Science IS religion

[Dan From Smithville]

dad, your constant running away means that is the only consistent point that can be made.

A person that really believes what he claims to believe does not run away. When you run away you look like a fraud. At least idiots like Kent Hovind are not afraid of being made to look like idiots.

Ken is not afraid to do the work himself. I admire his efficiency.

 

[stvdv]

For descriptor of science, i'd rather take religion to be honest. At least it implies strict regime and rules. Spirituality is just a cop out.

That obviously is just "your opinion". Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it.

 

[Darkstorn]

That obviously is just "your opinion". Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it.

You are obviously angry and you are obviously making false claims of myself. You misunderstood what i was saying.

For descriptor of science, i'd pick religion over spirituality. Neither is appropriate but the other one is at least closer. That's all.

And i do know this about spirituality: Mine is not contingent on making claims of others. Yours is. Pick your poison.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is funny. When I first read some of the loopy ideas associated with this thread, Jimbo was the first person that popped into my mind.

We could always ask dad about his opinion of cats and tack strips.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We could always ask dad about his opinion of cats and tack strips.

I have lots of carpet related questions myself. Answering them would be more interesting than the posts he keeps in heavy rotation.

 

[stvdv]

You are obviously angry and you are obviously making false claims of myself. You misunderstood what i was saying.
For descriptor of science, i'd pick religion over spirituality. Neither is appropriate but the other one is at least closer. That's all.
And i do know this about spirituality: Mine is not contingent on making claims of others. Yours is. Pick your poison.

You were the one starting "Spirituality is a cop out" to which I just remarked that you don't know about my spirituality. I kept it 100% personal to myself
Now you start calling me "obviously angry" and misinterpretating what I said "as making false claims". You are the one misunderstanding it seems.

But I get used to that. Some people like to fill in how others should believe, as if they know best. And now even pretend to know that I am angry. I'm not

 

[Darkstorn]

You were the one starting "Spirituality is a cop out" to which I just remarked that you don't know about my spirituality.

For this context:

Descriptor of science.

Reading comprehension.

I kept it 100% personal to myself

Your typing these words here is a testament to that being a false statement.

Now you start calling me "obviously angry"

You are. Now you're even angrier after reading this post.

And misinterpretating what I said "as making false claims". You are the one misunderstanding it seems.

What you actually said: "Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it."

That is a claim of my level of knowledge, not your level of spirituality. And my response is that you CANNOT know, therefore you have jumped the gun, and are making a false claim.

But I get used to that. Some people like to fill in how others should believe, as if they know best. And now even pretend to know that I am angry.

"Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it."

Think about it. I don't think your spirituality is as deep as YOU think it is. You seem to be a student at best if you cannot disconnect yourself from things you accuse others of doing.

I'm not

THREE emoticons? NONE would have been a lot more convincing.

 

[stvdv]

What you actually said: "Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it."

No that was not belittling towards you. Then I would have added something like "Your way is a cop out" or something like that.
I just told you that you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it (you never met me). Which is:
1) Very strict rules
2) Lots of introspection
3) Many disciplines and very hard work ... definitely not a "cop out" as you called it

I have a totally different picture of spirituality. That is all I told you.

So you should not fill it in for me, which you did by saying "spirituality is a cop out".
That is just your opinion. And that is what I told you.

 

[Darkstorn]

No that was not belittling towards you. Then I would have added something like "Your way is a cop out" or something like that.

Context: Descriptor of science. Everything else is your addition to what i claimed. I made NO claims of YOUR spirituality, or anyone elses' for that matter. I just think it's a very poor descriptor for science.

I bore you no ill will. And regardless, you did make a claim of my knowledge level.

I just told you that you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it (you never met me). Which is:
1) Very strict rules
2) Lots of introspection
3) Many disciplines and very hard work ... definitely not a "cop out" as you called it

I might not, but you don't really know that. It's an educated guess at the very best, and you know it. I'm simply trying to give you the lesson of carefulness. My posts were literal and had no additional baggage implied.

I might actually know. But i think it's also relevant to note that all 3 of those are actually good descriptors for religion. In my view spirituality comes from "values and meanings." And the only "rules" those have are different between every person...

So not rules in the way i mean, a more proper thing would be a "not-rule." Total, full individuality, has total, full individuality in "rules" making them not-rules-at-all.

Same goes for disciplines. I believe "spirituality" can only be "quantified" by introspection. Anything else, and you're adding additional baggage.

Note, now i'm talking about MY opinions of spirituality. But i wasn't before.

Science on the other hand just has one set of rules, and one set of methodology. They don't differ between people. So i think personally you're stretching the meaning of spirituality if you're actually trying to use it to describe science.

The only way it would be comparable, in my opinion, is if everyone had the SAME ideas of spirituality. Only then would these "rules" and "disciplines" be comparable to the ones found in science.

I have a totally different picture of spirituality. That is all I told you.

You don't know, and you could be wrong. I suggest caution. I actually made no other accusations or assumptions about you except for this:

That you might be angry and that you made claims of me.

So you should not fill it in for me, which you did by saying "spirituality is a cop out".
That is just your opinion. And that is what I told you.

But that's still you purposefully misreading what i said, i've tried to correct you three times. When i say i didn't say what you think i did, why don't you believe me? I've no reason to lie.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Meaning of belief in English
[ C or S or U ]
UK /bɪˈliːf/ US /bɪˈliːf/
feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:


something that you believe:


BELIEF | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Ha

Notebook: NOTHING in the above? Says ANYTHING about EVIDENCE.

This is IMPORTANT... the poster above? Is deathly AFRAID OF EVIDENCE.

Proof? He won't click on links... such as:


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Prediction: He will NOT CLICK. He will instead? INSULT, AND?

Run Awaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!

Oh, and he'll falsely use the word "spam" as if he understood what it means in this context...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

While belief in the One true God .

STOP. Citation needed. You have any evidence of this blatant falsehood?

Until you do? Nothing else you may punch out with two fingers, on your battered keyboard has any relevance.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I have read some of His word, so I am not one of those making stuff up about creation. I use His stuff. Great material it is!

Who's word? Yours? Someone you know?

Citation Needed: you have no evidence.

 

[dad]

But what about over 6000 years? Since you're proposing a limit there. I'm talking about last thursday, 6666 years ago, obviously.

So it's not a straw man at all.

Without venturing too far off topic, I suspect that the change occurred over a century after the time of the flood. That would be something like say 4500 years ago real time, or some 70 million faith based imaginary years based on a same state past based interpretation of isotope patterns.(decay)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would likely not return rapidly to dust but leave remains.

Unless you were put into a compost heap-- of course, that would likely poison the compost...

 

[dad]

STOP. Citation needed. You have any evidence of this blatant falsehood?

Until you do? Nothing else you may punch out with two fingers, on your battered keyboard has any relevance.

I use bible terms you can call Him tomatoe if you like.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Funny, i was going to say that you sure post a lot, but none of it is worth reading.

Or really even responding to. I'm just doing it for entertainment.

Indeed-- it's like watching a slow motion train wreck, only with toy trains and wooden blocks...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Without venturing too far off topic, I suspect that the change occurred over a century after the time of the flood. That would be something like say 4500 years ago real time, or some 70 million faith based imaginary years based on a same state past based interpretation of isotope patterns.(decay)

Who cares what YOU suspect? You have -- repeatedly-- demonstrated a deathly fear of EVIDENCE.

You don't have ANY.

And you are deathly afraid of looking at any.

So your opinion is worth the same as a dog's opinion of the Super Bowl.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I use bible terms you can call Him tomatoe if you like.

Is it your bible? Did YOU write it? No? Well, there you go then-- it is quite obvious you are as clueless about the bible, and what it means, as you are about everything else.

Run Awaaaaaayyyy!!!

 

[Darkstorn]

Without venturing too far off topic, I suspect that the change occurred over a century after the time of the flood. That would be something like say 4500 years ago real time, or some 70 million faith based imaginary years based on a same state past based interpretation of isotope patterns.(decay)

So, the earth was formed around 4500 years ago, on a thursday, with the appearance of millions* of years to a large percentage of the human population.

Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki

Here's a corruption of a quote found from that page:

"if the world was created around 4500 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what is there to stop us from claiming it was made Thursday, around 4500 years ago?" **

Do you now see the similarity between your beliefs and last thursdayism? Because it's not JUST a similarity... It's the exact same thing.

* Actually billions.

** i added the 4500 years part based on new data provided to us by dad. The original quote is talking about 6000 years.

 

[dad]

Why do you think that one would have to leave the Solar System?

If all one wanted to (like science does) is look at light HERE FROM elsewhere, one need not get off his armchair. If, however one makes supposedly scientific claims ABOUT what time is like out there, OR bases models upon the premise, THEN one does not know what one was talking about. (shoe...meet foot)

And yes, light comes here.

It is also seen here after it gets here only, that should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy.