
I maintain that it is a sad day indeed when we cannot even agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate. It is this
confusion created by these assertions (religion = science) that makes it so difficult to come to any agreement on even the most fundamental definition
of the issues. My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is religion because science is based upon
observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified.
If science is seen as a form of religion then scientific data is seen as simply a way that the scientist is validating their pre conceived notions. An
argument cannot be resolved in this way of thinking because it is self referential and circular. A conclusion or consensus is not possible because
there is no agreement on what the problem is or what the variables are that one can study to determine what the fact are.
These are the sort of religious arguments that had congregations of theologians arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Start
with the wrong premise, there are angels, which is improvable, and you wind up engaging in arguments about their nature that are insolvable and that
is why there are so many denominations in every religion. Religious arguments are not based upon the scientific method so they really muddy the water
when it comes to scientific method and proof.
The Religious opposition to science is essentially an ad hominum argument...for example saying that your point is irrelevant because you base it upon
your religion which is science. It is a circular argument.....there is no exit.... and that is what makes me sad. The discussion is no longer on what
we observe and quantify but focuses on your personal beliefs about the nature of God and Man. This sort of redefinition short circuits the scientific
method by essentially changing the subject.
I have concluded from this discussion that Religion has hijacked science by redefining it so that science can be argued in its own terms. Religion is
not based upon observation and scientific method but on emotion, belief and faith so it cannot be used to define science. David has been very clear
about this and his statements have been very helpful in allowing us to see the theological underpinnings of opposition to the science of climate
change in particular and science in general.
Science has its own method of understanding data and facts, you have clearly described that method. That method is the Scientific Method, establish a
hypothesis, test that hypothesis, reproduce the test and see if the results are the same or not. Minimize as many variables as possible so that your
results are not contaminated with extraneous variables etc.
I hope this clarifies my perspective. I stated earlier that I don't intend to trash anyone's perspective on this issue. David has said clearly that
his beliefs have a religious basis. I have wanted to better understand the theological opposition to the science of climate change and in doing so am
much clearer about what those issues are.
My position is that no matter how you reach your conclusion about climate change it is time to do something because the consequence of not doing
anything can be suicidal.
My argument is that we have common ground in that we have before invested massive amounts of human and economic capital in the creation of weapons of
war, designed for potential enemies that we anticipated would exist so it is within our experience to address potential threats to our safety by
pro-active activity like building the next generation of war making materials and also decreasing green house gasses, decreasing pollution, recycling
and becoming less dependent upon fossil fuels.
I hope this clarifies my previous comments.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
pratelliz
Newbie
Posts: 1
Registered: 10-21-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
People really don't care bout religion today. And that makes me so sad...
Regards,
pratelliz
Disque dur multimedia
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Online
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Just what 'David' are you talking about Iflyfish? I sure didn't say a lot of those things you are saying I did...
"I believe that the Theological issues raised by David are the following:"
The following are statements you make above that I disagree with:
1) 1. Science is a set of theories in constant change therefore have no proof of fact... <NOT>
2) since David has said that his beliefs are grounded in religion. <NOT>
3) 3. Science is a form of Religion <NOT>
4) This is part of the reason I believe that your scientific conclusions about the movement of sand are refuted, ( see gull above) just your opinion
my man....your opinion equal to all others because it's all based upon religious belief and in this case your religion is science. This logic is self
referential, circular and cannot further the investigation of climate change through the use of the scientific method. All scientific findings can be
debunked by simply calling them religion. <NOT, I did not have issues with sand movement... I have witnessed sand movement at Bahia Santa Maria.
The sea level has not changed, but the beach location has, thus houses built on the beach have been undermined.>
THIS (you said) I DO agree with: "My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is religion because
science is based upon observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified."
That is why I call (man made) Global Warming a religion... One reason is because I have made observations of the sea level in Baja over 40 years, and
it has either not changed or has changed so little, as to not affect anyone's ability to live and work along the shoreline. The other reasons I have
given above (obvious historic record of natural temperature changes over hundreds or thousands of years, not caused by man).
Man made Global warming is like a religious belief because the facts (observations) are ignored, and the hysteria is believed. Some people need a
reason to complain, afterall!
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sorry David, I did not mean to imply that you disputed Skipjack's statement about sand movement based upon religious grounds. My bad for unclear
writing. My point was that any scientific argument can be refuted by claiming that the proponent of that argument is using religion (a fixed belief
system), in this case science, to rebut the claim. It is that circular logic that I was pointing out. Gulls comment could be read as an example of
that point of view, though it might have been made in jest, it can be read that way.
