Say Anything Blog

I think your Pearl Harbor example is a good one.

The historical evidence surrounding Jesus, his Death and Ressurection is better documented than many so called historical events like Washington crossing the Deleware.

And, consider the hundreds of people who saw, met, talked and walked with Jesus after his reserection who were killed for not renouncing that fact in their life.  Not one.  Lions, skinned alive, crucified, beheaded.  If ONE had said, “Just Kidding” we would have video on You Tube of him or her saying this (or whatever the You Tube of that day was).

But they didn’t. 

The equivelancy argument with Muhammed and his equine aeronautics is a false equivalencey.  There is no eye witness to the event.  There is no historical evidence.  This happened 1200 years after Jesus.

The fact that people are convinced today is a different situation.  People belive all kinds of things falsely tautht to them and even give their lives in behalf of it.  Japanese Kamakazie.  I’m German.  Hitler.  Say no more.

It is a greater delusion to believe that only science and “Fact” is what makes us rational.  Much of what was believed 200 years ago as science and fact is now considered absolute heresy.  200 years from now much of what we consider science and fact will be considered heresy and “How could we ever have believed THAT”. 

Not true of JESUS.  Our belief in him is fully intact from the day he ascended into heaven on a cloud and wil be till the day he returns in like fashion.

Oh, to be sure there have been lots of abberations.  But, sticking with the core documentation (the facts and science if you will) it still holds today and nothing will ever change that. 

By the way, regarding Muslims et al.  The rate of conversion to Christianity from any people set in the WORLD today is fastest among muslims.  When confronted with the “Facts and Science” they quickly grasp the claims of Christ and reject the fairy tale of Muhammend.

The hardest people to reach are those who were raised up as little kids in a church and were subjected to some kind of spiritual abuse that caused them to reject it all in favor of some sort of rationalism which excludes faith.  You may be a candidate.  They (YOU?) are the most difficult people group to reach. 

A lifelong no religious education athierst is the easiest.  They don’t have all that baggage to get over.  They hear the claims of Christ, examine the historical evidence, are confronted with the truth and they come to Jesus. 

Others who were raised in the church have a been there done that attitude which blinds them since they have dark religious glasses on.

That’s why the country that is the second most missionary RECIEVING country in the world is the USA.  Brazil is number one.  People from all around the world are coming here to show us the simple truth.

The church has failed.  If you get over your religion you might just find that He is who He said He is and that He is the answer to questions we have.

[b]Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

The historical evidence (!?!?!?!) surrounding Jesus, his Death and Ressurection is better documented (!?!?!?!?!) than many so called historical events (!?!?!?!?!?) like Washington crossing the Deleware.

And, consider the hundreds of people who saw, met, talked and walked with Jesus after his reserection who were killed for not renouncing that fact in their life.  Not one.

Gene. I not only spit coffee all over my computer (luckily I work in a lab with a plastic covered keyboard to prevent chemicals from damaging it), I also peed my pants. SO FUNNY. Damn.
“My religion is backed up scientificly and Islam is such a sham… they have no WITNESSES?” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh shit. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Docdave. Look at what Gene wrote. That type of delusion is why Bezu wrote the post.
Duh.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I am not a dualist (someone who believes in body and soul). I am an atheist. I do not believe that resurrection is possible at all under any circumstances… including reincarnation. I do believe that after we die the energy present in our body at the time of death is recycled, but I don’t think its all recycled in the same place at once… in other words… I don’t believe in a loose interpretation of reincarnation. I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I think we all know what death is like because we were all dead already for infinity before we were born.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I am not a dualist (someone who believes in body and soul).

You might want to recheck your definition. Believing that there is no God is part of dualism.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108. you’re in my territory now and i’m not going to stand for more BS from you. explain yourself. “beleiving that there is no god is part of dualism” is bullshit. Every Christian who believes in a physical body and a nonphysical soul is a dualist. You disagree? I don’t need to recheck my definition. You need to stop shooting from the hip about stuff you obviously have no clue about.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Your territory is emotion-based, thoughtless ego defense.  It’s all yours, as I don’t go there.  Every human being is a dualist.  You make the common error of assuming the opposite.  I didn’t disagree with you that every Christian is a dualist.  What I said was that you are also a dualist, even though you wish to deny it, for some unknown reason.  It’s really simple: your dualism is the “God-No God” variety.  Your identity as an “atheist” is bound up in the concept of God, otherwise it has no meaning.  Duh.  Oh yes, it’s “believing”.  You are a bad speller, which is the other side of the dualism of good spellers.  Get it?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Nice try. Used here, dualism is a philosophy of mind / metaphysics term and it refers to people who believe in a physical body and a non-physical soul. The opposite of which would be a monist or a matierialist, someone who doesn’t believe in a soul. Obviously everyone isn’t a dualist. You just sound like you are spouting ‘Marxist dialectics’ (or your ignorant conception of Marxist dialectics) to me. Good luck.
Oh, and by the way, in theology a dualist is not someone who believes in God or no-God. In theology a dualist is someone who believes in GOD AND THE DEVIL. No matter how you spin it, you are wrong.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Your identity as an “atheist” is bound up in the concept of God, otherwise it has no meaning.  Duh.  Oh yes, it’s “believing”.

