Seriously?
Seems to me it’s much more focused on civil control over people.
Which parables teach us aspects of the scientific method?
Which parable deal with the human condition and our behaviors?
Is that science?
Can you explain what you mean with that claim?
Listened to this one in the shop last night. It’s a bit different, Brierly is an excellent moderator, and the science side of the debate explains himself well and just scoffs when Lennox comes up with BS. At one point Lennox tries to say the Bible is scientific because Jesus says you should test him. I don’t care enough to find the passage. It’s no different than a father in the 1950’s telling his son to be skeptical. That was easy back then because information was hard to get to and the father could control it. Not so much anymore.
If it was built on science, then why is a bird a bat in the bible? That’s just for starters of course.
I do my best to listen to debates, but within minutes I find it impossible to endure the arrogant blathering of the theists. They all say the same thing and are refuted in the same way, every time.
House said it best: “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.”
You must be listening to some rather dull debates then.With science vs religion debates, half the debate tends to be too dull to handle. The other half is when the scientist speaks.
scientific definition of what a “bird” was did not exist eitherAre you really going to get into definitions when you refuse to talk about them when I bring them up? Wow.
Science (the study and understanding of the creation)You have my vote for the absolute worst definition of science ever. Congrats!
Science (the study and understanding of the creation) and religion (the study and understanding of the creator) are not in conflict they have been parallel avenues of intellectual pursuit for centuries.Holmes, you live in a 13th century world. Science has been disproving myths for centuries. Evolution even gave us a way to explain morality and neuroscience is explaining the waves in our brain that lead to religious thinking. I agree that story telling has a power to reach those brain waves in a way that linear descriptions of chemical reactions do not, but that includes all story telling, and it means you know you are hearing a story. If religion stayed out of the business of claiming things are true without evidence, I'd agree with you, but religion has to stay in it's lane if you are going say it is "parallel".
It has? you mean like eugenics perhaps?Have you ever read any non-fiction printed after 1940? You say you have, but nothing you've ever said indicates that.
It has? you mean like eugenics perhaps?I posed a question elsewhere this morning – I’d like your take on this.
It’s taken a ton of time to get you to simply agree that you have very little to say. I’m not going to start up something like a discussion on morality with you. Maybe if you quit tone-policing and whining about how someone else used a word once I might consider responding more of your posts.
Would you like a list of all the non-fiction books I’ve read over the past twenty years?No.
I could do that but why?You would try to use it to brag about your big brain.
what’s the purpose?Get on our nerves.
Of course your remark is yet another attempt to try and discredit me,I usually allow you to do that to yourself. There's no way I could do nearly as well as you. (But that's because you've had years of practice and I've only been practicing for a little while.)
this now seems to be the only mode of attack left open to you,These aren't attacks. They are cathartic outpourings of frustration. You are merely a means to an end (although you did cause the frustration, so it is fitting.)
this is the standard reaction to someone who is now intellectually on the ropes.As you've demonstrated with every post since your first one. Sorry that I don't fall into that category.
This is frankly a disgusting accusation and personal attack Lausten and I feel compelled to report it, how dare you accuse me of posting something perverted, that is a very low blow. My post is here for all to see, it does not violate any forum rules but simply asks a question, a question very relevant to the thread that already existed.Having the mods read your stuff for background will be loads of fun.
I’ve never referred to anyone I disagree with here as a “pervert” yet Lausten and now you seem happy to stoop to this level when a challenging question is put to you, a question that to all intents and purposes is a scientific question.You could have done the right thing here and either said nothing about Lausten’s accusation or tell him that you too disapprove of labeling a forum member a “pervert”.
His and now your endorsement of him are themselves immoral actions, unfounded and damaging accusations, this is yet more evidence that the philosophy you’ve adopted is seriously wanting.
@Holmes and anyone else who is interested. Currently, I’m the only active moderator on the forum and you may not like what I have to say, but I don’t see the harassment or anything else that violates the rules in Lausten post. Since I’m the only active mod, though mckenzievmd may drop in when he can, because he’s very busy too, I’m not going to police the forum heavy handedly nor am I going to play parental mod, but I will step in when needed. I have a job too, as well as other responsibilities in my real life. I just happen to be off today. Even so, I expect everyone to handle debates and comments like civil adults, especially in this interim that we only have one active mod, who can’t be here constantly, and another who may drop in when he can. Instead of taking something as an insult either, for example, ask how it is perverted or show that you don’t mean perversion. Otherwise and because of this, unless it is an obvious violation of the rules or serious abuse of another person, try to handle things like adults please and not complain about every little thing. This is not a warning to anyone, but rather a moderator request during this time that we are shorthanded, because I can’t be here all the time and mckenzievmd is also very busy too. Thank you.
From Holmes: @laustenFigures you’d pick out some perverted use of science. How about you don’t do that and I won’t bring up the Crusades? Deal?
This is frankly a disgusting accusation and personal attack Lausten and I feel compelled to report it, how dare you accuse me of posting something perverted, that is a very low blow. My post is here for all to see, it does not violate any forum rules but simply asks a question, a question very relevant to the thread that already existed. – Quoted from LaustenYou yourself just stated that “Evolution even gave us a way to explain morality” so I pose a moral question and you start hurling insulting accusations at me.
I don’t like being the only active mod, because I can’t be here all the time and we really do need more mods or mods who can be here more often or both kinds of mods.
Mriana, many of us really do appreciate the work you and the other mods do. Sorry you’re being left holding down the fort at this particular time.
I don’t know how you choose mods, but there are a few around here who would be good at it.
My antics here are probably not making your job easier, but my self control is a limited commodity, and Sherlock used it up about eight weeks ago. He is a black hole of good will and empathy that I find difficult to ignore because he’s everywhere on here and such an arrogant worm (as in a member of the band) with how he talks to everyone.
I think I’ll leave for a few days in order to not keep contributing to the degradation of the forum.
Thank you, 3point14rat. No one has to leave even temporarily. We just have to all moderate ourselves, to an extent, and try not to take insult of another’s posts easily. Basically doing what we need do even if there were more than one active mod.
Sherlock Holmes "You must be listening to some rather dull debates then."Yeah like listening to your constant dodges.
September 10, 2019 at 12:07 pm#307177Sherlock Holmes: “I posed a question elsewhere this morning – I’d like your take on this.”
What you are doing is science by rhetoric rather than science by facts. That is entertainment and not education.
Holmes #307183: "This is frankly a disgusting accusation and personal attack Lausten and I feel compelled to report it, how dare you accuse me of posting something perverted, that is a very low blow."Yo, Holmes: you mean like eugenics perhaps? (#307177)
I imagine you’ve gotten a awfully one sided education on this topic, but if you were to educate yourself on your history, you will find that the entire Eugenics Thing was a perversion of science by powerful people with self-serving emotional and political agenda.
Sort of like all the crazy making by your Climate Science Denying Cults that Holmes seems to have much sympathy with.
The tactic, take a little piece of facts and twist it way out of shape in total disregard to the whole of the science - in order to manipulate people’s emotions and to serve immediate political needs.