If you're not a fundamentalist, what are you? - Page 4

JcP · 08-03-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

I don't have a definition of God, yo. I think that it's totally premature to define God as anything but a cause. I could expand on that definition by calling it an unknown cause. The point, I guess, is that to attribute anything more to God would be just wild conjecture based on nothing other than our curiousity as to why we are here.

So you could do something like zees:

God is defined as a cause.
The Universe was created.
A creation requires a cause.
Therefore God is the cause of the Universe.

That, I think, is stating that if God can be defined as anything, it's a cause to the creation of the Universe. I don't think that anything else can be said about God though.

God is not defined snapshot. That was the whole point, man. God requires a modifier to be given context. I AM requires no modifiers.

I was stating that if God is an unknown concept, and "I am" is an unknown concept (to you), and yet we are both defined by the same modifier (we have the ability to create), we are equal in terms of that modifier. And in terms of existence, we are therefore the same.

You and I are debating completely different issues. I am discussing what you had originally asked. You are now making assumptions such as "the universe was created" which is a complete unknown as well.

Either we need to agree nothing is known (therefore the only thing known is existence which is a product of love, therefore love is God as defined by "my creator"), or everything is known, in which case I know love is the creator because that is what I know.

Pick your poison, but stick with it if you want to have a debate please.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 06:59 PM

You just said we can have a debate on whether nothing is known, but then you assume that creation comes from love? Where does that come from?

JcP · 08-03-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

You just said we can have a debate on whether nothing is known, but then you assume that creation comes from love? Where does that come from?

Seriously?

How did you end up on this planet, snapshot? And how do you create more life and ensure it will grow up to be able to continue the chain?

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Seriously?

How did you end up on this planet, snapshot? And how do you create more life and ensure it will grow up to be able to continue the chain?

I don't know.

to answer your first question.

To the second question, semen and an egg?

edit: i didn't count seriously as the first question.

ziplock · 08-03-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Ziplock, I am going by Snapshot's definition of God. You are using an incomplete metaphor to critique my logic chain. Although your posts are right in the context you are choosing, please read the entire thread first. This became the issue when Snapshot continued to express that he "doesn't know" and that science and logic is the only truth (re: science relies on evidence). My reply was "I Am." is something I know, to which we got into the discussion of whether God is external or part of us all. My argument is we ARE (among infinite other things) God. His argument, it seems, is that there's no way for me to know that.

Therefore, for any of your logic chains to be relevant, you have to choose your context.

There is a difference between the God Snapshot refers to (the all-omnipotent creator externalized from any of us that is undefinable because it is something no one can ever know) and a profession anyone can take up such as a fisherman.

Yes, this is why I brought up the context of a trial. For instance, there is 1 judge for this specific trial. That judge is Bob. I am within this trial, I upon witnessing the proceedings also judge what I'm exposed to. Does that mean, I am Bob? I outlined the trial in hopes that if you choose this above path, that you would realize the context of a trial and isolate it to that. Then proceeding through the some logic chain within the isolated context of the trial, where Bob is THE judge and there are no others in existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Moreover, you're using a variable that is irrelevant. Bob is a name we give the context of individuality to. In algebra, the variables are not defined.

Bob = specific integer, such as 1.
A = undefined concept (such as God in this situation).

Which is why in order for your original post to make sense, Bob would have to be THE ONLY fisherman, otherwise A is not equal to B and C because C is the specific integer I have chosen to evaluate (myself).

As shown above, we can easily isolate it to a context where Bob is indeed THE only judge. We can also say that in this context we're unrestricted in the same ways we are in real life (as we are evaluating "myself"). We can then perform acts of judgement. However, this is clearly different from being THE judge of the trial. One large difference being the effects and manifestations of our judgement is vastly different in nature and reach than that of the judge in the position he holds, which is directly applicable to the God creator vs Human creator difference. This difference is one that you then choose to disregard and not include into your evaluation.

God also cannot truthfully be equated to an undefined concept. "God" does not point to "Computer desk" or "A&W Drive Thru" or "1968 Camaro RS SS". "God" is a symbol that implies certain subject matter (such as that which you outlined earlier in your post. I quote, "the all-omnipotent creator externalized from any of us that is undefinable because it is something no one can ever know") This in itself is a definition. I won't think of as I said, a muscle car from the late 60s. Therefore, I am working with your definition that you have established numerous times in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

A = B
B = C
C = A = B

is much different than

1 = B
B = 5
5 = B = 1.

Why? Because in the second chain (and the reason your logic excerpt is true, but irrelevant) B could be something such as 5 AND 1. Or 5, 3, 9, and 1. Or any infinite variables you care to prescribe to the undefined integer.

In the first case, however, all three integers are not defined.

Therefore, if A = God, then B is God and C is God for the logic to remain true.
If A is God and B is creation, then C is God and creation for the logic chain to remain true.

You cannot negate a logic chain by changing the variables. If you change it, you're asking a different logic chain.

Let us explore difference...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

that God is the creator. There is no ambiguity with a modifier.

God is the creator.
I create.
Therefore, I am God.

Or for a less "ambiguous" logic chain.

A = B
C = B
therefore...
C=A.

God (A) is the (=) creator (B).
I (C) create (D).
Therefore, I (C) am God (A).

You can't equate create and creator, one's a verb and the other's a noun for one thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

oh, so now I need to define the modifier for you? Lordie.

God creates life.
I create life.
Therefore I am God.

See? even logic goes on forever. What KIND of life? How MUCH life?

God (A) creates (B) life (C).
I (D) create (B) life (C).
Therefore, I (D) am (=) God (A).

This is a completely different statement than the first one. There is no equations made until the concluding statement. The rest is simply discriptions of observed phenomena. I'll give you a parrallel.
A dog (A) breathes (B) air (C).
I (D) breathe (B) air (C).
Therefore, I (D) am (=) a dog (A).

Now obviously, that's not true. I'm not a dog, and simply because we share this one characteristic doesn't mean we're the same. If you want to narrow the context so specifically in a desperate attempt to make this truthful then you can do so and say we're equal as breathers. But that still doesn't mean we're equal in nature or that "I" is interchangable with "Dog". There's nothing pointing to D = A other than they both share B and C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

In logic, you seem to need numbers. So for unset terms we use X, Y, and Z.

This is a logic chain. If you do not understand this, please take a look at math again. I hated math, but I remember this stuff.

X = Y
Y = Z
(squigly therefore lines)
Z=Y=X

A = B
B = C
C = B = A

This differs from your previously submitted categorical syllogism. Here, you equate Y to X in the beginning, and then start the next statement with Y. This differs from:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

A = B
C = B
therefore...
C=A.

If this were applied to your originally submitted God scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

God is the creator.
I create.
Therefore, I am God.

And then apply what you outlined using X, Y, Z. What you would say effectively is...
God (X) is the (=) creator (Y).
The creator (Y) is (=) I (Z)
God = The Creator = I

You have thrown many different logic chains into the discussion. So, we'll rejoice that you clearified in the end, and hopefully it'll illuminate it all to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

for the sake of clarity:

God = creation (1)
I = creation (1)
therefore I = 1 = God. This does not prove I am God, but it proves we are equal. And by definition, I am therefore a God. since we are debating a monotheistic God concept in this thread, and since that is the context we have chosen for our logic chain, we are ALL God.

Now it's creation? That doesn't prove that you're God, but it proves you're equal. Just as breathing doesn't prove you're a dog, just proves you're equal. I hope you can see the fault in this.

Quote:

A fallacy of necessity is a fallacy in the logic of a syllogism whereby a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.

Example:

Bachelors are necessarily unmarried.
John is a bachelor.
John is necessarily unmarried.

