Again, it's seems to boil down to semantics. Dismissing is too strong a word. Perhaps allow without interference? Various branches of science don't typically question other branches. I'm thinking something more along those lines than dismissal, contention, conflict, etc. Now someone will...
They don't. If you mean supernatural, I said they don't. [ETA: though as an afterthought I would say that in the past "science" has tested what was thought to be supernatural when it becomes apparent it isn't.]
Don't be sorry, this is not unusual. You might as well ask the cat. I think outside the box. The box is here and I'm stumbling around way over there in the dark mumbling incoherently to myself. Take it with a grain of salt, as they say. What I was trying to get at, in the context of our...
I wouldn't use the term differences of opinion, I mean that both sides have various opinions but they are more often than not unfairly pitted against one another in an ideologically inappropriate manner. The differences of opinion should logically be irrelevant. I would just simplify that to...
Okay. What if it was? You've got all the facts necessary to weigh the rational - you never need all the facts, can't ever have all the facts - but now which is the deciding factor? Ration or ideology? Isn't that redundant? If rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic and...
Ah, now I see where this is going. Duh. Should have seen that coming, huh? :eek:
Actually for the sake of argument, let's look at your take on my casual announcement.
Atheism is a theism. That is, a part of theism. A position or preference regarding theism as apolitical is political in that...
As far as I can tell, that almost completely sums it up from a more practical presumption than the idealistic one I presented in the OP. In essence, the science vs religion debate, no matter how much evidence is exchanged, or at least presented, is opinion. Not science. Not theology. Ideology...
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
The topic of discussion is ideology. The OP is an anecdotal explanation of the basics of how ideology effects human behavior, and though it could, I think, be applied to anything, the OP specifically dealt with the forum theme of science and religion. So...
Ah the response of an ideologue evidence is opinion facts are propaganda truth is illusion and money talks the sheep draw the line in the sand for the shepherd in wolf's clothing and both science and religion are his flock.
"The term ideology originates from French idéologie, itself deriving from combining Greek: idéā (ἰδέα, 'notion, pattern'; close to the Lockean sense of idea) and -logíā (-λογῐ́ᾱ, 'the study of').
The term ideology, and the system of ideas associated with it, was coined in 1796 by Antoine...
Method is a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one. Faith is trust. The Latin word credit means literally "one believes," the words credit, credible, credentials, signify faith. Religion is, in essence, ritual and...
Ideology: the science of ideas. It's the most significant and potentially harmful method for either advancement or stagnation. When an idea becomes a part of the individual or collective consciousness objectivity is sacrificed and the idea, right or wrong, must be defended rather than reexamined...
Knowledge. Familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Facts are things that are known or proved to be true. Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted as true. Science is the observation and interpretation of reality. Reality is the world or the state of...
If I expected anyone to take me seriously I wouldn't have said anything. Curiosity got the cat. Don't worry, not too much more nonsense from me. I will be reading more than posting. I want to study what it was like before organized religion and politics became a thing of the past.
The future regarding the outcome of Ukraine is, from the perspective of someone in my time, the same as any other nation. Specifically in regards to the current situation there, things aren't much different than in the last 100-400 years? But, as always, there are multiple possibilities. No sort...
Basically, yes. But I knew that would be the result. I'm very interested in spirituality and, ironically I'm trapped in the present as an android while my physical body decays in my own time. How do I say that grammatically correct? My body will have decayed? No . . . I don't know, but in order...
That's funny and somewhat true on some levels. It was odd that he mentioned mobile phones, though, because it was first invented in, what? 1917, 1919? Something like that. Who's going to be the President in the future was funny. There are no nations or presidents in my time, like there aren't...