Science vs Religion

[welkin]

After all is said, at this point, is there really any disagreement with respect to science vs religion?

 

[Chiara_searches]

ah well. I can't answer for tek. But phrases like "Like it or not" and "cool your jets" have a deleterious effect on my temper, I can tell you that-- especialy when I don't agree and certainly would not like it if I thought it were true. It implies "Oh, you just wish it weren't so," and I am far more educated than that. And when I am passionate about something, when it affects my life day after day, I will not cool my fucking jets.

So when you jump to Jamie's defense on the grounds that hes a nice guy whom you know-- no, you need to let his arguments stand on their own. otherwise, my ire attaches to you too.

For example, I mean.

It's fine if the ire attaches as long as you can still rationally argue your point of view. You have largely done so this morning, even when I disagree with some of what you said. It is my choice to jump to someone's defense. But it remains, regardless of the fact I know Jamie, that he was being misquoted and called names. And it remains a fact that now I've been accused of underhanded behavior by someone who does so himself. I dislike when the pot calls the kettle black; it's another attempt at enforcing double standards.

No, I don't expect, nor want, you to answer for Tek. Perhaps he'll learn someday that his points might be more readily accepted if he doesn't act like the bully that I now envision him to be. He can make valid intellectual points without calling people judgmental creeps. He can make valid intellectual points without accusing me of personally attacking him with his own words. His points would be easier read if he does not purposefully strive to ramp up everyone's ire. People shut down and get defensive when they are made angry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Okay, I refuse to be one woman arguing with another woman...
about men.

 

[Chiara_searches]

Okay, I refuse to be one woman arguing with another woman...
about men.

ROFLMAO

I don't want to argue with you Stella...I really do like how you say most of what you say and you do make me think about things, even when I disagree. So I hope you didn't think I was trying to debate you.

Honestly, I think my comments were directed more for Tek's edification, not any type of attack on you. Please don't feel used. It wasn't purposefully intended.

 

[teknight]

It's fine if the ire attaches as long as you can still rationally argue your point of view. You have largely done so this morning, even when I disagree with some of what you said. It is my choice to jump to someone's defense. But it remains, regardless of the fact I know Jamie, that he was being misquoted and called names. And it remains a fact that now I've been accused of underhanded behavior by someone who does so himself. I dislike when the pot calls the kettle black; it's another attempt at enforcing double standards.

No, I don't expect, nor want, you to answer for Tek. Perhaps he'll learn someday that his points might be more readily accepted if he doesn't act like the bully that I now envision him to be. He can make valid intellectual points without calling people judgmental creeps. He can make valid intellectual points without accusing me of personally attacking him with his own words. His points would be easier read if he does not purposefully strive to ramp up everyone's ire. People shut down and get defensive when they are made angry.

Would it make you happy if I apologized to you and J for making unwarranted assumptions? Will that get you to address the points, and not the person? Or are you still too angry for that?

 

[teknight]

As I understand "ad hominem" it means "a fallacy." When you tell someone they have made a fallacious statement, you are telling them they have made a false or deceptive statement. I joined Lit with the intent to post honestly and openly as I possibly can. I don't believe in the "hiding behind the computer" excuse. Everything I have said on the boards is as truthful as I can make it within the bounds of common safety.

It's a truth that your post said: "I didn't know you avoid the GB. I don't post stalk you." It's a truth that you previously responded to me stating I was going to stay off GB and stick to the BDSM forum. It appears to me, therefore, that you assumed I thought you post stalked me and that you forgot your prior comment. Saying you made that assumption is not an "ad hominem," not a "fallacy," not a "false statement," and not a "deceptive statement." It is a truth because if you had remembered your prior comment you would have realized you had that knowledge without having to post stalk, making the post stalk comment nothing more than an attempt to say I would flatter myself into thinking anyone post stalks me. (I assume no one actually notices me here, except for Jamie.)

And why my great debate about an inconsequential comment: if you need to call a simple point in fact a fallacy, it makes me wonder about the validity to your objections to greater points in fact. If you must sling mud by calling my statement "ad hominem" without even admitting I had a valid point, I think it prudent to not invite further unwarranted mud slinging. It smacks of irrationality when you can't say "I might have been wrong." It's not an intellectual debate if you aren't even open to considering someone else can make valid points. If you want to boil it down, it appears you are standing there, stomping, saying "liar, liar, liar" instead of saying, "yes, you're right about my making an assumption." Thus, I'm not sure there is value in debating with you.

I believe in tolerance. I'm ecstatic that we have the right to say what we think here on Lit. I'm sadden that name slinging, or throwing around big words to try to stifle discussion, is going on. When you are ready to evaluate your own behavior, accept and think about what others might be saying, I'll be open to discussion. Until then, I'm not going to be fodder for you to try to slap around just because I have a different perspective. But, of course, I will still read what you and others have to post because they do still cause pause for thought, as have a couple of Stella's comments this morning.

Alright, in retrospect the term ad hominem is misguided there. I'm sorry for using it, it has no place there.
I forgot about your post and my reply in the blurt thread.
Did you see the part on the end where I admitted you make good points?

Big words stifle discussion? Sorry, that's how I roll. Using apt words is not a club to batter others with, it is using the best word to describe a situation.

Accept the truth of others' sayings? You mean, give J the chance to admit his wording was wrong by way of generalization? OK. That's done. He's added to that statement, thus enhancing it.

Should we all get along? Totally. I agree 100%. But, how?

Now, of course, I have to scramble back over our whole conversation, see where it went off topic, and see what I said. I'm not saying I'm right in all I've said (that'd be stupid), but I'm not quite seeing it now. I was pissed posting this morning, but I won't use that as an excuse.

 

[ImOnIt]

that's how I roll.

It is required to do your best to be understood. Constructive criticism here, you do tend to choose larger words where smaller will do (or be better, even). Also, to know the technical term for a phenomena does not mean you understand it better than someone who thinks of it in other words.

The GB is an ocean of piss.

The GB is all id.

These statements are pretty much equivalent. Undeveloped humans. GB-icide, anyone?

 

[teknight]

It is required to do your best to be understood. Constructive criticism here, you do tend to choose larger words where smaller will do (or be better, even). Also, to know the technical term for a phenomena does not mean you understand it better than someone who thinks of it in other words.

They might reach a wider audience, I'll give you that, but, I don't necessarily agree on how well they'll do.

Understood? You think I understand myself?

 

[JMohegan]

You can't really lump all religions and all religious views into a single discussion. As we've seen, there are a lot of bright, open-minded people who believe in some flavor or another of a higher power.

The real problem is closed-mindedness. It seems like people have the capacity to categorically accept one point of view, excluding all others. In islam, look at the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. In Ireland it's the Catholics versus the Protestants. The ideological differences to an outsider looking in are small, yet think about all the people who've died in the fighting.

Religion isn't the only side you find that on. Science supporters often pride themselves on their open mindedness, but a lot of fact-minded people are quick to ridicule religion without ever really understanding it. It's easy to blow religion off because there's little empirical support and it seems like it's just a bunch of stories in a book, but the moral structure of the laws in western civilization is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Turn the other cheek. Thou shalt not kill. Forgive those who trespass. Help thy neighbor. Like it or not, there it is.

I wish more people around the world were better at just saying, "I don't get the praying towards Mecca six times a day, but you're a good neighbor, it's cool that our kids are friends, and sure I'll keep an eye on your house and pick up your mail for you while you're on vacation." IOW, let's let ideology be a personal choice, but understand that we're all sort of in this together.

Religious faith results from the attempt to explain the unknown with hope and fantasy.

Science results from the attempt to explain the unknown with observation and reason.

I'd say the real problem is that people so often confuse the two.

As for the bit in bold - I have it on very good authority [Netzach, who's either on vacation or tired of making this point] that "turn the other cheek" is most decidedly NOT a Jewish principle.

More broadly, with regard to our laws, I do not see your point. The people who wrote the Bible incorporated their (obviously pre-existing) notions of right & wrong into the stories therein...... okay, so what? What does that show, other than the fact that humans embraced those notions of right & wrong before the Bible was written?

If you mean to suggest that the Bible was divinely inspired, or rather that the Bible is evidence of God interjecting his thoughts and tenets into human society, then your point is not one that I can acknowledge as valid. Why? Because I don't share your fantasy notion regarding that Sentient Being.

 

[JMohegan]

Cool your jets.

Like it or not, it's a fact. The laws on most western countries were written by followers of Christianity. Their values and beliefs shaped the laws they wrote. Or maybe you have a different theory.

Of course they were written by Christians.

That's because so many rulers, from Constantine onward, were so skilled at using the Christian religion to pacify and subjugate the masses, while enriching and empowering themselves.

Christianity is the ultimate carrot/stick combo. The promise of eternal life in Heaven. The threat of eternal Hell.

 

[ImOnIt]

"turn the other cheek"

For an even-handed spanking. This thread is now sexual innuendo.

 

[teknight]

Of course they were written by Christians.

That's because so many rulers, from Constantine onward, were so skilled at using the Christian religion to pacify and subjugate the masses, while enriching and empowering themselves.

Christianity is the ultimate carrot/stick combo. The promise of eternal life in Heaven. The threat of eternal Hell.

OH, come on, you make it sound like they were anointed by god or some such.
The rulers couldn't rule without the church's consent- can you say "the walk to Canossa"?

 

[teknight]

As for the bit in bold - I have it on very good authority [Netzach, who's either on vacation or tired of making this point] that "turn the other cheek" is most decidedly NOT a Jewish principle.

Not trying to be ageist here, but isn't turn the other cheek a New Testament- Jesus thing?

 

[teknight]

So, science wins by a mile?

You know, I have a confession to make. I am intolerant... of ignorance.

 

[midwestyankee]

So, science wins by a mile?

You know, I have a confession to make. I am intolerant... of ignorance.

You are forgiven.

Now, for your penance, my son, read five chapters of Kant and repeat the periodic table twelve times.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

So, science wins by a mile?

You know, I have a confession to make. I am intolerant... of ignorance.

I despise the intolerant. Death to you all!

 

[teknight]

You are forgiven.

Now, for your penance, my son, read five chapters of Kant and repeat the periodic table twelve times.

But the elements in the unu's are difficult!
H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, is apparently as far as I can get unassisted. Better get to making an ass of myself to finish it.

I despise the intolerant. Death to you all!

I embrace your intolerance. The better to back stab you with.

 

[Cleopatra]

But the elements in the unu's are difficult!
H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, is apparently as far as I can get unassisted. Better get to making an ass of myself to finish it.

-shaking my head-

That's sad. ; )

And how come only the popular elements get mentioned? No one mentions the Pb or Xe or Mn...

 

[ImOnIt]

H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O

I see your H-O and raise you fluorine, neon, sodium ,.magnesium, aluminium, silocon, phosphorous, sulfur, cholrine, argon, potassium and calcium.

Fluorine
Uranium
Carbon
Potassium

*sunglasses on*

 

[teknight]

-shaking my head-

That's sad. ; )

And how come only the popular elements get mentioned? No one mentions the Pb or Xe or Mn...

Led, Xenon and... that other one?
I'd mention them, but they're too heavy to make it to the front of the list.
I mean, gimme Iridium, Germanium, Francium, and all the Au and Pt you can, but, don't expect me to know their exact placement in the periodic table.

 

[teknight]

I see your H-O and raise you fluorine, neon, sodium ,.magnesium, aluminium, silocon, phosphorous, sulfur, cholrine, argon, potassium and calcium.

What's a silocon?

 

[Cleopatra]

Led, Xenon and... that other one?
I'd mention them, but they're too heavy to make it to the front of the list.
I mean, gimme Iridium, Germanium, Francium, and all the Au and Pt you can, but, don't expect me to know their exact placement in the periodic table.

Manganese.

I suppose most people don't need to know The Table like I know the Table...

 

[teknight]

Manganese.

I suppose most people don't need to know The Table like I know the Table...

I sometimes eat at the table, and it's made of various elements (of which carbon is key, I'd imagine... unless it's aluminum), but, my chemistry days are behind me by 9 years, and I didn't even know the table then. I know. I know. I've got no chemistry with chemistry.

 

[ImOnIt]

What's a silocon?

Silicone. One day I was sealing thousands of windows with silicone, and the word became silly-cone.

Then I felt like a soft-serve icecream with a happy face made of sweets. THAT would be a silly cone.

 

[Cleopatra]

Silicone. One day I was sealing thousands of windows with silicone, and the word became silly-cone.

Then I felt like a soft-serve icecream with a happy face made of sweets. THAT would be a silly cone.

(Wiki says it best.... Silicone: Not to be confused with the metalloid chemical element Silicon.)