This example seems watertight, but the problem lies with the necessarily in c). c) suggests that it is inconceivable for John to marry - however b) does not state this; merely that, at present, John happens to be a bachelor. For c) to hold true, both a) and b) would have to be necessarily true, but only a) is, since it is a tautology.

Creators are necessarily Gods.
JcP is a creator.
JcP is necessarily a God.

Quote:

The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a logical fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because it has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. In other words, for the conclusion to be true a member of the class must exist, but the premises do not establish this.

Example:

* All inhabitants of another planet are friendly people, and all Martians are inhabitants of another planet. Therefore, some Martians are friendly people. (The conclusion assumes there really are some Martians in existence.)

The existential fallacy is a syllogistic fallacy.

God is a creator, and all Humans are creators. Therefore, some Humans are God.

Quote:

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isn't distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.

For example:

All students carry backpacks.
My grandfather carries a backpack.
Therefore, my grandfather is a student.

The middle term is the one that appears in both premises - in this case, it is the class of backpack carriers. It is undistributed because neither of its uses applies to all backpack carriers. Therefore it can't be used to connect students and my grandfather - both of them could be separate and unconnected divisions of the class of backpack carriers. Specifically, the structure of this example results in affirming the consequent.

God creates.
I create.
Therefore, I am God.

Quote:

However, if the latter two statements were switched, the syllogism would be valid:

All students carry backpacks.
My grandfather is a student.
Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack.

In this case, the middle term is the class of students, and the first use clearly refers to 'all students'. It is therefore distributed across the whole of its class, and so can be used to connect the other two terms (backpack carriers, and my grandfather).

God creates.
I am God.
Therefore, I create.

I think that covers it.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 08:30 PM

I think I just figured out I just got stupider.

You must have to put in a lot of time to learn all that. It almost seems like you have to learn how to think differently. Was it hard?

You didn't remember all of that did you?

ziplock · 08-03-2006, 08:41 PM

Remember all that? And smoke weed at the same time? I wish

I dont remember specifics, like I couldn't offhand identify a bunch of fallacies in some piece of literature. I can point to WHERE they are, and what's wrong with it, but couldn't tell you what the specific fallacy is called. Thank god for the internet.

And hard? Nah, you knew there was something wrong with it, just not exactly what. The rest is really just look at a statement, it's different parts, and how they relate. That whole God (A) is (=) the creater (C) thing. The more you deal with it, the quicker and easier it is to identify. I haven't been doing it much lately though. Go figure.

reverie · 08-03-2006, 08:59 PM

Ziplock.

You have astonishing thoughts.

Waves · 08-03-2006, 09:28 PM

ziplock came in like a tidal wave and just drowned the whole thread.

(i got a bit hard)

seriously though, its impossible to prove the existence of god and its impossible to prove that a god does not exist. otherwise somebody would have done it and no one would go to church.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

ziplock came in like a tidal wave and just drowned the whole thread.

(i got a bit hard)

Totally

Peace seeker · 08-04-2006, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillarry518

Everything important about Christianity is contained in Jesus's message. He basically tells people to be good people, to be good to the people around them and help those in need. There are many stories in the Bible to show that Jesus had absolutely no regard for the laws of the Old Testament. He saved an adulteress, who should have, by the laws of the Old Testament, been stoned to death. He worked on the Sabbath, a serious offense for Jews then. He specifically rejects "an eye for an eye." Jesus didn't take it all as literal truth, so why should we?

well said

imho,

being spiritual isnt about following rules.

being spiritual is about loving and doing good.

Helping others. Forgiving those who created pain in your heart.

Jesus was a prime example of unconditional love for everyone. Including his enemies.

he didnt follow man made rules

he was free

verklingen · 08-04-2006, 07:38 AM

There is an unrelenting sense about this thread which continually asserts that rationality is the sole path to truth. Such is not the case.

