Spirituality
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou know better than this. Your argument with me (this one, anyways) is pure fail.
And who's to say that his weird interpretation is any better or worse than your weird interpretation?
While we're believing based on faith with no recourse to science, logic, and evidence...
Go on, give me a faith based reason why you know better than he does...
Or will you admit that you need logic and evidence and reason to have any objective determination
of anything?
Who ever said I have no recourse to science? I believe in evolution and the 4.5 billion year old history of earth. I've said many times that science has its place.
So what exactly are you on about, again?
Originally posted by lemon limeSome things are facts. Some other things are not.
I hope you're not suggesting that some things should never be challenged, because acceptance of that idea can lead to all sorts of abuses... such as determining [b]who should be in charge of what is true or not.
I'm thinking something like instituting a Ministry of Correctness belongs in a Monte Python sketch... and should stay there.[/b]
And it is the business of science to challenge these things and prove what is or is not fact.
The absence of proof does not prevent a thing from being fact. But the existence of proof that makes that thing impossible does.
Originally posted by SuzianneWho was trolling? You? I'm just responding to what you said. This is exactly what you said in reply to the OP on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread:
Sorry, not feeding the troll today.
Originally posted by Suzianne
Eh, there are 'pinheads' on both sides of the divide. Any random perusal of this forum should convince you of this.
If one were to randomly peruse the forum looking for these people "on both sides of the divide", would RJHinds be one of the "pinheads" you were talking about or not? If he isn't one of your supposed "pinheads" on his side of this issue, who is?
Originally posted by SuzianneA little extra knowledge goes a long way as well. If the scientists of Galileos time had any idea how far away other (visible) star systems are, they would immediately recognize the impossibility of them being able to circle the earth once every 24 hours... although, it could explain why those stars appear to be moving away from us so fast...
Some things are facts. Some other things are not.
And it is the business of science to challenge these things and prove what is or is not fact.
The absence of proof does not prevent a thing from being fact. But the existence of proof that makes that thing impossible does.
... because the centrifugal force (Fc = mv2/r) would be enormous, seeing as how those stars would need to be moving many times faster than the speed of light. Or as Carl Sagan might say, billions and billions of times faster. It would also lend new meaning into stargazing being the same as gazing into the past, because stars traveling faster than the speed of light would literally be traveling backwards in time.😛
Originally posted by FMFWow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
Who was trolling? You? I'm just responding to what you said. This is exactly what you said in reply to the OP on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread:
Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]Eh, there are 'pinheads' on both sides of the divide. Any random perusal of this forum should convince you of this.
If one were to randomly per ...[text shortened]... ing about or not? If he isn't one of your supposed "pinheads" on his side of this issue, who is?[/b]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
not here to feed the trolls, but this was just too good to let pass
Originally posted by lemon limeIt is Suzianne who is calling people on this forum "pinheads" not me.
Wow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
not here to feed the trolls, but this was just too good to let pass
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneSo what exactly are you on about, again?
You know better than this. Your argument with me (this one, anyways) is pure fail.
Who ever said I have no recourse to science? I believe in evolution and the 4.5 billion year old history of earth. I've said many times that science has its place.
So what exactly are you on about, again?
Isn't it obvious? He can't reconcile a belief in science with a belief in God.
Didn't you know that atheism owns science? So unless you agree with the belief in no-God(s) then you are obviously a science heretic, and have no claim to any scientific insight or knowledge. Only a true non-believer can make that claim.
Originally posted by FMFAs tempted as I am to say that anyone who consistently indulges himself in personal attacks is a pinhead, I do not believe you have earned that honor yet.
It is Suzianne who is calling people on this forum "pinheads" not me.
Not everything in this forum applies to everything written in each and every thread found in this forum. If you really want to explore the topic of "pinheads" then start up your own thread and entitle it The Pinheads of this Forum... or give it whatever idiotic title you want.
Originally posted by lemon limeShe said there were "pinheads" ..."on both sides of the divide", with the "divide" in question being exactly what this thread topic is about and exactly what people are discussing on this thread and on recent threads. This "pinhead" epithet is Suzianne's, not mine, and she used it to describe people discussing science topics like the one here. By "pinheads", did she mean people like RJHinds?
As tempted as I am to say that anyone who consistently indulges himself in personal attacks is a pinhead, I do not believe you have earned that honor yet.
Not everything in this forum applies to everything written in each and every thread found in this forum. If you really want to explore the topic of "pinheads" then start up your own thread and entitle it The Pinheads of this Forum... or give it whatever idiotic title you want.
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFOh, very well then... your persistence has finally paid off. I hereby grant upon you the title of "pinhead".
She said there were "pinheads" ..."on both sides of the divide", with the "divide" in question being exactly what this thread topic is about and exactly what people are discussing on this thread and on recent threads. This "pinhead" epithet is Suzianne's, not mine, and she used it to describe people discussing science topics like the one here. By "pinheads", did she mean people like RJHinds?
Originally posted by lemon limeIn terms of the faith v science debate, do you think by using the insult "pinheads", Suzianne was referring to people like RJHinds? I know that on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread she wasn't referring to me because she stated that she agreed with my OP.
Oh, very well then... your persistence has finally paid off. I hereby grant upon you the title of "pinhead".
Originally posted by lemon limeThread 162652, last page.
Wow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFAll right! Okay! Stop yelling at me! I'll upgrade that to "pinhead extraordinaire".
In terms of the faith v science debate, do you think by using the insult "pinheads", Suzianne was referring to people like RJHinds? I know that on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread she wasn't referring to me because she stated that she agreed with my OP.
If I grant you a title any higher than that I can expect to hear from the Brotherhood of Pinheads Union... and they are no less painful to listen to than you are.