So you're denying his claims that:
1. The Republican Party caters to the religious right moreso than does the Democrat Party.
2. The religious right is more anti-science than the general public.
You refute his claims citing:
1. You have Republican friends who work scientific jobs.
2. Your dad, who is a Democrat, is a devout Christian.
So, you assume since you've made singular points contra to Todd33's 'sweeping generalizations', you've disproved them. Hence, my comment:
Instead of attempting to refute my implication that being a fundamentalist Christian is very strongly positively correlated with voting Republican (go google that one, there are multiple interesting articles on google scholar about how various religious sects tend to vote), you call me a college punk radical. Nor did you attempt to refute the implication that fundamentalist Christians are anti-science.
Do you not understand the difference between "Christian" & "fundamentalist Christian"? Does "religious right" mean the same thing to you as "religious"?
In which post did you rail against 'generalizations' and 'blah blah blah, anyone who disagrees with me is a moron, blah blah blah'?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
LOL. That is MY argument. So don't pretend to twist it on me. Every single anti-religious post here equates anything even remotely Christian or Biblical as being the same as the fundamental religious right. And I don't defend fundamentalism... EVER. I simply detest the smell of bigotry and book-burning that whafts up from almost every anti-religious thread on AT. And as I'd actually like to see the Dems win again sometime in the future, I try to pooh-pooh the radical left from their alienating ways.
You're the one generalizing here - you read Todd33's statement of "the Republicans embrace the religious right, which are anti-science in general," as "Republicans embrace religion, which is anti-science." Big difference between being religious and being 'religious right', which despite your protestations, you still don't get. Somehow I doubt your Republican scientist friends are 'religious right', aka fundamentalist, Biblical literalists.
If Todd33 had said 'all religion is always anti-all science', you'd have an argument, but he said something far, far different.
You said yourself you're no expert on the evolution/creationism 'debate', so maybe you might want to STFU since you obviously don't realize that criticising creationism does not equal criticising religion, merely a specific facet of a specific group's religion.
Or is this country so insane that a moderate liberal thinks criticising creationism is the mark of a 'college punk radical leftist'?
Originally posted by: Vic
Must you strawman so ignorantly? Or do just not read a single one of my posts?Originally posted by: smack Down
How cute, your upset that your imginary friend got insulted here is a
No, I read them all and didn't find anything worth reading.
I'm still waiting for an explanation for how one can believe in the rest of the bible if they except eveolution which removes by definition is natural with out any super-natural aka God interferring.
I can see the view point of those willing to stick there head in the sand while screaming creatism at the top of their lungs for fear they might learn the truth. But I can't see the view point of the people on the fences claim yeah evolution is true but so is God. By God I don't mean a super-natural I mean the christian's versions of God.
Because his posts are incoherent.
I'm really just being argumentative and splitting hairs lost over an electronic medium because I have nothing else to do while I run simulations on how long it takes a bacterial flagella like that found in Bacillus subtilis to evolve into the more complicated type found in Caulobacter crescentus.
I'm well aware of the dangers of generalizing all religious people as creationists.
I'm really just being argumentative and splitting hairs lost over an electronic medium because I have nothing else to do while I run simulations on how long it takes a bacterial flagella like that found in Bacillus subtilis to evolve into the more complicated type found in Caulobacter crescentus.
I'm well aware of the dangers of generalizing all religious people as creationists.
First, the scientific approach is good but not all encompassing. It is but a branch of what was once called rhetoric. Here are a couple of examples of what one cannot access by the scientific approach. Beauty, creativity, inventiveness, love, poetry, painting, and ETHICS. I'm not going to start by proving God but with denying the unstated premise of science or 'facts'. The premise is that the scientific approach works for everything. That simply isn't true.
To emphasize that point I want you to scientifically prove that you or anyone else outside of yourself exists. Let me save you some time, it is not possible. No philosopher has been able to crack that nut yet we all instinctively know that we see the world around us. We believe in others. We trust our senses. It is a matter of faith from the very moment we begin to perceive ourselves and the rest of the world. Like it or not, your scientific approach to life depends on the very religious trust and belief that what you see and feel is real. It depends on the fact that God is not a deceiver.