While truth is indeed attainable through purely logical discourse (even the truth which I see and others deny), the fundamentalist attitude it engenders leads its practicioners away from the essence of the discussion in favor of adhering to the dogma of their particular conscious framework.

I again bring up the charge: prove to me, using your particular conscious framework, that all humans are indeed mortal. And I don't mean this to assert that humans are actually immortal (I just realized that this may be what some of you read into this challenge) because I myself believe humans to be mortal. Despite my own belief in the mortality of material bodies, please use logic (science) to prove to me that humans are mortal. Thanks in advance.

This is not meant toward anyone in particular, its a general challenge.

JahBohl · 08-04-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace seeker

being spiritual isnt about following rules.

being spiritual is about loving and doing good.

Helping others. Forgiving those who created pain in your heart.

No church, temple, religion, slick preacher, inerrant book, or "god" is required for any of these virtues.

To the O.P. :
I think that one of Sam Harris' arguments is that religious moderates (through the increase in tolerance for ideas which have little basis in reason) have caused rise in fundamentalist thinking. Historically this has led to violence...(believe this or else you'll go to hell/ or we'll kill you).

"As long as it is acceptable for a person to believe that he knows how God wants everyone on earth to live, we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths" (End of Faith pg.134).

It's an interesting line of thought because most people view tolerance of other's beliefs as a good thing. Maybe we've let it go too far. Instead of calling bullshit on beliefs like getting 72 virgins upon martyrdom, or transubstantiation we give them a free pass under the guise of "faith".

JcP · 08-04-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

seriously though, its impossible to prove the existence of god and its impossible to prove that a god does not exist. otherwise somebody would have done it and no one would go to church.

Which is why we all have choice. I choose differently, apparently, than Ziplock and Snapshot. Again, not better, just differently. And from my personal perspective, it happens to be the 'better' choice.

If you cannot prove God exists, and you cannot prove he doesn't, then why not believe that love (the thing we all want) is God? What is your motivation for choosing "not knowing" Snapshot when we both can admit there is no factual proof? Why not choose what makes you happy? And what makes anything happier than compassion and love?

It's the best choice we're given because it fulfills both your personal wants and the wants of others all at the same time. Of course "in my opinion."

I don't know is knowing you don't know. Which you do not know, you believe. I propose you DO know God because you exist. And the force that creates life is love.

Peace Seeker hit the nail on the head: being spiritual isn't about following rules. It's about loving and compassion for others through action.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Which is why we all have choice. I choose differently, apparently, than Ziplock and Snapshot. Again, not better, just differently. And from my personal perspective, it happens to be the 'better' choice.

If you cannot prove God exists, and you cannot prove he doesn't, then why not believe that love (the thing we all want) is God? What is your motivation for choosing "not knowing" Snapshot when we both can admit there is no factual proof? Why not choose what makes you happy? And what makes anything happier than compassion and love?

It's the best choice we're given because it fulfills both your personal wants and the wants of others all at the same time. Of course "in my opinion."

I don't know is knowing you don't know. Which you do not know, you believe. I propose you DO know God because you exist. And the force that creates life is love.

Peace Seeker hit the nail on the head: being spiritual isn't about following rules. It's about loving and compassion for others through action.

I think the best way to be spiritual is about being as close to reality as possible, and not choosing what to believe based on what makes you feel good, or basing morals off of impossible standards such as the made up stories of Jesus.

In all reality, there probably was someone named Jesus, but I highly doubt anything he did or said matches the writings that were scribed 40-300+ (maybe more) years after his death.

The reason I think science is the best spiritual guide is because it's right in front of you. Everything we study is apart of this God you speak of. Why do you turn your back on his creation in order to get closer to him? It's right here, right now. Making up beliefs based not on reality but on impossibly high standards is not doing (whatever) God you speak of justice.

I suggest you watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episodes Holier than Thou and The Bible.

JcP · 08-04-2006, 10:58 AM

snapshot, WHAT IS REALITY man? You're basing your beliefs off of opinions and you don't even know it.