Actually my atheism has nothing to do with “the concept of God”. What if I was an Atheist who rejects polytheism as well? Then my atheism would be the denial of multiple gods or “the concept of” multiple gods would it not? Also it is a state of not believing. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD… OR ZUES OR ATHENA OR NIKE OR PLUTO OR SATURN. Clear yet?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

You used “dualism” in a general way, failing to qualify it as “philosophical dualism”.  If this isn’t simply another ego defense on your part, you didn’t clarify your statement sufficiently.  You just assumed no one would catch your error.  Either that, or you are scrambling for some way to justify your ignorance. 
Any belief in pairs of opposites is dualism.  Duh.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sparkie:  A(no)+theos(God).  An “atheist” is someone who believes there is no God(or higher beings of any kind, for the nitpickers), and so is bound up in the denial of the concept of God.  Thus his identity as an atheist is bound up with the concept of God, otherwise he wouldn’t have anything to deny.  Get it?  I’m sorry I had to explain something so simple to you.

BTW, it’s “Zeus”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Failed to qualify? WHAT? This is what I typed earlier:

I am not a dualist (someone who believes in body and soul).

Can you see the contents of the parentheses?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

If you had said “philosophical dualist”, you would have been right.  Duh

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

philisophical dualism would be too vague in this case. theology, for example, would fall under the category of philosophy and, as i have elucidated, a theological dualist believes in god and the devil. that is why I added the contents of those parentheses. when prodded, i added:

Used here, dualism is a philosophy of mind / metaphysics term and it refers to people who believe in a physical body and a non-physical soul. The opposite of which would be a monist or a matierialist, someone who doesn’t believe in a soul.

i would have started by saying a “philosophy of mind dualist” but i thought that would mean alot less to others who might be interested than

dualist (someone who believes in body and soul)

your efforts to prop yourself up here are counterproductive (not advancing your cause in a productive manner (in case you were planning on picking on that too)).

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I do believe that after we die the energy present in our body at the time of death is recycled, but I don’t think its all recycled in the same place at once… in other words… I don’t believe in a loose interpretation of reincarnation. I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I think we all know what death is like because we were all dead already for infinity before we were born.

Speaking of Hard Science and things with evidence.  An interesting Dualism wouldn’t you say?  Look, Spark, You don’t know, you have decided to reject out of hand those who do and did.  OK, it’s a free country.

But, like Pascal said, What if you are wrong?  Are you so certain that you are willing to bet your persistant energy on it?  That’s what you are doing.

Life is tough and then you die.  What happens after is another thing.  Something happens after, lots of people have seen and heard it.  Instinctively we all know it’s true that there is more than this.  That’s why you believe some of what you do (energy fields et al). 

But, you would discount all other eyewitness accounts.  OK,

Gambler.

[b]Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

Eyewitness? WHAT? Eyewitness? How much crack did you have to smoke before these eyewitnesses started talking to you? What bizarre orthodoxy is exerting its mind control on you?

Pascal’s wager is silly.

According to that logic I might as well believe in a ‘flying spaghetti monster’ (to borrow from South Park) because if its real I will be benefitted by believing in it and escaping its rath after I die… and if its not real I will be the same as I would be if I didn’t believe in it. The list of things I might believe in if I bought Pascal’s wager is endless. In a sense, if one is motovated by Pascal’s wager alone, then they do not have a bona fide belief and will probably fry in hell when they die anyway.

I do think Pascal’s wager exposes the fear-based mandate that Christianity derives from those who have an inability to think for themselves.

