Results 31 to 40 of 81
Thread: How will Religion cope???
-
10-16-2010 #31
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
Originally Posted by PomonaCA Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it.
Sorry to disappoint you hippiefried, as you can see, I gave up and joined the other side. Praise the lord.
Last edited by trish; 10-16-2010 at 03:54 AM.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-16-2010 #32
The rapture is upon us! My girl has seen fit to partake of the poison tea! I guess I knew things were about to get topsy turvy as soon as that godless commie scientist managed to kill Pluto.
Oh well. It's a good thing God invented those nukes to get us to the end of days.
"You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
~ Kinky Friedman ~
-
10-16-2010 #33
As much as I disagree with PomonaCA on other issues. I think that he could have use the concept of 'faith' rather than worship. That is to say that some of what science believes to be facts, are only theories. But we have faith that these theories are correct. There could possibly some scientific discoverys that would turn our views of important things on its head. I'm not saying that science is not basing theories on solid evidence, however. Its just to say that we all have some kind of faith in things that we have not proved for ourselves.
-
10-16-2010 #34
This is off topic, but when did "liberalism" become a disease? I see this type of thinking as a sign of serious brainwashing. No wonder our nation is going downhill. Some people can no longer see a nation where people are equal, but have differing opinions. Someone who disagrees with the views of Glen Beck, is now diseased? The word 'liberal' is now only a coded brainwashed term, so associated with negatve terms, that are not related at all to being liberal. I can tell the signs of those people that used those coded terms. And they are trained to defy logical information. Their masters tell them that facts, come from the liberal media.
But after some thought this does relate some to the original topic. Control is not the domain of religion. You have a whole group of people in the US today, who are being controled by media masters, tied to political agenda. They do sometimes use religious trappings, but its more about classical brainwashing through repetition. To make myself clear, I'm talking about the Rush Limbaughs, etc. Once people are convinced not to see others as human, their leaders have complete control, even to take away those 'non-human' lives.
-
10-16-2010 #35
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 1,216
Elvis: I was dreamin'. Dreamin' my dick was out and I was checkin' to see if that infected bump on the head of it had filled with pus again. If it had, I was gonna name it after my ex-wife 'cilla and bust it by jackin' off.
-
10-16-2010 #36
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 95
No, a theory is just that, a theory. It is superseded by fact when that becomes available, but you won't hear about that because you're not a scientist or don't bother reading. Let me give you an example of a theory that is however taken as fact. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Yet somehow creationists and ID advocates take the theory of man co-existing with dinosaurs, 6000 years ago, as fact. They completely ignore carbon dating and other scientific methods of dating. And it's not even a scientific theory, there are no experiments conducted, no use of logic or reason, nothing. Just made up things. This is called faith, or retardation.
-
10-16-2010 #37
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
That is to say that some of what science believes to be facts, are only theories. But we have faith that these theories are correct. There could possibly some scientific discoverys that would turn our views of important things on its head. I'm not saying that science is not basing theories on solid evidence, however. Its just to say that we all have some kind of faith in things that we have not proved for ourselves.
The distinction between fact and theory can be a tricky one. The most controversial fact/theory dispute is of course the one about evolution. Many biologists will take the stance that evolution is a fact and "natural selection acting through phenotypes on randomly mutable gene pools" is a theory that attempts to account for the fact.
Putting this dispute aside, in most cases the distinction between fact and theory is reasonably straightforward. I suppose you could say it's a theory that if you carefully measure the radiation in any skyward direction you will find in the microwave bandwidth a blackbody distribution of about 3.5 +/- 1.5K. It is, however, a fact that this experiment has been performed (by robotic satellites) hundreds of thousands of times and have come up with readings in that range each time. Based on the experimental evidence, I'm comfortable with saying it's a fact, not a theory, that we're immersed in a blackbody distribution of microwave radiation with a temperature in that range. One theory that predicted this fact is George Gamow's theory of the early stages of cosmic expansion.