I don't mean in any way to trash your religious beliefs and I hope that I am clear about that. I am clear now how the debate about global warming is
contaminated by religious thinking, which oporates out of a different way of looking at the world than does science.
You stated the following:
THIS (you said) I DO agree with (Iflyfishes statement): "My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is
religion because science is based upon observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified."
That is why I call (man made) Global Warming a religion... One reason is because I have made observations of the sea level in Baja over 40 years, and
it has either not changed or has changed so little, as to not affect anyone's ability to live and work along the shoreline. The other reasons I have
given above (obvious historic record of natural temperature changes over hundreds or thousands of years, not caused by man).
To this I would say that your observation is what is called in scientific research an N of 1. That is the research group is composed of one person.
That is too small of a group to draw any conclusions from. The preponderance of scientific findings, based upon many thousands of observations is that
global warming is a fact. Large N scientific study vs. Single N study published in Bajanomad.
I mean no disrespect. In fact I respect your taking the time to clearly and with civility share your perspective, provocative as it is. I just see a
flaw in your argument and I think it is the one that tends to short circuit logical discussion of the issue. I hope that you are not offended by my
saying this. Reasonable people can and do disagree. I believe that as a nation that we need more civil discussion about what we disagree about.
I realize that there are scientists who argue that global warming is not manmade and use the historical record as proof that climate has changed and
sometimes dramatically over eons of time. It is also evident in the historical record that cataclysmic climate change has been triggered by events
that have changed the amount of sunlight that gets through the atmosphere. Scientists today have demonstrated a growing hole in the Ozone Layer over
the Arctic that corresponds with the melting that is clearly evident now. Ditto the findings with increased carbon consumption and its subsequent by
products in the atmosphere. These are not the observations of single scientists but the accumulated observations hundreds of highly regarded
scientists from around the world with the backing of highly regarded and very clear thinking scientific organizations. There does seem to be a clear
consensus on the matter and governments are now taking action to do something about it. The risks of doing nothing are life threatening and most agree
on at least that point.
Much of the non scientific opposition to the findings of science on global warming come from those with a particular axe to grind i.e. those who would
try to support some political/religious agenda that the notion of manmade global warming confronts. These people argue with the findings and/or
interpretation of these studies, not the method of the studies. So the findings are it seems beyond dispute, the ice caps are melting, the glaciers
are melting and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is rising and the amount of certain frequencies of sunlight are being blocked from penetrating
the atmosphere. There is scientific consensus on these findings and there is sufficient consensus to make these findings fact. It would require a
great deal of evidence to refute these studies and a philosophical/religious argument doesn’t do the job in the arena of science.
I realize that you say that those who believe in manmade global warming are doing this very thing, advancing their viewpoint, which is from your
perspective a product of the religious delusion, that they call science. A clear example of this is your most recent statement "Man made Global
warming is like a religious belief because the facts (observations) are ignored, and the hysteria is believed. Some people need a reason to complain,
afterall!"
My second point, and a secondary one, is that this argument begs the question of the data and is directed not at the data but the reporter of the
conclusions from the data. This is in essence an ad hominum argument that does not address the data. Another way of saying this is that one can read
your statement as saying that those who believe in manmade global warming are experiencing something like or equal to a religious delusion. The
discussion of the causes of global warming is then short circuited to a debate about religious beliefs and escalates from there into some form of name
calling because the argument has turned personal. One could say that the person who uses this form of refutation is using a verbal subterfuge to pick
a fight and thereby avoid dealing with the data. I am not saying that you are doing this, it is just a thought that I have as I think about the many
times I have seen discussions of global warming turn into a "six pack of loudmouth" as Osprey so well put it. Having a full case of the brew myself I
found myself laughing out loud about that one yesterday.
I have been interested in the theological underpinnings of the argument that you are using and I think that you have expressed those underpinnings
very clearly and for this I am grateful to you. I also appreciate your civility in this discussion. As a product of this dialogue I better understand
the use of theology in this debate and why it will never be resolved. When there are hidden agendas, and you point to what you believe they are for
those of a scientific bent, it is impossible to ever prove a point based upon objective data.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by pratelliz
People really don't care bout religion today. And that makes me so sad...
Regards,
pratelliz
Disque dur multimedia
|
I agree with you. I think this happens when religion is used to explain physical phenomena. I feel religion has a very important purpose and fills an
important need in us. A life lived where science is 'God' is just - unliveable. For one thing, there are things I just don't want to understand.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
10 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
