 | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Perhaps I was too light in my characterization. While I think that brother/sister unions are deeply taboo, I also believe that they are pathological, and that their "wrongness" possibly stems from genetics. (...) I have to believe that God is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) We've been down that road before. Science specifically places no faith in much of anything - not even results, which is why experiments are duplicated to see if the same results are obtained by a different set of senses. New information can (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) I know this is ploughed ground; I was specifically referring to the creation of the universe. Either God started it, or it simply started itself (neither theory is "scientific") (...) That's 5-0 Vikings to you my friend! Now I must go and (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I know that you have to believe this, but I have to believe that I have sufficient gas in the tank to make it to the next fueling station. Saying that I have to believe something is basically equivalent to saying I really really really want to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) Science does not pretend to have the answer to the origin of the universe. It has speculation, to be sure, and some ideas on how the creation of the universe progressed. It's one of those questions that we don't see the answer to now, but from (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) This one? 01. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 02. Secular Humanism (96%) 03. Liberal Quakers (88%) 04. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (74%) 05. Nontheist (69%) 06. Theravada Buddhism (69%) 07. Neo-Pagan (62%) 08. Bahá'í Faith (59%) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-)
|
|
(...) Haha! That was a great test. I out-neo-paganed the neo-pagan! I see the religion I was initially exposed to (inflicted with?) way down near the bottom. Interesting results. The religion I was initially raised in (inflicted with) is way down (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
|
(...) 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! 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! 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....
|
|
(...) 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! 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....
|
|
(...) 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....
|
|
(...) But the key difference is that I am saying "I accept that the universe may always have existed," rather than "I believe that God has always existed." I offer and accept the universe's existence as a possibility, but I don't put faith in that (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Wow, I out Scientologied you with 39%. How weird is that. -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) My score, as if it is any surprise. No wonder I have trouble seeing eye to eye with y'all Neo-Pagans;-) 1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (96%) 3. Orthodox Quaker (93%) 4. (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy Crap! Sacred Cow Makes the Best Hamburger!
|
|
Where we find out some odd things about ourselves: Smorgasboard Approach to Religion Award (highest overall percentage of compatiblity) -->Bruce<-- 60% Bah Humbug Award (lowest overall percentage) -- Hop-Frog 45% Most Likely to Sacrifice a Virgin to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy Crap! Sacred Cow Makes the Best Hamburger!
|
|
I suppose one could also analyze this from the standpoint of death... Most Likely to Get Roaring Drunk in Valhalla -->Bruce<-- Most Likely to Go to Heaven JOHN Most Likely to Be Reincarnated - Mike Most Likely to Achieve Nirvana -->Bruce<-- (which (...) (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Oh, great. Now I have to watch it twice. Thanks, guys. Dave! (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Cool! Between "Secular Humanism" and "Nontheist," we have you 50% of the way to reason! 8^) Dave! (21 years ago, 17-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-)
|
|
Here's my results, answering all as accurately as I could, considering many of the flawed answer choices: 1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (99%) 3. Liberal Quakers (90%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! And Hoppy thought he was the chief pagan :-)
|
|
Oh, and my Spiritual Type score was 37, on a scale of 25 to 100. 30 - 39 Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed Who picks a scale of 25-100? I was really surprised I didn't get Hardcore Skeptic - I guess it's my (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
(...) Okay, you are toying with me, but to be honest, you have to start somewhere to logically explain stuff. At the beginning of any one of those theories must be faith, because something from nothing is not scientific. (...) The problem is that (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
|
I missed this post in all the commotion, so I didn't reply earlier. My apologies to John for the delay. (...) What's unscientific about it, exactly? Thermodymanics allows for "something from nothing" as long as the net effect is zero. Quantum vacuum (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