In my mind there is absolutely no gambling going on. I was never baptized, so even if I believe in God, I’ll still be fucked when I die.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

It used to be that in a polite, civilized society, we did not disparage each other’s religious beliefs and instead accepted the notion that certain subjects, such as religious persuasion or one’s choice of a spouse or companions, was really no one else’s business.

Mass media, including the internet, and the new Left’s abject disdain for convention and social mores have certainly changed all that.  What was once considered rude and impudent is now thought of as sport, and insults are the weapon of choice, rather than diverse ideas and reasoned opinions.

Bat One:
i hope you’re not referring to the leftist concept known as political correctness because we all already know how much BS that concept is. just ask robert108 or chief rz or 2hotel9. they’ll fill you in.
i take it you didn’t like my diverse & reasoned opinion about pascal’s wager?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

woops. i meant ‘leftard concept’.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

In my mind there is absolutely no gambling going on. I was never baptized, so even if I believe in God, I’ll still be fucked when I die.

It won’t be for the reason you think.

BTW, PC is a violation of the First Amendment.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

(in case you were planning on picking on that too

Poor Sparkie!  If you can’t stand the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen.  Your statement was structured in such a way that you expressed only a part of dualism as all of dualism, and I called you on it.  You were wrong, and instead of being man enough to admit it and correct your own statement, you spew hate and insults, which only make you more impotent.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108. you are a deluded tool. i told you to back of my territory here and you didn’t. you were, in fact, thoroughly wrong… if you have doubts, call in a third party to assess. you are obviously having an off day or something.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie: You should quit before you get any farther behind.  You have no territory here.  You make false and misspelled statements here, which entitles you to being thought of as a fool.  Be a man, confess your transgressions, and seek absolution.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It’s “back off” btw.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

yup. i was soo wrong. sweet dreams tart.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

spelling nazi tart. i hope that picking on others spelling after you get absolutely fucked up in an argument helps you feel better.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

i mean
“ others’ spelling “

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

yup. i was soo wrong.

A rare moment of manliness from you…

spelling nazi tart. i hope that picking on others spelling after you get absolutely fucked up in an argument helps you feel better.

Followed by a return to your usual no-content form.  Oh, well.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sparkie: As usual, you fail to get the point.  I don’t care if you can spell or not; it’s your stupid arrogance in trying to sound intelligent while resorting to insult, and then making a key spelling error while doing so.  In the first place, your obvious need to be insulting rather than rational is funny, but your egregious and ignorant spelling errors only add to the humor. Whenever I read your comments, I keep all liquids away from my keyboard to protect it from my outbursts of laughter at your juvenile attempts at being edgy.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Where is this energy stored and who or what accomplishes the recycling?

Have you ever heard of chemistry docdave? Do you ever wonder why you need to eat food and you can move around without being plugged into the wall? Corpses rot. They release nitrogen and other such things. Nitrogen gets to roots and helps the fruits grow. Pregnant babes eat fruits and grow new peoples. OK? Too fast for you? Another commie conspiracy?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Bat one. What was that? Have a bleeding heart lib moment or something?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

What animates an otherwise dead body?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sparkie,

Surely even you can recognize that a wistful appeal for civility is anything but a “bleeding heart lib moment.”

The notion of liberal compassion, like diversity, inclusiveness, or even democracy itself, is a myth.  The fact is, sadly, that liberals know as much about civility as they do about national defense.

Sam Harris is an interesting fellow.

He thinks of himself as a reasonable & logical individual who bases his beliefs on science and factual evidence, but he does seem to have biases outside the realm of empirical observation and does display a particular political leaning

He’s a proponent of Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research, and seems to be adamantly against everything Christians support simply because they’re Christians.

He believes that all the wars (and bloodshed) throughout human history have been caused by the uncompromising dogmatism of religious doctrines.

And about evolution Sam says in the same book:

“All complex life on earth has developed from simpler life-forms over billions of years.

This is a fact....”

Isn’t evolution still an unproven “theory” ?

In his attck against Christians he also quotes statements made by Hitler in a speech he made on April 12, 1935:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who was greatest, not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”
Oxford university Press 1942

He goes on to say that because of Christian Conservatism:

“Of the twenty-five cities with with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62% are in “blue” (democratic) states and 38% are in “red” states.

Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76% are in the red states, 24% in the blue states.

In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas.

The twelve states with the highest rate of burglary are red.

Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highes rates of theft are red.

Of the twent-two states with the highest rate of murder, seventeen are red.”

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

NO. Evolution is a scientific fact.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

What animates an otherwise dead body?

A cartoonist.