Next I want you to research something called the Godel Incompleteness theorem. You can look it up on the internet. It says that not everything that is true can be proven. Even science itself argues against the approach that science it the only tool for finding all that is true.
Look at it this way. If there are things true in mathematics that cannot be proven and God could be proven then wouldn't it stand to reason that God would somehow be less than those other non-provable things?
The end point I'm trying to reach is that God is revealed and not proven. God gives us all measures of faith to believe so the responsibility is yours not mine. That being said Christians can't bring you to God per se. They can, however, witness God for you.
To emphasize that point I want you to scientifically prove that you or anyone else outside of yourself exists. Let me save you some time, it is not possible. No philosopher has been able to crack that nut yet we all instinctively know that we see the world around us. We believe in others. We trust our senses. It is a matter of faith from the very moment we begin to perceive ourselves and the rest of the world. Like it or not, your scientific approach to life depends on the very religious trust and belief that what you see and feel is real. It depends on the fact that God is not a deceiver.
Next I want you to research something called the Godel Incompleteness theorem. You can look it up on the internet. It says that not everything that is true can be proven. Even science itself argues against the approach that science it the only tool for finding all that is true.
Look at it this way. If there are things true in mathematics that cannot be proven and God could be proven then wouldn't it stand to reason that God would somehow be less than those other non-provable things?
The end point I'm trying to reach is that God is revealed and not proven. God gives us all measures of faith to believe so the responsibility is yours not mine. That being said Christians can't bring you to God per se. They can, however, witness God for you.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
No sh!t. That's the ultiamate truth.
And trying to expalin to them the difference between what is tought and what is learend is a whole nother headache. NO ONE LEARNS THAT THERE IS A GOD. IT IS TOUGHT!
That's why you gotta get yourself a "Know Bob, Know Slack/No Bob, No Slack" bumpersticker of your own.
I've started reading an interesting book this morning which I think provides some interesting thoughts on all of this. It's by Hans Jonas and titled: "Mortality and Morality A search for the Good after Auschwitz." In it he discusses nihilism and existentalism and their evolution as prominent thought in a world flooded with scientific advance, or as he puts it "the spiritual denudation of the concept of nature at the hands of physical science." He argues further of an ethical vacuum at the core of modern belief and philosophy left there by traditional ethics and modern science. I think for many the problem exists in how do you rationalize the presence of a physical and metaphysical world. And so like the Grand canyon, these forces line up on either side and try to erode the others bank. When what I think the more appropriate answer would be as Gigantopithecus put it: "Do you want to buy a bridge?"
Originally posted by: Whaspe
I'm hating on engineering though, I have to take 37 units while other jerk sciences kids walking around all happy with their 30 units, I have to take advanced calculus, advanced physics, chem, and two engineering courses(I hate Solid Edge...annoying program).
/Rant
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: Whaspe
I'm hating on engineering though, I have to take 37 units while other jerk sciences kids walking around all happy with their 30 units, I have to take advanced calculus, advanced physics, chem, and two engineering courses(I hate Solid Edge...annoying program).
/Rant
I'm definitely glad I switched from Engineering to Economics. I don't mind math and science but I don't want to take 22 hours of class and only get 15 credits for it. That's too much work for me.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I think this is an abuse of the word "faith." Believing that the sun will come up tomorrow is not the same type of "faith" as that exercised when individuals believe that they need salvation from their sins through the resurrected Christ Jesus. Yet here you are basically equating them.
What God?
Godel's theorem proved an interested characteristic of formal systems. He did not prove anything at all about reality, however, so his theorems are absolutely irrelevant in a debate about real facts.
I don't see how that would follow without additional presuppositions that you are not automatically granted.
Which God are you talking about? When so many variant cultures describe "revelations" of mutually exclusive god-concepts, it begins to appear more like there is simply a natural human tendency to invent mythical frameworks to satisfy the thirst for answers to the troubling questions.
I'd say that the responsibility is God's, if he exists.
Or they can all just be well-intentioned, however misled individuals that have learned to express their deeper emotional reality in the mythical framework that was handed down to them.
-Garth
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter