Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
Then your faith is going to cause you great dispair. Your dream will never be. Its the faith of a fool.
I would rather live in honest dispair than as a deluded fool. Magic doesn't exist. Ghosts don't exist. Your beautiful dream is just a beautiful dream
It's sarcasm. Regardless of what a particular moderator might say, science is continually labeled a religion on science threads.
Evolution is so labeled because its findings are inconvenient to some believers. Evolution sprang out of geology, so geology is also tarred with the same brush. Geology bases its ages on physics, so physics is tarred with the same brush. Trigonometry finds a minimum age for the universe to be 168,000 years, so mathematics is inconvenient to religion. There is no branch of science that has mot been thrown under the bus.
If “vigorous defense” is the definition of religion I guess belief in the 2nd Amendment should now be considered a religion.
***It is not the only criteria for the definition, but it is certainly one of them. We see that the Religion Moderator determined that Scientism is not a religion, but we do not see what the criteria were.
Onward 2nd Amendment soldiers! ;^)
Your faith is just a faith, like any other.
You should ask.
***OK, then I am asking. Religion Moderator, what is the criteria for deciding whether something is a religion? See post #116: “.... science is not religion.”
Even adherents in this thread acknowledge the faith element in this new idealogy, and admit that any idealogy can become a religion.
Bookmark to see if the RM wants to referee whateverism.
Then truth doesn't exist. Everything is just opinion
Your statement does not follow from mine.
For purposes of our present discussion, I am drilling down to find out what constitutes a religion, at least in terms of how discussion is dealt with here on Free Republic. The rest of the philosophical discussion would be perhaps something for another time or place or maybe even another Freeper like Alamo Girl or Betty Boop, 2 of the best freepers I’ve run across.
And I can’t plug them without mentioning that they both published a book on these kinds of philosophical/religious discussions.
Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture by Jean Drew and Sandi Venable (Paperback - Dec 14, 2006)
Buy new: $19.96 14 Used & new from $19.18
Since when did I ask you for proof on this thread? I commented on your examples. If you had provided an experiment that completely excluded any unnatural advantage introduced by human intelligence, I could not have made the same comment. The fact that plants use simple chemistry to convert sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into sugars and yeast can then convert these sugars into ethanol does not make that process a likely abiotic event.
Tell you what, put a bass into your bassomatic and blend for five minutes. Then tell me how long it takes for the bass to come back into existence having the entire complement of chemicals required to make a bass.
It’s Sarcasm.
***Then why don’t you just say what you mean on this item?
No such experiment can ever be conducted. Any experiment can be claimed to have "unnatural advantage introduced by human intelligence" if it is designed by humans.
If you as a scientific thinker believe in an alternative to evolution, could you please provide some scientific evidence to support your view?
So my request is simply to remove comments from science threads that are not relevant to the objectives and methodologies employed by science.
***I see the religion moderator is quiet, possibly due to internal discussions with other moderators as to how to handle this thing. The fact that the atheism tag has been used successfully on an ecumenical thread is instructive. And it’s also instructive that the mod claims there’s no interest, and that it appears the impetus would come from the moderator as to whether he/she would even WANT to try to moderate such discussion (most likely NOT). So if you want to see flame-free discussions on scientific subjects, the impetus is likely to come from someone like you. When you post an article, you will likely get cooperation from the mods if you post it under the religion forum using a “scientism” tag or whatnot. Of course, it also means that whoever chooses to open discussion under such a tag has implicitly/explicitly agreed that scientism is a religion. Until then, it appears we’re all stuck with the existing system.
Bull, they are done everyday. Drop a rock and time it.
Evidence, sure, read Dr. James Shapiro. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html
That’s a pretty cool document. Thanks.
Shapiro sure does explain the emerging views well.
Much of it challenges many of the older dogmatic interpretations concerning the TOE.
Who was that fellow who was so adamant that;
He got pretty mad when I tried to say, "code within code". Wouldn't hear of the idea, in the least. Couldn't open up the mind enough
Shapiro might not put it exactly as I and others, [code-within-code], but he wouldn't be pounding folks over the head with the last century's interpretation of what the TOE is, or how it functions, and what (some of) the proofs are. Some of the old saws, if not exactly going up in flames, are now facing serious challenges, as to what assumptions can be made in interpretation of data sets and their possible meanings.
That last paragraph of Shapiro's should be nominated for the *understatement of the year* award.
Thank God it wasn't Microsoft whom wrote the OS code for living organisms.
I just wanted to discuss the situation, ask advice about the tactics of some militants (harassment, libel, googlestalking, ip spoofing) but am more than willing to discuss anything on here. If it turns into a loose discussion but everything is civil that’s a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.