 | | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) Hmmm, sounds convenient (point 2 from point 1) and complicated:-) (...) Yes, I am conceding this from the beginning. (...) My point is that if you hold that the universe always existed, that is a faith statement as much as any about God having (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) Well, let's disclaim once again that science isn't in the business of proving anything as 100% fact, so I reserve the statement that science will always permit modification to existing theory. Science hasn't yet produced a supernova in the (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) I have to admit that I am surprised we are even debating this because I thought that there was consensus here. WRT to the origin of the universe, you say that "...we don't have the tools to verify our hypotheses. All in good time." Are those (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Have you ever heard of Marcion, Richard? He was an early heretic who held that the God of Jesus and Yahweh were indeed different Gods entirely. Now, I am no Marcionite, but if I were, wouldn't it be rather intolerant of you to question my (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) That's called special pleading, and it's a fallacy. It's a double-standard based in circular reasoning and cannot be used in any logically sound argument. (...) Well, that's as much a statement of faith as anything I've heard you make, and it (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) What I am saying is that this particular question is unique and cannot, by definition, be answered by Science. (...) Science will never come up with the answer period. Any speculation about the origin of the universe is pure flattery. Even if (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Here are my results: 1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (96%) 3. Liberal Quakers (83%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%) 5. Nontheist (76%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (67%) 7. Neo-Pagan (64%) 8. Christian Science (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Let me phrase it this way: Do you ask questions that, if answered, could cause you to reject your faith as invalid? That is, do you ask the kinds of questions that may require you to abandon your current worldview? If the answer is no, then I (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-)
|
|
(...) LOL Not I, McDuff... Maybe I'll try Taoism. 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (95%) 3. Liberal Quakers (92%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. Neo-Pagan (79%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (78%) 7. Nontheist (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) That test is certainly interesting: 1. Bahá'í Faith (100%) 2. Islam (96%) 3. Orthodox Judaism (96%) 4. Sikhism (94%) 5. Jainism (84%) 6. Reform Judaism (76%) 7. Hinduism (69%) 8. Orthodox Quaker (57%) 9. Mahayana Buddhism (57%) 10. Liberal (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