One need only read docdave and robert108’s last posts to see how much stupidity is about to go down if this discussion sontinues. I am done.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

docd
if you want to comment why don’t you take issue with something i’ve said like:

Have you ever heard of chemistry docdave? Do you ever wonder why you need to eat food and you can move around without being plugged into the wall? Corpses rot. They release nitrogen and other such things. Nitrogen gets to roots and helps the fruits grow. Pregnant babes eat fruits and grow new peoples. OK? Too fast for you? Another commie conspiracy?

instead of personal attacks. it truly reveals your ineptitude and stupidity.
you have nothing to say about the discussion and, believe it or not, a personal attack doesnt make you right.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

One need only read docdave and robert108’s last posts to see how much stupidity is about to go down if this discussion sontinues. .

I’m not sure that anyone who routinely talks about “zionist” conspiracies has a right to call anyone else stupid.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Au contraire Sparkinator--youse jus’plain wrong....

Dover Pennsylvania School Board (2006):

“Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.”

Federal District court Judge John E. Jones III ruled(2006):

“The fact that a scientific theory can not yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom.”

And....Science historians Earthy and Collingridge, for example, have described Darwinism as a paradigm that’s lost its capacity to solve important scientific problems.

They note that both defenders and critics find it hard to agree even about what data are relevant to deciding scientific disagreements.

Putting it more bluntly, in 1980 Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould pronounced the “Darwinism synthesis” to be “effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

NO. Evolution is a scientific fact.

Since it is a theory, it’s not a “scientific fact”. Sorry I had to tell you that. You are wrong, as usual.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

What animates an otherwise dead body?

A cartoonist.

Once again, a relatively simple question goes right over your head.  Try to answer this one seriously.  A person is dying; one second before they die, they are still alive.  One second after they die, they are dead, and the body starts breaking down into its component elements.  What changes?  Why did the almost dead body maintain itself, then seconds later, start to break down.  Did something leave the body that had kept it animated?  What changed?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

dd: You obviously went over Sparkie’s head with simple chemistry.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

A person [or a duck, bear, or monkey] is dying; one second before they die, they are still alive.  One second after they die, they are dead…

Yes. It is true.

...and the body starts breaking down into its component elements.  What changes?  Why did the almost dead body maintain itself, then seconds later, start to break down.

When someone dies their brain stops. All the autonomic control ceases. The organs stop working, including the heart.

Did something leave the body that had kept it animated?  What changed?

Yes. The heart stopped and the brain stopped. When that happens the body cannot be kept alive by blood flow and the organs discontinue their work. Animation requires infrastructure, in this case an organic one. If you mean to imply that there is a non-physical contribution to the function of the organic creature then you would need to start with a very big assumption - you would have to posit a means for the non-physical entity to have some causal power over the human body. Since you can examine the human body all you want and not find any aggregious violations of the laws of nature going on inside (what you would need for a non-physical/physical causation mechanism) I am worried about the assumption that there is anything ‘extra’ that is capable of anything beyond just observing and enjoying the ride.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

You are certainly welcome to your opinion.  The heart stops and the brain dies because the animating spirit has left.  Duh

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

poor animating spirit of the Fish and Lettuce I just ate..

..or is that spirits?

Speak for yourself.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

now that I think about it, they may not have been so poor, for there’s a possibility they may have gone to some kind of heaven they believed in..

*may have believed in

In case you haven’t noticed, humans are not the same as fish, lettuce, ducks, bears and monkeys; of course, I can’t speak for you. /sarcasm(just the last part)

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

..and where do I say humans are the same as those other you mention?

humans are not the same as fish, lettuce, ducks, bears and monkeys

that’s right robert108. (applause) but all these things are the same insofar as none of them has aggregious violations of any natural laws occuring within it. if spirits do exist they exert no causal power over the physical realm. therefore they have no relation to any of the actions a human or a monkey might commit. therefore if the spirit goes to heaven or hell (or floats away on that last fart) it is being rewarded or punished for acts it has no part in. god is one cold SOB i guess.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

The difference is that humans have a soul.  Duh

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108: If you were a rational person you’d have seen some evidence to base these `animating spirit’ or `soul’ views on. It’d be nice if you share.

AV: If you think insulting me is going to spark some sort of discussion, you are seriously wrong.  Someone who is a self-described “anarchist"(while supporting Marxism to the letter), and who follows an extreme diet has no business questioning anyone.  If you want to play that game, and I don’t, you have a lot of explaining to do.  However, I am here for an exchange of ideas, not exchanging schoolboy insults with someone whose own rationality is in question.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

AV opines,

If you were a rational person you’d have seen some evidence to base these `animating spirit’ or `soul’ views on.

What does rationality, an intellectual function most often defined as wisdom, shrewdness, or sagacity, have to do an individual’s powers of observation?

Of course, faith, which is really the subject of this discussion, is by definition that which is accepted without proof or evidence.  So the question, though tempting on an adolescent level, is really moot anyway.

Putting my two cents in here (Gene, you knew I had to!), the Universe may be divided generally into two bodies: the rational and the irrational.

Something is rational if it follows logical from physical observations (more generically “our experiences").  A thing is irrational if it can’t be explained logically or can’t be related to “observation”.

In a godless world, I would suggest that there are meaningful questions that strictly have no rational answer.  This would include questions like “what happened before the big bang”, “is there a reason for the Universe,”
why are we here?” and so forth.  Note you could provide answers to all of these, but they would have no rational foundations, that is your answers would have to be articles of faith.

In an atheistic universe, there would have to be aspects of the universe that necessarily are beyond reason.  I’m not sure how this squares with Sam Harris’ comfortable dismissal of religion and religious beliefs.  Ultimately, in his own beliefs, he is forced to make irrational and unprovable assumptions, such as “there is no reason for our existence” and “there is no god.”

So I agree with him when he says this:

Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.

Carrick: Since the term “irrational” has another connotation, I would use the term “non-rational”.  Otherwise, a very cogent post.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Bat: Since ultimately science rests on unprovable assumptions, it is also a matter of faith.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Since ultimately science rests on unprovable assumptions, it is also a matter of faith.

Robert108,

This is precisely the point being made by those in Cobb County, Georgia who wanted those stickers attached to public school science books.

Science has difficulty enough with “what” never mind “why.”

A person is dying; one second before they die, they are still alive.  One second after they die, they are dead, and the body starts breaking down into its component elements.  What changes?  Why did the almost dead body maintain itself, then seconds later, start to break down.  Did something leave the body that had kept it animated?  What changed?

A puppy is dying, one second they are alive and the next they are not. What changed in the puppy?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

TP: Puppies are not human.  Duh

Bat: I have no problem with science at all.  I just think the science people are getting too big for their britches.  It used to be that scientists had some humility, realizing that there were some things they just couldn’t explain, but that humility seems to have gone away lately.  Probably all the govt funding.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

TP: Puppies are not human

Right, but “what changes” in the death of a puppy?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Right, but “what changes” in the death of a puppy?

If you don’t know something, find out about it and get back to us.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I believe there is no difference in death, or dying process of a human, puppy, whale, frog, bird, toad, turtle, giraffe, elephant, tiger, lion, bear, stork, crane, elk, deer, wolf, etc.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Robert108,

I couldn’t agree more.  My 8th grade General Science teacher was a man named Gooding whose habit it was to answer those inevitable “why” questions by writing the letters “G-O-K” across the blackboard.  He would then explain (again) that the letters stood for “God Only Knows.”

Today, of course, he would lose his job for his impudent honesty, and face the eternal wrath of the ACLU as well.

Science and Religion are both searching for the truth.  Neither one has exclusivity, and they (religion and science) shouldn’t be opposing forces.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Science and Religion are both searching for the truth.

Ah, yes.  The old moral equivalancy argument.  Right on schedule.  Why are those on the left such tiresome cowards?

So… One is right and one is wrong?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

I believe that the truth is complex and both religion and science can explain parts of it, but not the whole.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy,

For many people, science and religion co-exist quite comfortably because they each provides answers to different sets of questions.  The fact is, it takes are rather smallish mind to suggest an “either/or” approach.  Using either one to discredit the other is puerile and pointless.

I believe that the truth is complex and both religion and science can explain parts of it, but not the whole.

Well said… sort of.  Still, I find it instructive that you choose to state that you “believe that the truth is complex...” rather than to say that you THINK it is so.

I believe there is no difference in death, or dying process of a human, puppy, whale, frog, bird, toad, turtle, giraffe, elephant, tiger, lion, bear, stork, crane, elk, deer, wolf, etc.

You are certainly welcome to believe whatever suits your experience.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108, I am so used to using rational & irrational as part of a dichotomy, I forget that irrational often carries negative connotations.

Just another illustration of the importance of understanding each others lexicons.  Non-rational is definitely a better word choice here.