Well I guess I didn't then. And if you think finally making someone conform to your belief determins if you had a good debate, then I guess all the great debators on this planet have failed. Why are they even speaking then? The point of debating is to try and express your opinion on another. Does that mean you must win the debate and have everyone witnessing that debate agree; or maybe one person agrees that didn't before? What is the determining factor here?
Nature/Nurture -- it is impossible to answer. We are all products of biases. What we think is inevitably framed by how we were raised, the fact we live in a civilized society, and all of the input we received until the moment we type our thoughts out on a forum. You can not answer this question from inside a construct. So, here is my suggestion, why don't we adopt a Sportstwo baby (Denny Crane can fund this) and monitor the baby as it tries to survive in the wild. Then, when the baby (I suggest we name the baby Mixum) reaches the age of 18, let's interview Mixum and see if Mixum thinks murder is okay.
this is so inane it's like you're mocking christians here. still wondering if you aren't really a covert atheist playing everybody. if so, good one. if not... yikes.
Here you go again, Calling me silly and stupid and generalizing Christian belief. It's pretty obvious that you hold yourself to a much higher regard to everyone else in this place. Or maybe you just think you are better than Christians because you believe in science. NEWSFLASH!!!! There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions of Christians that embrace, embraced and will embrace science. Just because we don't believe in your god "Darwinism" doesn't make us stupid. And just because you don't believe in our God, Christianity, makes you stupid. And I guess those physicist got it all wrong. I guess their theory that there must be an end all is wrong. I guess everyone is wrong huh crow? You are thinking only in 1 dimension. The relative theory is 3 dimensions, and the possibility that even more dimensions can exist. Think of you and I as a 1 dimensional being. Someone that is restricted to time and space. Then think of a being that is 2 dimensions. Someone that isn't bound by time and space. He wouldn't have the constraint to follow the laws of time or space. But it goes even beyond that. What if there is a being that is a million dimensions? No constrant of time, space, etc, etc, etc. That would mean this being would have all the tools to know everything; create anything; and invent everything. It's not like I'm speaking out of my ass here. Look at even our civilization. The advances we have made in the last hundred years catapulted us into another way of thinking. So many more things are possible and there is so much more to learn. You are acting just like the mid-evil times that burned scientists at the stake for doing witchcraft. Because you don't know, you condem. So you are just admitting your ignorance.
There is a pretty big difference between religion and philosophy. Thomas Paine was a philosopher, and I bet he had ideas about right and wrong that had nothing to do with religions.
That was my point all along. That philosophy isn't about Religion, but about possibility. Science has a philosophy. The Wright Bro's had a philosophy that you can fly, that we can make a device that can defy what many thought was impossible. There is a deep romance with science, just like there is with poetry or painting or even love itself. It is inatimate. It has a soul. And it's not something that comes from nothing because it was imprinted, programed or always was there. All it proves is many of us know very little and even the most intelligent people on this planet right now maybe know nothing in comparison to what is truly here. But as it stands now, there isn't a single scientific evidence that supports God doesn't exist, nor is there any that supports he does. It's all theory and God bless science for its pursuit to find the answers. My theory is it will only prove that there is God and he does exist.
I really don't think you can prove that god exists with science. It just doesn't seem possible to me. There is circumstantial evidence, but it is all up to interpretation. In the end there is only faith. Your comments remind me of the 2 part South Park episode Go God Go and Go God Go XII. If you can stomach the vileness of South Park you should watch it some time.
Yep. That said, the Bible also says that hetero "friends with benefits" is sin, as well. Truly, the only sexual relationship that God "endorses" is....male and female in the confines of a married relationship......period.
i don't think you're stupid, just completely uninformed about any of the scientific topics you keep referring to. i'm sure you're capable of learning about them (evolution, quantum mechanics, cosmology etc) if you wanted to do so. the trick is to listen to and read what actual scientists say, not what creationists say they say. not about me. any informed person, religious or otherwise, would tell you every single reference to the positions of science you've made in your arguments is either incoherent or false.
Okay what was my point then? No what I know is morality is real yet it holds no mass. Explain that scientifically. And explain why a fish doesn't care to eat its own kind yet man knows killing each other is morally wrong? Is it a learned behavior? Can't wait for your answer cuz I got a scientific study that will knock it out of the park.
I think you got it wrong about philosophy. Karl Marx was a philosopher (and economist). His economic model (Communism) is Godless (anti-religion, even), yet has strong concepts of good and evil. I don't think the Wright brothers' inspiration had anything to do with philosophy. It was more of a race between several groups of people to become the first to fly (not counting air balloons).
if you mean YEC's there's a handful out of millions, none of them working in relevant fields, but that's not the point. the incoherent arguments mags is trying to paraphrase from creationist material are not written by working scientists, and misrepresent what working scientists would say.
Father of Calculus and Physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, theologian and alchemist. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies. Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1] Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[2][3] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[4] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[5]
I suppose, but they're still out there..... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
you'll have to specifically define what you mean by morality, and then define "real". if you mean how we feel about certain behavior, that's evolved chemical-based emotional response, and/or emotional response to the undesireable consequences of certain actions. what do you mean "knows" is wrong? "feels" is wrong? or "knows" the consequences?
Yes the funding may have been from a "race for advantage"; but you need to people to think outside the box. To believe that someone can work, even though the 'technology" at the time didn't. Like the scientists during the mid-evil times were at risk of being called a "witch". Why do people want to evolve? And no, not physical evolution. We strive for knowledge. It seems the more we learn, the more learning we need to be kept fed. And this is why I believe it has "philosophy". And Karl Marx, describing right from wrong doesn't answer how we know what is right and wrong. It is just a movie or example of someone doing right or wrong.
