31 Aug 05
Originally posted by L8LutheranConvertThats very good except he is vilifying science in general and Einstein
Insightful discussion Kingdanwa, per the usual. I sense a bit of tension here in the minds of the more simple-minded that are hostile to religious faith.
In the secular or, more pointedly, the scientific realm, they fervently believe that truth claims can be evaluated wholly independent of the moral fibre of the one making the claim. It is a ...[text shortened]... er of a response I've just submitted. Blessings on your preparations for the Autumnal Equinox.
in specific.
How can he even bring up such a subject when your faith brings about
such beauties as the inquisition, the crusades, the crushing of an
entire civilization in south america under the guise of uplifting them
to the true faith. What about the faith of the original inhabitants of
South America? You are presupposing christianity is self-evidently
superior, enough so to send hundreds of well armed troops who happened arrive at a time of stress with the two brothers vying for
the crown in the Aztec empire ( I think thats what it was) and the
"Conquistadors" forcing the coversion of everyone they could
force. So you tell me how science is so apparently inferior
morally than those vile ones who share your faith? Are you going to tell
me thats differant, we don't do that stuff now? Come on, you can do
better than that, hit me with your best shot.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by sonhouseAre you trying to say that because science is less evil than some religions, you get to apply different criteria?
Thats very good except he is vilifying science in general and Einstein
in specific.
How can he even bring up such a subject when your faith brings about
such beauties as the inquisition, the crusades, the crushing of an
entire civilization in south america under the guise of uplifting them
to the true faith. What about the faith of the original inhabit ...[text shortened]... we don't do that stuff now? Come on, you can do
better than that, hit me with your best shot.
If I "know" that E = MC squared, and I kill someone who disagrees (however genuinely), does E no longer equal MC squared?
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaE equal M C squared would be true if every person on the face of
Are you trying to say that because science is less evil than some religions, you get to apply different criteria?
If I "know" that E = MC squared, and I kill someone who disagrees (however genuinely), does E no longer equal MC squared?
the earth were killed in a 10 trillion megaton atomic attack.
So what?
did you read my iron thread? so you would go back in time and
kill albert because you think bombing japan was evil?
You probably don't even want to go into the incredible evil Japan
caused in China where 300 MILLION people died as a result of the
Japanese invasion there. The Japanese did not have to run 300
million bullets or swords through them, they just conquered and
left the ones still alive alone, no food, no medicine. The effect was
the same as if they rammed swords into 300 million chinese.
You think therefore that the US is more evil because we stopped
WW2 in 4 days flat after that? You should read the real history of
the era before you pass your ethical judgements.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat on earth is your point? Are you saying that some people are more evil than others, or are you saying that "evil" has no place in evaluating truth? Please make your stand.
E equal M C squared would be true if every person on the face of
the earth were killed in a 10 trillion megaton atomic attack.
So what?
did you read my iron thread? so you would go back in time and
kill albert because you think bombing japan was evil?
You probably don't even want to go into the incredible evil Japan
caused in China where 300 MILLIO ...[text shortened]... ter that? You should read the real history of
the era before you pass your ethical judgements.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompWell, I think we're making some progress. You repeated assert that my claim is a fallacy, and that it's different from sonhouse because his is not a fallacy. If you can tell me that sonhouse's statements are not fallacies, can you then at least tell me what he's saying?
because your fallacy IS a fallacy.