From above:

Americans have dismissed two of the most robust and widely tested theories of modern science: ________ and ________ . These are theories that have been verified in thousands of different ways by thousands of different scientists working in many different fields. (This doesn’t mean, of course, that such theories won’t change or get modified – the strength of science is that nothing is settled.) - Lehrer , parenthesis comment is his as well.


I left out said theories as they're irrelevant

It's interesting, could Paul's (?) (Apostle?) writings on the law be taken like this (^^) as well. I mean clearly atheists will argue that he's not saying science is crap, but it has a little wiggle room within certain parameters.

However, if you weren't that familiar with the culture of science, it would look like he's saying science is crap, right?

Yeah exactly. The fact that science is concerned with explanation, and not proof, is it's strength. It's open to new data. This is also where some theists get confused about scientific laws. To give an example, Newton's law of gravity worked pretty damn well for the stuff we knew about but Einstein changed the "law" in a way that better fit with the observations of his time. Note that during the period that Einstein was working on relativity we didn't have apples floating in mid-air while they waited for a decision. This is because scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is why "laws must have a law-giver" arguments don't work very well for scientific laws.

Well I think that I agree in the sense that Christians would do well to acknowledge that they should be careful not to be too dogmatic in their interpretations of Scripture. However, there is a difference between science and Scripture in that science can demonstrate when it works. The purpose of the Bible is essentially to give you the tools you need to develop a relationship with God and get into heaven (I know I'm simplifying a bit here). As we can't talk to dead people we have no idea which interpretations work and which don't. We don't get to talk to guys who ate shellfish and ask them if it turned out it mattered or not. We don't get to ask murderers who made a deathbed conversion if that worked out for them. By contrast, science makes predictions that can be tested and observed and we can then see what works and what doesn't.

I don't think we can listen to splenda's articles, because as she says, articles are jsut a tool of politics

...

To the Atheists.

Anyone else think the religious are getting a bit obvious/out of hand with their insanity. This religion vs godliness thread could easily be the basis of a psychiatric study on delusion. I know religion is insane, but I feel like the level of discourse was at one point a smidgen higher than it is now. It makes me wonder why we keep trying to reason with them. I know we like to **** all over stupidity with logic, but at this stage the stupidity has become a sort of blob monster absorbing the logic, not understanding it or accepting it, but changing it to fit an even dumber argument as the blob grows.

Now you remind me of Sam “The-sky-is-falling” Harris.

Sam Harris: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." From his book The End of Faith

Sam Harris and A Dangerous Christianity- A Menace Himself
http://hitlerandchristianity.com/sam...gerous/65.html


Did Sam Harris just promote himself to God with that statement? He doesn't have any of God's powers, does he?

What's to keep Sam from changing his mind later whatever qualified statement he gives now to correct public perception?

People lie and break truces alot in history.

Ah, but there is a way. They could simply charge the women more to compensate for men? (and men less)

Would you be opposed to that?

I'm just stating an observation. Believe whatever you want, but when the approach to discourse is as illogical as it has been recently it becomes a lot harder to engage in a discussion. I'm actively avoiding responding to certain threads because I've given up on the people posting in them, which is why I took my observation to this thread, to see if others are feeling the same.

Nice pull. Now do the atheists understand how the blasphemy laws are good? (...)

I have a feeling this is going to grow.



I'm done wasting time arguing with people whose views are fixed.

Go for it.

I really want to just argue with the best. But, I'll chat with anyone.

Ideally, I'd like to just take on the best with a huge crowd and no rules (mainly bigotry, as I'm trying to demonstrate that the concept is totally illogical. At best someone could only accuse someone of making a hasty generalization. Or name calling. And I agree both of those would be valid complaints).

My thoughts are simply, certain people here don't have opinions I'm going to change. I think those who are on the list at this point understand that I, or probably anyone here, isn't going to change their opinions. So in the interest of efficiency, I'm going to try and streamline things by ignoring views I can't change.

Atheists really can't offer me anything (as they admit, it's only God doesn't exist). They can only attempt to make a theist doubt their own opinion.

But yea; my understanding is so thorough it's unshakable.

(maybe punctuation pointers )

You say that now. You're still a RGT pup...it'll wear on you. Trust me.

Ha, you'll love talking to Splendour then:

Haha...like you know the real history behind that post.

You know nothing.

Yeah, history behind a post makes it okay to demean an entire race of people. Of course if you want to go down this road we could get into how you think gay people are in need of cure.

Like I said you're ignorant of what you're posting about.

The person I posted that toward followed me on here heckling day in and day out for 2 or 3 years.

You don't think I'm entitled to a bad post after 2 to 3 years of non-stop heckling?

No I don't think you're entitled to demean an entire race of people, and neither should you. I'm sorry, but a non-racist is never going to spout off nonsense like that no matter how heated a debate gets.

I'm not targeting you. It's just that no one else stepped up to the plate, and you did.

I commend you on your bravery.

I can have a bad day just like anyone else and I don't owe you or anyone else on here an apology for getting pissed off.

And you're taking the usual unclassy route of character assasination because you weren't even a regular in RGT to know the history behind that post.

Maybe this is a hasty generalization, maybe not. I'm glad you weren't banned for this or anything, fwiw.

Now just calling people sand n-bomb out of left field (or even troll really) that I would agree is over the top.

You realize there's a search function on this site, right? Anyone can go back to "know the history" behind that post. And it still doesn't give you a pass.

Sorry, you still don't know the history. Googling one post will never give you the full history of someone trolling behind another poster for years on end.

When you're the new kid on the block don't set yourself up as judge and jury.

2 or 3 years of heckling is one heck of a mitigating factor and any judge would take it into consideration that wasn't already biased against me.

Sorry...I didn't just google one post. And exactly what mitigating factors were there when you talked about "curing" homosexuals?