What is provisional here and what is not? Certainly Gamow's theory is provisional. The combined data on these microwave measurements is much less provisional. In the future someone might discover valid reasons to question some of the measurements. Perhaps someone discovers that during one series of measurements an antenna was not properly calibrated. Perhaps one series of measurements is subject to the charge of fraud. So even facts are sometimes subject to further investigation and are in this sense provisional.
Every argument ultimately rests upon a set of premises. In science the premises are either measurements (e.g. the described device gave a reading of 3.3K in the microwave band etc.), or they are hypothesis whose consequences are to be tested (e.g. the horizon of last scattering was 250 000 years after nucleosynthesis). I'm not sure there's anything here I would call faith. I've certain expectations. I expect colleagues act in good faith when conducting and reporting their work. I expect experimental evidence will fit with well accepted theory. When it doesn't, one double checks the veracity of the evidence (how was it collected? when? under what circumstances). If the troublesome evidence passes this inspection, then one tries to reproduce it. If it can't be reproduced then there's probably not sufficient warrant to toss out or modify the theory. If independent labs can reproduce the evidence, then we start looking at the theory. Is it simply being misapplied? Does it require modification? Are the required modifications too ad hoc? Is there a theory that does better? Etc. etc.
If you are merely asserting that "faith" in science is synonymous with these sorts of "expectations" and that scientists are more or less willing, when warranted, to revise their "faith" and sometimes toss it out entirely, then we have no substantial dispute...just a difference in word preference. The sticky point here is that often "faith" is thought of something that one persists in even when all evidence is against it.
Last edited by trish; 10-16-2010 at 07:02 PM.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-16-2010 #38
It's all theory. But at least a theory is based on evidence. If someone thinks they have an alternative, just present the evidence. That's not what's happening. It's just an attack from those with no ideas.
This is off topic, but when did "liberalism" become a disease? ~Yodajazz~
What so many adherents of the loudmouths don't seem to realize, with all the revisionism that's happened, is that everything we consider conservative traditions today began as a liberal idea that started a big fight. In the end, liberalism always wins out. If it didn't, we'd still be serfs, under the thumb of some asshole just because of who's sperm went where.
"You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
~ Kinky Friedman ~
-
10-16-2010 #39
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Posts
- 935
That entire post was ramble on. I think you had 1 solid point in there, not that I agree with it, but when you said "those are just liberal types....". That part made sense, you're wrong, but at least it was coherent. And you've illustrated another liberal tactic, 'ridiculous exaggeration'. No one claims that prayer solves everything so your straw man tactics are fail again. Science is valuable, but it's only science. Once you understand that, my dear, the doors to the universe open up for you. You bow to science as if it's some kind of God and that's where you fail. It's only science. Calm down.
The rest of your paragraph was you using the same language that you worship. Derivative drivel. You're talking for the sake of talking.
"Unless there has been an advancement in technology, sucking a strap-on just isn't the same" -Phobun
I shit you not! http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?p=909175&highlight=advancement#post 909175
"I'm from the streets" -hippifried
LOL
You're a faggot! Thanks in advance!- PomonaCA
-
10-17-2010 #40
See Trish? Another Alinsky tactic. "Projection". They describe the things that are wrong with themselves to attack someone else. The tactics work on the stupid & gullible. How do you think he got brainwashed like that? Alinsky didn't make this shit up. It was old hat when he started as a radical. He just wrote it all down in a clear & concise manner. Most people had never heard of Saul Alinsky until these bozos started droping his name constantly & claiming that everybody but them was folowing him like sheep. This latest aspect of the lunatic fringe right is everything we were told to beware of from the commies during the cold war.
"You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
~ Kinky Friedman ~
Similar Threads
-
Religion: why care?
By mofungo in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 1Last Post: 09-10-2007, 10:33 PM -
Create your own Religion
By TomSelis in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 6Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:23 AM -
what religion do you observe and why?
By qeuqheeg222 in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 20Last Post: 04-17-2007, 04:56 PM -
Religion problem
By Vicki Richter in forum General DiscussionReplies: 55Last Post: 04-06-2007, 08:45 PM -
Transexuals and religion?
By Vala_TS in forum General DiscussionReplies: 41Last Post: 12-28-2006, 07:28 AM