Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (17955)	7/11/2001 10:14:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

They are matters for belief, or not, but are as irrelevant to science as the words of any other book purporting to expound history. I've asked Greg a couple of times about his insistence on arguing his faith as though it were logical or scientific. I can understand that people have this "thing" going with God that feels real and causes them to believe. If Greg would just say that he had been graced by God with faith, I could accept that. I couldn't relate to it, but I could accept and respect it. Faith is totally alien to me, but I can get my head around it as a concept and recognize its existence. OTOH, when he superimposes this scientific or logical framework over it, it just doesn't work. I don't know why he tries to do that. It's like trying to play baseball with a frying pan. When you've got a bat, use it, and leave the frying pan for cooking. Karen

To: thames_sider who wrote (17955)	7/12/2001 1:22:01 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Much that is 'testable' in the Bible is demonstrably false, contradictory or 'miraculous' (as in, has never been observed, goes against science and knowledge as we now have it, and cannot be reproduced)." Demonstrably false? For instance? "The error Greg makes - deliberately, I suppose - is in conflating the tested observations and explanations of science, reproducible and non-assumptive, with the faith-based non-empirical works of religious belief." Non- assumptive? Right. The error you make- ignorantly, I suppose, is to "assume" that only what is material is real. That is why you are so set on defining concepts like evolution and science in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. The a priori rejection of even the possibility of God betrays the fact that you are more interested in defending a system of belief, than you are in finding the truth. If someone claims to have observed a miracle, then how can you say it has never been observed? Can you prove that it has not? Just another example of your blind faith in naturalism. "The bible does NOT count as its own proof." Proof? Perhaps not, but it is a truth claim, and dismissing it out of hand, because you don't want to be morally responsible to God, speaks more about you, than you would probably prefer.