It is only an OPINION that water cannot be turned into wine. It is an OPINION that math is the universal language. It is an opinion that science is "right in front of you."

Because what is front? And who are you? And where are you for that matter?

Everything is an assumption other than what you feel. Because FEELING is what makes you exist.

Science is a construct to define the undefinable reality. Emotion, love, and feelings are the defined reality because it's all you actually know to be true: yourself.

edit: and I've seen Penn and Teller's Bullshit. I think some of their episodes rock. I find you putting stock in their opinions over mine a judgement. They know nothing more than anyone else about God. They just say fuck a lot so it sounds like it. Environmental Protection Act? Go for it. God? Opinion, Opinion, Opinion.

Just like me.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Science is a construct to define the undefinable reality.

This is the only thing I feel I should respond to, in the same way that I've always done.

Science has always been better at studying reality than any of us. It does not ever attempt to interpret it. The scientists never try to tell you "Why?" All it is is a method of study. When you deny science you deny the methods used to study the world you live in.

I use Penn and Teller not because I follow them religiously, but because I think they'd have a better chance of getting through to you than I do. Unlike some people (not speaking about you) I don't follow them or anyone blindly (including myself) and if I do than it's not intentional. I don't try to be swept away by anyone's ideals. But I get the feeling that sometimes you do.

If you have some method for studying reality that's better than science I'm impressed, though I highly doubt it. To me, studying reality might as well be the same thing as studying God, and I think science has a one up (plus a million) on any of us because it is bigger than any of us.

Is the force of gravity not apart of God to you? Do the laws of thermodynamics not get you closer to God? I think if you want to get closer to God, he's got a whole Universe laid out for you in which you can study his creations. Why you intend to turn a blind eye to that in favor of fantasy is beyond me, however it is your choice. I'd just rather you help out everyone else living in reality and help us study what we can see, hear, feel, taste, and touch. I don't think you could be doing humankind (God's creation) a bigger service than by adding to the pool of human knowledge we have about God.

Waves · 08-04-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

This is the only thing I feel I should respond to, in the same way that I've always done.

Science has always been better at studying reality than any of us. It does not ever attempt to interpret it.

Are you kidding me?

Everything science does is an interpretation because everything we percieve is an interpretation. You cant have science without the perception of data, therefore everything science does is an interpretation of our interpretation of events.

snapshot · 08-04-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves

Are you kidding me?

Everything science does is an interpretation because everything we percieve is an interpretation.

In a way, yes. But I also think that if you use "interpret" that way, in the way that our brain interprets information, I think science is better.

What I meant by interpret was we attach meaning to what we see while science doesn't mesh feeling with what it interprets, thereby making science's interpretation less skewed by human drama.

So, no, I wasn't kidding you. I just didn't pick the right word perhaps that wouldn't be considered ambiguous. But I think that if you're going to be studying God's creation, it would be better if your interpretation wasn't coupled with Bible study or your astrology lesson the day before because those can skew the results. That's why I like the objectivity of science. It cuts through all the bullshit.

Waves · 08-04-2006, 02:10 PM

I agree with most of your post but religion is just as objective as science, and there is just as much interpretation going on when a person reads a passage from the bible and when a person reads a passage from a science journal.

Science simply allows verification, which equals efficiency. Its not "better" than religion, they are both choices, its just more efficient. Which is a different concept than "better" because one incorporates judgement and one does not.

Of course its your choice to believe that science is "better" but its not very efficient

08-03-2006, 06:59 PM	#62 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	You just said we can have a debate on whether nothing is known, but then you assume that creation comes from love? Where does that come from? __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 08:30 PM	#66 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	I think I just figured out I just got stupider. You must have to put in a lot of time to learn all that. It almost seems like you have to learn how to think differently. Was it hard? You didn't remember all of that did you? __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 08:41 PM	#67 (permalink)
ziplock Dreamer of the dreams Join Date: May 2004 Location: British Columbia Posts: 2,110 Thanks: 15 Thanked 91 Times in 71 Posts	Remember all that? And smoke weed at the same time? I wish I dont remember specifics, like I couldn't offhand identify a bunch of fallacies in some piece of literature. I can point to WHERE they are, and what's wrong with it, but couldn't tell you what the specific fallacy is called. Thank god for the internet. And hard? Nah, you knew there was something wrong with it, just not exactly what. The rest is really just look at a statement, it's different parts, and how they relate. That whole God (A) is (=) the creater (C) thing. The more you deal with it, the quicker and easier it is to identify. I haven't been doing it much lately though. Go figure. __________________ Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

08-03-2006, 08:59 PM	#68 (permalink)
reverie Cruising Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 1,422 Thanks: 29 Thanked 68 Times in 52 Posts	Ziplock. You have astonishing thoughts. __________________ "For thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may indeed unfold its wings but cannot fly." -Gibran "Where there is cruise there is an escort of anti-cruise. But even in a bastion of anti-cruise fodder... there is cruise" -Levitch dissolve popular detachment

08-03-2006, 09:28 PM	#69 (permalink)
Waves Duderino Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chiburbs Posts: 15,475 Thanks: 991 Thanked 4,021 Times in 2,219 Posts	ziplock came in like a tidal wave and just drowned the whole thread. (i got a bit hard) seriously though, its impossible to prove the existence of god and its impossible to prove that a god does not exist. otherwise somebody would have done it and no one would go to church. __________________ On this life that we call home The years go fast and the days go so slow

08-04-2006, 07:38 AM	#72 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	There is an unrelenting sense about this thread which continually asserts that rationality is the sole path to truth. Such is not the case. While truth is indeed attainable through purely logical discourse (even the truth which I see and others deny), the fundamentalist attitude it engenders leads its practicioners away from the essence of the discussion in favor of adhering to the dogma of their particular conscious framework. I again bring up the charge: prove to me, using your particular conscious framework, that all humans are indeed mortal. And I don't mean this to assert that humans are actually immortal (I just realized that this may be what some of you read into this challenge) because I myself believe humans to be mortal. Despite my own belief in the mortality of material bodies, please use logic (science) to prove to me that humans are mortal. Thanks in advance. This is not meant toward anyone in particular, its a general challenge. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-04-2006, 10:58 AM	#76 (permalink)
JcP Arigatogozaimashita Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old Posts: 4,471 Thanks: 142 Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts	snapshot, WHAT IS REALITY man? You're basing your beliefs off of opinions and you don't even know it. It is only an OPINION that water cannot be turned into wine. It is an OPINION that math is the universal language. It is an opinion that science is "right in front of you." Because what is front? And who are you? And where are you for that matter? Everything is an assumption other than what you feel. Because FEELING is what makes you exist. Science is a construct to define the undefinable reality. Emotion, love, and feelings are the defined reality because it's all you actually know to be true: yourself. edit: and I've seen Penn and Teller's Bullshit. I think some of their episodes rock. I find you putting stock in their opinions over mine a judgement. They know nothing more than anyone else about God. They just say fuck a lot so it sounds like it. Environmental Protection Act? Go for it. God? Opinion, Opinion, Opinion. Just like me.

08-04-2006, 02:10 PM	#80 (permalink)
Waves Duderino Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chiburbs Posts: 15,475 Thanks: 991 Thanked 4,021 Times in 2,219 Posts	I agree with most of your post but religion is just as objective as science, and there is just as much interpretation going on when a person reads a passage from the bible and when a person reads a passage from a science journal. Science simply allows verification, which equals efficiency. Its not "better" than religion, they are both choices, its just more efficient. Which is a different concept than "better" because one incorporates judgement and one does not. Of course its your choice to believe that science is "better" but its not very efficient __________________ On this life that we call home The years go fast and the days go so slow

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: