Purposes Not Dolphins
SJAB1958
found in the physical world. It can never be - and never should be
- used to disprove the existence of anything that may lay beyond its
bounds.
The purpose of religion is to lay down, affirm and apply those
doctrines suited to spiritual development and moral living. It can
never be - and never should be - used as a means of challenging
known facts relating to the past, present and future of the physical
world.
Any attempt to bring these two viewpoints into conflict is bound to
fail if these purposes are not maintained.
So tell me why do so many - including myself in the past - argue over
which is true and which is not?
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
DougC
SJAB1958 wrote:
> The purpose of religion is to lay down, affirm and apply those
> doctrines suited to spiritual development and moral living.
That is far too bland. The more obvious purpose of the major religions
is to recruit worshipers and then keep them in line. This is done by
threats of eternity in hell or the promise of paradise. Another major
purpose is to eradicate infidels.
> It can
> never be - and never should be - used as a means of challenging
> known facts relating to the past, present and future of the physical
> world.
At least the Christian fundamentalists argue without foaming at the
mouth - or instead of taking up the sword. They erroneously perceive
science as a threat to their recruitment program. It is a logical
error. They don't need no stinking logic because that is something
those scientists do.
Doug Chandler
Robert J. Kolker
> The purpose of science is to explore, explain and utilise the phenomena
> found in the physical world. It can never be - and never should be
> - used to disprove the existence of anything that may lay beyond its
> bounds.
Correct. For science, explaining the supernatural (assuming it even
exists) is like pissing up a rope. Science is confined to the natural realm.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Did you make that pun in the Subject line on porpoise?
He does that quite dolphin.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> At least the Christian fundamentalists argue without foaming at the
> mouth - or instead of taking up the sword. They erroneously perceive
> science as a threat to their recruitment program. It is a logical
> error. They don't need no stinking logic because that is something
> those scientists do.
And they generally do not crash hijacked airplains into tall science
department buildings. The only folks I know who burn down or blow up
scientific establishments are the loonies from PETA.
Bob Kolker
Richard Smol
So long and thanks for all the fish!
RS
Jack Crenshaw
So, Doug ...
How long have you been a bigot?
Jack Crenshaw
Well said. So why do so many here keep attacking the other side?
I think they think it makes them look clever.
It doesn't.
Jack
dysfunction
I disagree, by definition there is no such thing as the supernatural.
If God exists, God is not supernatural, except by the narrow definition
by which we define supernatural. God may operate by DIFFERENT laws of
physics than the ones we already know, but if he exists he does operate
by (in principle) explainable laws. The natural is what exists, the
supernatural is what doesn't exist, except as memes. If telepathy or
deities, etc., are real, we can eventually understand them. Telepathy
may work by electromagnetism, or some undiscovered force, but if it is
real it works by theoretically understandable universal laws. The same
goes for gods. Arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove the
supernatural is like arguing that logic shouldn't try to disprove
illogic.
Tim K.
"dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146335670.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>SJAB1958 wrote:
>>> The purpose of science is to explore, explain and utilise the phenomena
>>> found in the physical world. It can never be - and never should be
>>> - used to disprove the existence of anything that may lay beyond its
>>> bounds.
>
>>Correct. For science, explaining the supernatural (assuming it even
>>exists) is like pissing up a rope. Science is confined to the natural
>>realm.
>
> I disagree, by definition there is no such thing as the supernatural.
Might want to check your "definition" again.
Greg G.
Can you provide us with a cetacean for that assertion?
Greg G.
Many people miss the subtlety.
>
> Jack
--
Greg G.
A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
--Dorothy Leigh Sayers
Andrew W
news:1146301909.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fear and ego mainly.
I think there is more fear and ego in religion. Scientists don't start wars
or threaten you with damnation if you don't join their club.
--
Andrew W.
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of
any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of
existence.”
~ Robert Anton Wilson
"The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes
God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the
political behaviour of Western Civilization.”
~ Robert Anton Wilson
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Pip R. Lagenta
Take your time. I have things to do whale I wait.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Kermit
dysfunction wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> >SJAB1958 wrote:
> >> The purpose of science is to explore, explain and utilise the phenomena
> >> found in the physical world. It can never be - and never should be
> >> - used to disprove the existence of anything that may lay beyond its
> >> bounds.
>
> >Correct. For science, explaining the supernatural (assuming it even
> >exists) is like pissing up a rope. Science is confined to the natural realm.
>
> I disagree, by definition there is no such thing as the supernatural.
> If God exists, God is not supernatural, except by the narrow definition
> by which we define supernatural. God may operate by DIFFERENT laws of
> physics than the ones we already know, but if he exists he does operate
> by (in principle) explainable laws. The natural is what exists, the
> supernatural is what doesn't exist, except as memes. If telepathy or
> deities, etc., are real, we can eventually understand them. Telepathy
> may work by electromagnetism, or some undiscovered force, but if it is
> real it works by theoretically understandable universal laws.
Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, a "Matrix"-like virtual reality,
and we are merely programs running in the larger operating system. God
may be a nerd who can't get a date, and spends a lot of time playing
his Sims version 133.0. We are interactive, and learn, and are
self-motivated, but the ultimate reality is not what it seems to be.
Our instruments and senses are programmed to perceive the OS in an
internally consistent way. God, aka Marvin, can rewrite the
configuration of the game, can interact with us using an avatar, etc.
He could do anything, and has numerous times. The laws of the universe
"out there" may or may not correspond to the laws as we see them.
Now I see no reason to spend any time wondering if this could be real,
but it matches the traditional supernatural quite well. Quite a few of
the mythologies of the world could be interpreted in a manner similar
to this.
So it is not impossible by definition; only untestable.
> The same
> goes for gods. Arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove the
> supernatural is like arguing that logic shouldn't try to disprove
> illogic.
Well... yeah.
Kermit
John Wilkins
> On 29 Apr 2006 13:07:05 -0700, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>> Did you make that pun in the Subject line on porpoise?
>>> He does that quite dolphin.
>> Can you provide us with a cetacean for that assertion?
>
> Take your time. I have things to do whale I wait.
Friar Broccoli
This is one of many messages in which John has stated that he has
kill-filed / filtered out Robert J. Kolker:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fb371c9e3b454cb6
Here are a few samples of why. (There are LOTS more):
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2ce11bcaea90ae14
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0e3072cfe580cb4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1b565f8e66e7e067
Note that this one is in a children's group:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/b9d4a8c5fe44b9b9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9c77df1e57770423
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d86efe66b23fb066
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Glory...@armyofgod.com
animals instead of The One True God, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
http://www.armyofgod.com/PETA.html
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal
hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away
my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my
heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
Tim K.
<Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1146421473.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So what you're saying is that god created us all and we are all defective
(full of *sin*). heh so much for intelligent design.
Peter Barber
> PETA is full of hate and anti-Christian bigotry.
Says our little visiting bodhisattva...
<added to killfile>
--
Peter Barber
SeppoP
So, Jack ...
What was "bigotish" in DougC's message?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Tiny Bulcher
John Wilkins wrote:
> Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2006 13:07:05 -0700, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>> John Wilkins wrote:
> >>>> Did you make that pun in the Subject line on porpoise?
> >>> He does that quite dolphin.
> >> Can you provide us with a cetacean for that assertion?
> >
> > Take your time. I have things to do whale I wait.
> Or, callect your thoughts first.
Why, do they need baleen out before you can find the right answer? The
right answer would be the killer, no? It would certainly cachalot.
Tiny (call me Ishmael)
SeppoP
Well, It just *might* have something to do with the fact that fundamentalist religionists are unhappy with science and
education. Since their wellbeing is entirely dependent on ignorance and infusion of money from the ignorant and
*especially* from the ignorant rich, *and only* create ignorance, nothing else, I don't see why they should not be
attacked? Perhaps you'd like to correct me?