 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Yup. I figured it was a definition thing after the first couple of messages back and forth. I don't like the dictionary you're using. :) I have never understood faith as "complete confidence or trust", but rather "confidence or trust". With (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I provided also doesn't. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as 'proof', not 'logical proof') (...) Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically that all perceptions of physical events are more valid (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) We've been over the scientific process already. (...) I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith. We've been over this before. Time is a logical construct that we use, but in fact may be simply an illusion to our limited (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) <snip a lot> (...) Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really* think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Wrong. This makes the presumption that I don't have religious faith (note I have not lined up with the atheists). As to the other point, it may not apply to you personally, just the approach you are arguing. (...) Yes, that's my point. Faith (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith-- in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been consistant in the past. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more pronounced when I wake up sometimes. (...) Clearly I can't. :-) (...) Or inconsistent in a way I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B? (I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't see? Or yes you can (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Er... oops. Meant to say: "I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by the scientific method..." (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere! But then again, maybe every one of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) No, it's universal because any advanced (I'm speaking extra-terrestrial) society is going to come up with the exact same rules. Different languages, different morals, different outlooks, different values, but the math will be the same. Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
