Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101

Thread: Controversial book

  1. #76
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    I'm not saying Stalin and Co were less bad than those who killed in the name of religion, I'm just saying that the former group can't be pigeonholed in the way that the latter can.

    Agnosticism doesn't have dogma by definition. It's not even really a useful term. If you're not 100% of whether God(s) exist(s), then you are agnostic. I'm agnostic, but I call myself an atheist because I am as certain as I can be without actually being certain that there is no God.

    Most atheists I know don't lash out at people because of their faith.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  2. #77
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hi pnoom,

    Right you are in that agnosticism doesn't have a defined Dogma - that Dogma probably resides with he/she that practices agnosticism ergo making it subjective.

    Cheers,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  3. #78
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    But practicing agnosticism doesn't mean anything (for reasons I described).

    The only way I can think of for practicing agnosticism is to (lazily, IMO) decide that you have no opinion whatsoever about God's existence AND that you don't care.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  4. #79
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hi pnoom,

    The *operator word* I used was *probably*, ergo, it depends on the person electing to or not to practice their Dogma.

    Cheers,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  5. #80
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    Fair enough.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  6. #81
    Commodore con Forza Sybarite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    553
    It's quite interesting (and informative) that, in the last year or so, the defenders of religion have taken to using phrases such as: 'atheist fundamentalists' and 'militant atheists'. They're getting very, very defensive.

    After all, since atheism is simply an absence of belief, how on earth would one have a fundamentalist absence of belief?

    And how many 'militant athiests' do you know who have flown planes into buildings in the name of their atheism (and as pnoom explained earlier, the likes of Pol Pot – supoorted by the Christian US, incidentally – and Stalin did not murder in the name of or because of atheism but for political reasons).

    Two little questions: can you name one good act that a religious person would carry out, because of their religion, that a non-religious person would not?

    And can you name one bad act that a non-religious person would carry out, precisely because of their lack of religious belief, that a religious person would not?

    Finally (for the moment ) just to note that, as pnoom, says, most non-believers really don't care what other people believe. The problem, in my opinion, is that religions just seem to have to try to run my life, to tell me what to do, to blackmail government and politicians (see a couple of incidents this year in the UK with the Catholic church) etc.
    Last edited by Sybarite; Oct-25-2007 at 16:05.

  7. #82
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    Sybarite just hit the nail on the head.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  8. #83
    Commander, Assistant Conductor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles/ San Luis Obispo
    Posts
    177
    Just noticed this thread, thought I'd give my 2 cents. I'll respond to Andrew as his post pretty much covers everything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Well, if we are only primates then – we should have followed the law of natural selection, as all animals do, right? That is, the strongest must survive. The human society has nevertheless, these weird moral norms, working exactly against this law. Old people's homes, hospices...you know. Do animals do that too? Where then the moral norms come from?
    Natural selection is not a law, it is simply a description of observed phenomena in the natural world. There is not some metaphysical force that causes the fittest to survive, it is a tendency we have noticed in nature(it certainly doesn't always happen). It is entirely possible to circumvent this tendency through intentional acts -- e.g. saving a bunny rabbit from being eaten by a wolf. We choose to circumvent natural selection for reasons too numerous to mention, here. However, the fact that certain norms are agreed upon by certain groups of people in no way implies that these norms are absolute or even to be found objectively true.

    Surely the atheists have the same moral norms as the religious people. Everybody knows, that killing, stealing is bad ( why??? ).
    This is not true. Moral killing is found in my own culture as many U.S. states enact the death penalty, not to mention killing in self defense or defense of another. In many cultures throughout history(and today) infanticide is perfectly acceptable. Rape is commonly accepted in many cultures as is cannibalism and countless other acts that you or I would find immoral, distasteful or simply wrong. This is very clear empirical evidence for the relative nature of norms.

    This is only half the story, though, as you point out in this next bit...

    These norms are, nevertheless, only instructions – you know, that you should follow them. Whether you do it or not, is the matter of your choice.
    This shows us a priori that norms are not objectively true. They are personal choices or preferences if you will. I can disagree with my culture's set of norms without being mistaken. This may seem like a trivial matter, but it is very important to this argument. If something is objectively true then it is true regardless of my opinion about it. If the apple on the table is red, it is red regardless of my thoughts or feelings about it. The statement, "The apple is red" is an example of an objective truth. "Killing is wrong", however, cannot be considered objectively true or false for there are no conditions that would establish it one way or another. It follows that I can be mistaken about the color of the apple but not mistaken about a given norm. This is a very good means of identifying the objective from the subjective. Of course, since I cannot be mistaken regarding a norm, it cannot be considered objective. Merely subjective.

    There is one other possibility that you touch on here...

    I'm not saying that the fact of just belonging to this or that confession makes you holy. I am saying that the really religious person would LIKELY think twice before offending these norms, because the origin of this norms is being understood as God Himself.
    This attempts to show that norms can be objective if they originate from an outside source that is in power. This doesn't follow. If this were true, then any prescriptions created by a government would have to be considered objectively true. For that matter, the rules laid out by a parent for a child would have to be considered objectively true. Clearly these aren't.

    The only possible way a norm could be objectively true is if it were a part of the universe that works that way regardless of us. In such a case, it would no longer be a norm, but a natural law, and we would no longer be discussing ethics, we would be discussing science. I think we can agree that the speed of light and the uncertainty principle are not normative.

    The religious person risks with his/her soul on the way, an atheist has nothing to lose.
    As a side note here, it has been argued that the atheist is, in general, more ethical than the theist in that the atheist does good for good's sake or for rational reasons whereas the theist does good to avoid punishment. Can the latter really be considered more ethical?


    You see, this "life could have begun" means actually, that you are speaking of a theory, which is a matter of belief, until it is proven. This belief is not better, than any other.
    This is a common misconception about science that many Christian advocates use to attempt to convince themselves and others that evolution has not been established as true. A theory is a set of facts organized into a model that accurately predicts observations. In this way it is much more reliable and informative than mere fact. I would assume you consider a fact to be a piece of knowledge, Andrew. Well, theory stands above fact as far as knowledge is concerned. The colloquial use of the word "theory" -- a proposed explanation for phenomenon -- is actually the meaning of the word "hypothesis". It is this gross misunderstanding of science that causes Christians to routinely regard evolution as mere hypothesis when it is in fact as close to truth as scientific knowledge gets. Gravity is theory and yet we all consider it as established truth. Quantum mechanics is theory and yet every piece of modern technology from computers to televisions work on these principles. Evolution, as theory, is no different from gravity or quantum mechanics in this respect.


    Then – you said "theories". The presence of two or more points of view ( scientific theories ) on the same subject in the same time means, in fact, that they are all wrong, strictly speaking. Because it means, that every of these theories has its lacks.
    Not so. The two theories I mentioned earlier -- relativity(gravity) and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible; and yet each describes its own realm to our satisfaction. Neither can be shown to be wrong, yet both are right. It is this part of science that I perhaps most respect. The ability to acknowledge that one doesn't have all the answers. The courage and humility to admit that one is fallible and must continue to always learn more. It is perhaps this that I dislike most about Religion in general and the Abrahamic religions in particular, that one should not strive to learn and understand, but should acquiesce to dogma and blind faith.

    Well, it doesn't actually matter. Furthermore – only for the sake of clarity:
    Evolution – if you mean the classical evolution theorie of Darwin (1859 : On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life ) - it describes , actually , only the evolution WITHIN the specific race, and fails to explain or show how the races mutate, or transform, in the higher forms. There were attempts to model it – in the SU, in the 50es. These attempts failed ( disgracefully failed, because there was a political context in it in that time ).

    Now, we have a theorie of gen mutations, which , theorethically , can make such things possible. Though, they still didn't become a single one positive mutation on this way – the new species, which could be reproductive and viable. All they have at the present moment , are - at best - monsters, waste. I believe, it is only a matter of time, though – sooner or later, such new species can arrive. BUT EVEN THIS WILL PROVE NOTHING, because they will know, at that point, HOW. But they will be not a step nearer to explain , WHY, because the science just does not give the answers of such kind.
    There is even no question that the positive mutations are possible – though , I guess they work in the labs CONSEQUENTLY in this direction – still without sensible result. The real question is – WHY so much positive mutations ( how many species on Earth? ) within that critical period of time, without any help from outside?
    I'm sorry, Andrew, but this is simply a terrible understanding of evolutionary biology. It speaks of someone who has learned a few things here and there so that he may engage in Christian rhetoric yet still sound knowledgeable. I won't get into the specifics of biology, here(I'm no expert and don't have the time or desire), but I will offer as food for thought this: A friend of mine is an extremely well educated Catholic theologian and biologist who argues more convincingly for theism than anyone I've ever known(there are many arguments he has presented that I have yet to even attempt refuting) and yet he considers the rejection of evolution as absurd. Can you honestly say that you know enough about the science of evolutionary biology to either confirm or deny its coherence or consistency or usefulness?

    Science may claim to have all answers – yes, sure.
    Quite ironic. A Christian belittling science for claiming to have all the answers...

    But these answers are not contradictory with that, given by the religion. These are different answers on the different questions.
    Sometimes. There are, of course, many events depicted in religious texts of all kinds that the laws of nature established by science claim are impossible.
    but it is not the specifics that so greatly differentiate religion from science, it is the normative methods. Religion encourages dogma and faith whereas science encourages critical thought and understanding and intellectual honesty. It is the methodology that is the most relevant.

    The copy of the Bible, that I own, has 1225 pages of the text, and the description of the Creation itself takes less than 2 of them. If you will take care to read these two pages (once again) , and then will try to reproduce the ESSENCE with your own words , there will be not much. It is being, in fact, affirmed, that God had created the Universe, the Earth, the life on it, and the human beings. That’s all. It is not being described, HOW and on which ways it was done. It is not the matter of the Bible.

    That is, if God had created life – he had to do it SOMEHOW. You say , gen mutations? Ok, why not?
    Agreed.


    Logically, the common physiology is not a proof of any theorie. I could as well say, that God had used this type of a body ( of an ape ) because it had to perfectly fit to all what I was supposed to do in my everyday life. It fits, actually, doesn't it? So, He used the ape's form as a matrix and put the reason and soul inside. That's all – now try to find a gap in this logic.
    Of course this is logically possible. It is also logically possible that the stars and planets move because leprechauns riding invisible unicorns are pushing them. Try to find a gap in that logic. Simply being logically possible does not entail being actual.

    Surely I know that my cat has emotions – fear, anger etc. Love, in many cases, too – but all these emotions do not contradict with the law of natural selection – they are absolutely logical in its context. But I don't see WHY this emotions must have transformed in the moral norms, which are purely irrational – from this point of view. You will even fail to find any intermediate form on the way of such transformation in the nature, to come up with an example.
    No one has ever claimed(as far as I know) that norms are a necessary result of evolved emotions. That is not true by necessity, it is simply a good explanation(given more detail, of course). I personally don't have a problem with good explanations. Christian dogma is another explanation; just not as good.


    That is, the field of the practical knowledge was left to science.
    There was no such thing as an Academy of Sciences in the Middle Ages – these functions had to be carried out by the church. As the Bible did not provide ANY cosmogonic system, they had to accept the best one available. This was the system of Aristotle, which placed the Earth in the middle of the system. The heliocentric idea was put out by Kopernikus ( who failed to prove it – there were still no methods and instruments available ). The idea was suported by Galilei and finally proven by Johannes Kepler in the XVII C.
    Why did I write all this? I guess, it must be clear now that this case had nothing with the religion to do – but only with the fact, that the scientific knowledge had to be sufficiently proved, because it had to replace the official cosmogonic model then – which was, by no means, a "holy" one. The church acted in this case more like an Academy of Sciences,not as a religious organisation, and used the instruments it had on this way. That's all.
    Science did develop within Catholicism. We do have the Catholics to thank, in part, for modern science. However, once science began to contradict scripture, the church saw it as a threat and reacted accordingly. This is probably the most famous example, and Copernicus himself was commanded by the church to submit his work for editing by the church before publication was allowed. This attitude towards knowledge and learning by the church has been manifest throughout western history and to this very day.


    Whether Christianity is more believable or not – does not play any role in this light. If I am saying that the Christianity was the decisive factor, which has made the breakthrough of the European science possible – it doesn't have absolutely nothing to do with my own religious confession. It is more about an ability to analyse the historical facts, known from the school programm. That is what you describe as a dangerous process of thinking. I could as well be an atheist – the facts would stay the same.
    Agreed. Science is a product of western civilization which is permeated by Christian belief. It is also historically true that modern science developed at times with the support of the church...so long as science didn't produce anything that contradicted scripture...

    BELIEF – 1.The feeling that smth. is real and true; ...2. smth. accepted as true or real ( Oxford dictionary ). Belief, as such, doesn't need a direct proof . If it is proven , it becomes a knowledge. I believe in smth., if it don't contradict to my knowledge, the common sense, and until the opposite is proven. And I guess you will need such thing as belief too – in 5 minutes.
    "Belief" is simply holding something to be true. "Knowledge" is justified, true belief. It is a belief that is true and for which justification can be given.

    Concerning the proof .
    If we are speaking of Jesus Christ as God – I don't think I will have sufficient troubles on this way. First of all, His existence as a historical person is not even being seriously discussed any more. There are tons of the special ( historical ) literature on this subject. Let me just spare it now.
    Of course it is. We don't even know who Billy the Kid was, or if he was even one person or a whole bunch of people claiming to be him, and that was only a hundred or so years ago! Do you honestly think that it is fact that Jesus Christ refers to a real, identifiable person, and that any of the acts or quotes commonly attributed to him have actually been confirmed? How do we know there weren't two different people claiming to be Jesus and that some of the acts were actually Jesus number two? Or three? Or if Jesus was actually some guy named Brian that was mistaken for the messiah and that the mythology we have today is just an amalgam of stories and lies and true events and misinterpretations and bad translations and additions and amendments and so on until we have a piece of literature today that is so muddled that virtually all of it is impossible to either confirm or deny? I'm not saying it is, but then I have the intellectual honesty to admit that I simply don't know...

    Concerning whether he was God – the tons of it , once again. I have to cut this extremely important issue very short. The probability of appearing of an uneducated man with such ideas in the Middle East in that time is miserable. The origin of these ideas is unclear. He had preached only THREE years. The spreading of Christianity, after Jesus was crucified , buried and denied ( even by His best scholar – Petrus ) is unexplainable.. The probability that it all should had necessary happen in the best time and place possible ( Christianity became – through the chain of accidents - the official religion of Rome, and then thus – all-European religion ) is miserable. And much more. So, you have to believe in Jesus as in God, or you have to stop to believe in a Probability theory. This question was, btw, simply ignored by the atheistic historiography in the SU.
    All you are saying here, is that if one takes the bible as a historical document, then it is likely that Jesus is god. Of course that's true. The bible claims that Jesus is god. If you take it literally. But who in their right mind would?

    2. Proof of God's Existence – generally. Take a look:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant
    Immanuel Kant has in his works Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason actually proved, that any practical arguments of the existence of God( or non-existence as well ) will never be sufficient. It is logically impossible to prove His existence or non-existence on this way. The particular case of it – natural sciences can not, logically, deliver any arguments sufficient, because the subject of their researches is the material world, and God – if He created this world - can not be Himself a part of it.
    This is a misreading of Kant. What he showed was that in order for norms to be objective, an outside force that makes them so is necessary. In short, for his Deontology to work, god must exist. That does not prove god's existence in any way.

    One more reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_Possible_Argument_in_Support_of_a_Demonst ration_of_the_Existence_of_God
    Immanuel Kant, The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
    Rather shortly – Kant proves, that the human freedom can not origin from the material world. Its origin must have an over-material nature. Such origin is known as God. Even if our freedom and God are only imaginary, they can not be logically parted from each other.
    Sorry if it was a little bit complicated – but we are not discussing Star Wars now.
    Another misreading of Kant. He examines St. Anselm's Ontological Argument and attempts to attribute the properties of the Judeo Christian god to the necessary entity concluded in the argument. The Ontological Argument has been refuted for quite a while, now...

    If I accept God , I must accept Him as the The Unique Not Created Essence. I accept that He was ALWAYS because I have no other logical opportunity. No, I can not imagine such thing. But I accept it , nevertheless,...
    Sorry, but it is not possible to accept something that you cannot comprehend. In order to accept something, it first has to enter your mind. Tell me, what is it you are accepting? Obviously, if you cannot understand something you cannot tell me what it is and can therefore not accept it because it isn't there.

    and I will have even less problems on this way, as you may expect, because I know that the TIME is one of the properties of MATTER.
    I'm not sure what you mean, here. According to science, time is a dimension. According to philosophy, it is a relation between events(generally speaking). Time certainly isn't a property of matter. This makes no sense. Perhaps this is a language problem.


    It makes no sense to apply the material cathegories to Something or Someone unmaterial.
    Actually, it makes no sense to posit anything unmaterial. Dualism was defeated long ago. Nothing nonphysical can have any effects on anything physical. If it did, it would then be physical. It's that simple.

    As such, God must have no problems to exist eternally. Btw, there many things even in material world, which nobody can actually imagine , but they are still accepted – these are, for example, the 4th dimension, dual nature of light, some paradoxes of time.
    Not exactly. Science does not claim that these things are true in the literal sense. What science does is create models that accurately predict observations. It does not claim that these models are a literal representation of the world, only that they are good, useful understanding. As for paradoxes, they are understood completely fine. They simply show us where flaws in logic can be found or where our current understanding of something is lacking.

    Now let's look in your cards. On the very same reason, you will have to accept ( denying God ) that the matter , regardless in which form of it , had existed ALWAYS. Logically, no other way. Matter, or energy, can not begin from nothing because it would contradict to the law of conservation of energy. Any reason, which could have caused such deviation, MUST have had an unmaterial nature – and is known as God.
    Again, not true. Unlike Christianity, science does not claim to have all the answers. Current cosmology goes back as far as the big bang, which as far as science is concerned happened a fraction of a second after the universe began. It does not make any claims beyond that as doing so with what we know now would be absurd. Also, contradicting the Law of Conservation is not a logical problem -- it is an empirical one. There is nothing illogical about claiming that the Law of Contradiction is false. As for your last point here, how on earth do you make the leap from "something unmaterial" to "god"? In order for this to follow, anything nonphysical would have to be god. Do you have some proof of this? "and it is known as God" is not a proof...

    That is, end of the road. Someone or something – God or matter – should have existed always. This is exactly the state of affairs, in which the materialistic and idealistic world-views co-exist the last 2000 years ( a little bit longer, since 100 BC – Lucrecius ). That's why this debate did not generally make any sense from the very beginning.
    You might try Spinoza, Andrew. Might clear up a few things for you.


    Accepting God as the Reason of the Beginning, I become an answer – WHY did this all happened exactly in this time and place, why the Earth orbit the Sun at the best distance possible, why such incredible amount of the positive mutations had happened, why Jesus had chosen the best possible time and place to appear on Earth, and so on. The questions, HOW this all ( Universe, evolution etc. ) works are delivered by science. I have no problems to understand – where the all-common moral norms come from, because I see the "good" and "bad" things as the reflections of Good and evil existing Above ( and beneath ). I have no problems to understand , why all known cultures did come to idea of God ( or gods ) without even ever seeing Him ( them ).

    Denying God, you must accept the eternal matter. You have to explain everything listed above only basing on the the law of the causal-investigatory communications – which is universal for all the phenomena in the material world. That is , you must have regard it all as the chain of accidents. The Earth had accidentally came to its orbit ( any other would be killing ) , the mutations were accidential etc. Theorethically, possible. Practically, I believe in a Probability theory. And therefore in God.
    I think the main mistake you and most theists make is not realizing that "why" questions are not eternal. They are simply human curiosities. When we "find" an answer "out there", we are really just reorganizing the way we think about something. "Reasons" are a human endeavor. They are not part of the universe as a whole. They are not to be "found" "out there", they are to be invented for our own satisfaction. Once you realize this, the naive questions like, "Where did everything come from" and "What happened before time began" are seen for what they are -- questions that have no answer because they don't make sense in the first place.

    I have said that this discussion is useless – not because it is not interesting, but it just hardly can change the point of view of anybody.
    Perhaps. But I know that I have personally learned a great deal debating with theists in the past. Changing the way in which one views life is not necessary for learning. Abandoning your theism is not necessary for discovering something new.



  9. #84
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Interesting point of view, JLS, thanks for the post -

    if you have actually read that post of mine you were quoting here - I have asked Sybarite ( or whoever it might be ) to answer, first, the underlined questions, concerning the European science ( you may want to find these above in the post). It was, actually , the single point of my personal interest in this thread - which does not have anything to do with the religious views of anybody.The rest came along the way as an attempt to answer the questions posted to me, in turn - I thought I was expected to answer them somehow. My own questions were ignored by the opponents. What would you say - will the discussion make any sense for me then?

    Surely I do willingly agree that my knowledge of evolution theorie could be terrible - I have no idea to argue with Richard Dawkins on the questions of his professional competence. I am only saying that none of it actually contradicts with the idea of Creation, even the way it has been described in the Genesis.

    The minds are - yes - changeable - but this discussion , on my opinion, can not contribute to it - alone due to the space limited. Note - I am not doing any attempt to change or influence your mind, or that of Sybarite, whatever. It is not my business to preach or try to determine, which world-view is actually "true" and therefore must be unconditionally accepted by all and everyone. It is exactly what you are trying to do.

    Best regards,
    Andrew
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  10. #85
    Commodore con Forza Sybarite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    553
    JLS, I have learnt a lot from reading your contribution (and will read it again at some stage to aid my assimilation of your points).

    Thank you for taking the time to post in such detail.

  11. #86
    Commander, Assistant Conductor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles/ San Luis Obispo
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Interesting point of view, JLS, thanks for the post -
    Thank you for taking the time to read it.

    if you have actually read that post of mine you were quoting here - I have asked Sybarite ( or whoever it might be ) to answer, first, the underlined questions, concerning the European science ( you may want to find these above in the post).
    It was, actually , the single point of my personal interest in this thread - which does not have anything to do with the religious views of anybody.The rest came along the way as an attempt to answer the questions posted to me, in turn - I thought I was expected to answer them somehow. My own questions were ignored by the opponents. What would you say - will the discussion make any sense for me then?
    I thought I had -- at least, your central point that science came from Catholicism. I agreed with that.

    Surely I do willingly agree that my knowledge of evolution theorie could be terrible - I have no idea to argue with Richard Dawkins on the questions of his professional competence. I am only saying that none of it actually contradicts with the idea of Creation, even the way it has been described in the Genesis.
    I hope you weren't offended by that, Andrew. It was not intended as an insult. And I agreed with your point there, as well. Evolution doesn't directly contradict Genesis.

    The minds are - yes - changeable - but this discussion , on my opinion, can not contribute to it - alone due to the space limited. Note - I am not doing any attempt to change or influence your mind, or that of Sybarite, whatever. It is not my business to preach or try to determine, which world-view is actually "true" and therefore must be unconditionally accepted by all and everyone. It is exactly what you are trying to do.
    Well, I personally don't believe that any world view is really "true". I think that some are more reasonable than others, or more useful or more appealing...but not "true" in the literal sense; and I definitely do not advocate anyone unconditionally accepting anything. That type of thinking is irrational and dishonest, imo.


    Again, I hope you didn't take offense.


  12. #87
    Commander, Assistant Conductor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles/ San Luis Obispo
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Sybarite View Post
    JLS, I have learnt a lot from reading your contribution (and will read it again at some stage to aid my assimilation of your points).

    Thank you for taking the time to post in such detail.
    I enjoy a good debate.

    If you'd like any clarification, please feel free to ask.


  13. #88
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    JLS, you just made my day. Double thumbs up for explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  14. #89
    Commander, Assistant Conductor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles/ San Luis Obispo
    Posts
    177

  15. #90
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso methodistgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madisonville,Ky.42431
    Posts
    4,409
    I'm not answering this thread no more. It dosen't matter what you
    believe in or not. This discussion should rest now. Let's talk about
    something else. It gets more controversial by the minute by each
    answer no matter who answers this thread. I'm a bit of a liberal myself
    even though I'm still a christian.
    judy tooley

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Europe sleepwalking into disaster...
    By giovannimusica in forum Open Debate Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jul-16-2007, 04:39
  2. Van Der Graaf Generator book
    By bucka in forum Progressive Rock Music Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec-16-2005, 20:35
  3. Robert Casadesus Reconsidered
    By Todd in forum Classical Music Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov-27-2005, 18:42
  4. Daniel Ericourt Plays Debussy
    By Todd in forum Classical Music Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep-01-2005, 22:22
  5. artificial music intelligence .......
    By hitsware in forum Community Center and Chat Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jul-16-2004, 06:36

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •