Jump to content

TDD123

Resident
  • Content Count

    2,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by TDD123

  1. 4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    That sounds like a riddle.  I don't know anyone named Christopher.

    Christopher Hitchens, an atheist who was often debated against and revered by American Christian scholars.

    I hope you will, in spite of what you first seen of him, get to know him better.

    • Like 1
  2. 29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    Bwaaaaaaaaah. 

    :D

    29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    As I was saying, the Bible is in large part a recording of events not scripture.  That is really what I wanted to say.

    Noted. That's ... an interesting hypothesis.

    29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    However, the events of which to be exact how important are they really to mankind overall?  Not much, imo. 

    Well, to us 'needs to be convinced by substantiated data'- kinda people who are a part of mankind actually very much.  ;)

    29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    .. it's in part a recording of events not scripture.  And, a poorly translated recording at that.

    We totally agree on the latter part, yes.

    • Like 1
  3. 31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

    Because focusing on that alone robs all of us of valuable contributions of scientists with religious backgrounds ? The Bing Bang theory being one of them ?

  4. Since this thread is digressing ( towards I don't know where and don't want to go there should I find out ), I find contestants on any side should be aware of the following taken from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory :

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

     

    Quote

     

    The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

    A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

    In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

    A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

    A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

    In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice. 1

    Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

    The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

    This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

    The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

    While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

     

    So

    Darwin's theory of Evolution = to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

    Religion = to explain things that have already been substantiated by inspired unquestionable authority.

     

     

    • Like 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    Now you are ranting now.  

    No. But I do have some idea now you are as indifferent to facts as the traditional Jewish, including 'your'Jesus, were to Roman law, Greek philosophy or general common sense.

    OK. I'm stepping down.

    • Like 1
  6. Just now, FairreLilette said:

    No, I don't see it that way.  They were a religious government of the Jewish faith.  The held the highest (best) seats at the temple and were the rabbi.  That is a form of government similar to the Pope, I'd guess.  The laws Jesus is speaking about are the 612 or so laws of the Torah, the Hebrew laws, not the Roman laws.  

    "I am ticketing you for speeding. "

    "No officer, I only am to be held responsible by my Lord and Saviour and your accusation is invalid, because I prayed to God and promised I would drive safely. "

    • Like 1
  7. 4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    Jesus went up against the teachers of the law at that time, so I don't see how you cannot see them as a kind of government - they had an awful lot of power and a power that put him to death.

    This is kind of interesting : You keep repeating the word law , while reporting about distinctions in philosophy.  The Romans ruled Israel by Roman law, not Jewish. Herod was placed as a national king only by Roman approval. The Farizees and Sadduccees did not hold office in governments.

    Jesus rantings are about ideas. Not actual laws.

    • Like 3
  8. 2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    That doesn't explain why Jesus was saying so often "Whoa, to ye Pharisees, scribes and teachers of the law".  

    It does. Religion IS law ( of God) for believers, remember ? ;)

     

    • Like 1
  9. 3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

     How would you describe the Pharisees and Sadducee's? 

    Pharisees : Traditional Jewish philosophers / Religionists

    Sadducees : Jewish philosophers following the Greek tradition

    What 'happened' there, although some regard it as inspired text, is, historically speaking, fictional.

    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

    Little off topic, guys, but I want you to know that 747's are way too heavy to fly, because it's been scientifically proven that aluminum and steel have densities that are way larger than air. Aerodynamicism is pretty much done with. Think that's crazy? It's literally the same level of crazy as this entire thread.

    That is so untrue. LRH's 'inspired' texts clearly state 747's have travelled through galaxies to drop thetans into volcanoes on earth, so you unquestionably are lying and are unscientological.

    Errr ... wait .. hold on ..

  11. 1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

    It does seem there are likely prejudiced sources in the list. But aren’t you being biased about the sources being biased? And did you look to see if the point I was making was true by looking at other searches?

    You placed that search towards an academic ( not me of course ) . And likely prejudiced sources is of course a euphemism.

    1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

     

    If one clicks over to Google and runs the same search ‘fired questioning evolution’ we get 3.16 million hits and these sources;

     

    • ·         Wikipedia – now identified as biased by one of its founders

       

    • ·         Discovery – The TV people – talking about the problem

       

    • ·         University of Missouri-Kansas @ KC – Law Dept

       

    • ·         Atheistic Republic

       

    • ·         The Dispatch

       

    • ·         Washington Post

       

    • ·         Washington Times

       

    • ·         USA Today

       

    • ·         NPR

       

    • ·         The Guardian – UK

       

    I think I made my point.

    You haven't. Twice your link refers to a Duck Duck Go - result which leads to various links mainly reporting about a religious researcher being fired for questioning evolution. The links supplied basically belong to the religious inclined opposed to 'darwinism'.

    • Like 1
  12. 11 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

     There could be entirely different principles at work that we cannot even comprehend at this point.

    Which we might comprehend better if we' d find out what' s on the other side of a black hole for instance.

    It might not require this constant primal unmoving cause old theologies are trying to instill on us since people are able to write.

×
×
  • Create New...