Pope says he prayed to NOT be pope...
absixze...@yahoo.com
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI said Monday he felt like a
"guillotine" was coming down on him when it appeared he might be elected
pontiff, saying he prayed to God to be spared but that "evidently this
time he didn't listen to me."
*************************************************
hmmmm go figure eh? God didn't listen to his prayers. While sorry to
bust your bubble Pope knucklehead, but God's just a "belief" you have.
He didn't listen, becuase, quite frankly, he doesn't exists except in
the hullicinations of hordes of brainwashed "believers"
Black Jacques Shellaque
Just curious ab608, but is your rant directed at the religious in
general or just at John Lauzon?
Defender of Enormous Manhood
So if there is a God he has proved that the Pope is just a man with no more
connection that the Calcutta street urchin.
He has proved that the Pope is not even worth his time.
See you cannot prove God does not exist.
Believe me, many greater than you or I have attempted to prove it - an only
fail to do so.
If God were a number, it would be Zero (0).
Now prove to me if zero exists or does not exist.
Just tell me if zero is positive or negative.
And tha is something as simple as a number.
Frankly the questin of God is vastly more complex than any numbering system,
or application of those systems.
I don't think a person who states adamantly that God does not exist has any
intellectual leg up on he person who claims to know God exists.
My thinking is pretty simple. I won't go so far to say there is no God,
because there is too much to suggest a large intellegence at work in the
Universe. So I will entertain the idea, until proved or disproved
absolutely. So I will entertain the idea until I die.
But what I won't accept is that God is a dumb, illiterate, blithering
asshole.
So as I walk through life, anyone claiming that God is an idiot, a moron, a
complete jerk off, I am going to take issue with simplely because the nature
of God would preclude God being an illiterate, moronic, dolt.
All I see is a bunch of books that cults claim to be the word of God, they
follow those words, but never are able to do so, and they want to force
those words on those who cant accept that God would be an asshole imbecile.
I can't accept it.
Ratslinger had almost half the votes secured before he even stepped into the
election process.
He went in with the intent on coming out a Pope. Otherwise he would not have
backroom dealed and walked in with almost half the votes.
This was public knowledge, published well before the Monday start. HE was
the favored going in, and he knew that because he orchastrated it.
He proved that you can go in wanting to be the Pope and come out the Pope.
Then to keep the pretence that was already smashed by the news that he went
in with nearly half the Cardinals supporting him that he was unwilling,
didn't want the job, but God chose him against his will. He is supposed to
be Holy, in tune with God. But he freely admits that Gd does not listen to
his prayers. I don't know about you, but don't fish stink after 3 days?
But this does not disprove the existence of God. But it does demonstrate how
God is manipulated by men to control people.
Because this man who God doesn't listen to is going to claim he speaks for
and represents God on earth.
Its all about selling something false as something genuine.
The Pope is just a man. He dies alone just like you and I.
He has no special powers, or relationship with God.
He is fake. That doesn't make God fake.
The church is not the house of God. It too is fake.
God does not live in houses. God lives in people.
The body is the temple, not a stone archetecture.
Yes, I cannot prove God exists. You cannot prove he des not exist.
Yet I do know one thing, should God exist, he would not be suffering from
most human mental disorders,and he would not be a stupid idiot.
And this is the God that religion sells.
Sorry, I am not buying shit pretending to be holy.
If Jesus wants my soul, he can come down to earth and make the pitch
himself.
And he'd know that he would have to do this once a generation, because each
generation would say, prove it.
That is human nature, and any God worth being a God is going to understand
human nature better than any psychiatrist or anthopologist.
And I am still waiting for an explaination on why in the early times God was
always hanging around, always talking to one person or the other, doing
miracles, silencing disbelievers, then he does the God as human thing, and
we never, ever hear from him again.
What the bible is 5,000+ years old. Look how often God came in the first
3,000 years. And not one visit in the last 2,000.
It's funny how knowldge and understanding have eliminated most of God's
appearances.
When the sun beats down on the hot dessert, for instance, and a dry bush
ignites in the rays of the sun and burns, we know it was the sun's rays and
the lack of water that caused the combustion. Nobody has to actually set a
bush on fire for it to burn in a blaze under the hot sun. But if you don't
know, then it must be an act of God. You might even hallucinate, because it
is so hot, and you are dehydrated, and so you here the burning bush talk to
you. So when bushes burn on their own now adays, we know it is not God, just
a hot sun and lack of water.
Every Miracle that the Biblical God does is just a natural event,
mis-understood.
Be it the flooding of the Reed Sea (not the Red Sea), or a bad locust
season.
Or bacteria in the water turning it red. We can test for bacteria now. Back
then red liquid was blood.
The beleif in God is based on the fact that there are natural events that
occur and we have no control over them.
We know if we make an action there is an effect. We don't make the earth
rumble. The presure in the earth's molten core does.
Still these events occur with us or without us. Therefore it is logical to
conclude that a greater force than ourselves is the cause that results in
the effect we can see.
We couldn't see bacteria back then. And that is a force that plagued us.
Everything bacteria did was attributed to God.
I think God is a product of existentialism. The awareness of self. Knowing
that we are part of the natural world and seperate from it at the same time.
What is outside us something else controls, still we are part of it. And
that same something that controls things outside of us may very well control
us too. Our awareness is not required.
But if we are going to find God, or disprove God, it's going to be science
that does it - not religion.
Science is not limited. It is a product of our imagination. We could not
cross a river without getting wet, until we engineered a bridge.
We could not fly like a bird, until we discovered the concept of lift. Now
we fly farther, higher, faster than any bird.
Eventually we will disect the universe and understand how it works. And in
that pursuit God will be affirmed or the idea will be nullified.
It is not blind faith that will lead us to God, but our brains and science.
It reminds me of Huidini. When he lost his mother, he sought out a medium to
communicate with her spirit.
In his search he became know for exposing charletains, equiped with the
perceptions of an escape artist, he'd alsways find their tricks.
But even though he never found anyone legitimate, he never gave up on the
thought or idea that the dead can be spoken to through a medium.
As far as I am concerned religion has been exposed as fake. But that does
not negate the reasons why people believe there is, may, might be a God.
But it is clear only idots think God would be such and idiot.
<absixze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:absixzeroeight-A62...@news.cogeco.ca...
John Fleming
scriptorium, "Defender of Enormous Manhood"
<Defenderofen...@rogers.com> wrote:
> $It also proves that even the Pope's prayers go un-answered..
> $So if there is a God he has proved that the Pope is just a man with no more
> $connection that the Calcutta street urchin.
> $He has proved that the Pope is not even worth his time.
Or maybe God has simply decided that Pope Benedict XVI is, despite Pope
Benedict XVI's wishes to the contrary, the best person to lead the Roman
Catholic Church.
Based on the assumption that God exists, what God wants is more
important than what we, as individuals, want.
Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
the suburbs.
To materialistic? Maybe. Definitely a lot more materialistic than
praying to not be made Pope.
Perhaps an admission to that kind of prayer is simply an admission on
the Pope's part that he has a really big pair of shoes to fill, and he's
got a few self doubts.
I'm sure, as the Pope settles into his new office, that he will do a
fine job. It's just that, for him, it's a pretty big leap.
[snip]
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
A Dreamer is One Who Can Only Find Her
Way by Moonlight.
-- Oscar Wilde
Bart
Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote in message
news:pAdbe.5$vN2.0@clgrps13...
Has your stay in the pen, made you that stupid
The Doctor
Still the Catholics asked God for guidance.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
UK as 5 May 2005 approaches, vote LDem!!
Black Jacques Shellaque
>
>
>
>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
>question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
>the suburbs.
>
>
>
John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
'em in :-)
Black Jacques Shellaque
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>Is that after Fat Tuesday, where they party their brains out and repent
>later? Gotta love a religion that sticks to the rules.
>
>
Where does it say that Catholics can't party?
TopPoster
How long did it take you to work that out
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4k6fi$9ff$4...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
The Doctor
He can tell stories.
The Doctor
Time Lord <time...@time.lord> wrote:
>The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message:
>news:<d4k6fi$9ff$4...@gallifrey.nk.ca>
>later? Gotta love a religion that sticks to the rules.
I was referring to conclave.
Ivan Gowch
<Defenderofen...@rogers.com> wrote:
[snip]
==>I won't go so far to say there is no God,
==>because there is too much to suggest a large intellegence at work in the
==>Universe.
I beg to differ.
The fact that the poorly understood forces that
shape the universe created a planet where one
species of creature runs around building stuff
and killing its fellow creatures is not proof of
an intelligence at work.
If there is even a shred of such evidence I would
love to see it, but in the entire history of mankind,
no one has been able to offer it.
Complexity is not evidence of intelligence, nor is
our existence proof that our emergence was anything
other than happenstance.
Cheers.
--
Where religion rules, truth is an outlaw.
-Ivan Gowch
John Fleming
scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
> $John Fleming wrote:
> $
> $>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
> $>question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
> $>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
> $>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
> $>the suburbs.
> $>
> $ John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
> $'em in :-)
Problem is, I probably would have flunked theology school. My bent is
considerably more towards the sciences.
Black Jacques Shellaque
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:55:40 GMT, while chained to a desk in the
>scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
>
>
>>$John Fleming wrote:
>>$
>>$>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
>>$>question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
>>$>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
>>$>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
>>$>the suburbs.
>>$>
>>$ John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
>>$'em in :-)
>>
>>
>
>Problem is, I probably would have flunked theology school. My bent is
>considerably more towards the sciences.
>
>
>
Ah, but Porsches, blondes and big hooters....now THAT'S a prayer :-P
The Doctor
John Fleming <npno...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:55:40 GMT, while chained to a desk in the
>scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
>> $John Fleming wrote:
>> $
>> $>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
>> $>question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
>> $>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
>> $>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
>> $>the suburbs.
>> $>
>> $ John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
>> $'em in :-)
>
>Problem is, I probably would have flunked theology school. My bent is
>considerably more towards the sciences.
>
Theology IS a science!
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4moqt$4e5$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
John Fleming
scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
> $John Fleming wrote:
> $>scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
> $>
> $>>$
> $>>$>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
> $>>$>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
> $>>$>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
> $>>$>the suburbs.
> $>>$>
> $>>$ John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
> $>
> $>Problem is, I probably would have flunked theology school. My bent is
> $>considerably more towards the sciences.
> $>
> $ Ah, but Porsches, blondes and big hooters....now THAT'S a prayer :-P
It's not hard to cook up something that would oique a lot of men's
interest.
John Fleming
scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $In article <j8mt61hme93peffdd...@4ax.com>,
> $John Fleming <npno...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:55:40 GMT, while chained to a desk in the
> $>scriptorium, Black Jacques Shellaque <spam...@re.vermin> wrote:
> $>> $John Fleming wrote:
> $>> $
> $>> $>Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
> $>> $>while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
> $>> $>tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
> $>> $>the suburbs.
> $>> $>
> $>> $ John, you should have been a minister. Sermons like that would pack
> $>
> $>considerably more towards the sciences.
> $
> $Theology IS a science!
Not if memory serves me right.
Certainly not in the way the physical sciences like chemistry, physics
and biology would be viewed as sciences. And likely not in the way
social sciences like economics, sociology and psychology would be viewed
as science.
Much more likely to be grouped with the humanities, like philosophy.
Defender of Enormous Manhood
"John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:ec1r615v8934avk5b...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:58:23 -0400, while chained to a desk in the
> scriptorium, "Defender of Enormous Manhood"
> <Defenderofen...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> $It also proves that even the Pope's prayers go un-answered..
>> $So if there is a God he has proved that the Pope is just a man with no
>> more
>> $connection that the Calcutta street urchin.
>> $He has proved that the Pope is not even worth his time.
>
> Or maybe God has simply decided that Pope Benedict XVI is, despite Pope
> Benedict XVI's wishes to the contrary, the best person to lead the Roman
> Catholic Church.
Well I would question the entire system. Because with over 6 billion people
in the world for God to pick to lead the Holy Roman Catholic church, why do
you think he'd just select from among Cardinals? What shit must be wedged
between your ears to think for one second that the best person to lead the
church would be a Cardinal. You think you'd want somebody that wasn't
corrupted by the institution of the church. You know an outsider filled
witht he spirit of God. Perhaps some humble carpenter? I mean God put his
money on a humble carpenter? How can a Cardinal be a better choice pool than
a carpenter?
Not or maybe. The guy used politics to position himself as the favored
candidate before the voting began.
He had confirmed support of almost half the Cardinals before the voting
began. And I am certian behind those closed doors in secret, he lobbied hard
for the position. What kind of idiots do you think Cardinals are to vote in
a guy as Pope who didn't want to be Pope? Of course he wanted to be Pope
going into the voting. And for that we are told he should have come out a
Cardinal. I mean you can imagine what ever fancy you wish, but the facts are
the guy was politicing for the position before hand, had confirmed support
going into the voting, and lobbied hard to get the majority votes.
Even though they tell us for that he should have left a Cardinal.
Inotherwords the Pope is not supposed to be riven by personal ambition. It
is clear this was the case. And agains how can just over a hundred men
represent the best the world has to offer. So God sure didn't pick the Pope.
I will agree, God has not struck the Pope down. But then God doesn't give
two shits about any stupid church. That's made made shit.
So he'd have no reason to smite te Pope. Well not yet. But face it, this is
a short term pick. The guy is ancient and due to die any day.
He is obviously the choice of a bunch of Cardinals who could not really make
a choice. A temporary patch.
>
> Based on the assumption that God exists, what God wants is more
> important than what we, as individuals, want.
Oh yeah, and you know what God wants. The Church knows what God wants. Dream
on!
>
> Imagine if God went around granting everything we pray for without
> question. Hmmmm. Maybe I should pray for a nice red Porsche. And
> while we are at it, how about a nice chick with long blonde hair and big
> tits. Let's throw in a lakeside cottage and a 2500 square foor home in
> the suburbs.
Yes, we all know God never answers anyone's prayers.
There is a reason why when you pray for things that would prove there is a
God, you don't get it.
See you can pray for things that are possible and likely, and then wow, your
prayers will be answered.
But they are not answered by God. Either you answer them yourself, or
someone else does.
It is not likely a Porsche is going to materialize in your driveway because
you prayed for it.
>
> To materialistic? Maybe. Definitely a lot more materialistic than
> praying to not be made Pope.
Yeah, only he demonstrated he wanted to be Pope before he was made Pope.
And that is a lot worse than materialism.
> Perhaps an admission to that kind of prayer is simply an admission on
> the Pope's part that he has a really big pair of shoes to fill, and he's
> got a few self doubts.
Well sure it's a Big Job. But it is also a snowjob.
He is lying. He wanted the job, he pushed for it, lobbied for it and got
it.
That was just a line to make him appear to have some humility - but it is
false, fake humility.
And it shows he does not have God's ear, or that God just doesn't like the
guy.
> I'm sure, as the Pope settles into his new office, that he will do a
> fine job. It's just that, for him, it's a pretty big leap.
You know it's a job anyone can do. It's figurehead shit.
I think any one would settle in and do a fine job.
Especially if you had wanted the job badly and fought to get it.
I was thinking wouldn't it be cool if this guy lasts 26 years as Pope too?
Okay most of that time he would be senile and venerable, but if God wants
him in the job, he won't be daying any day, he'll live long.
And you can't get fired once you are Pope. You can step down, but you don't
have to, even with senility. Well it would be honest.
A mindless leader, leading sheep to hell!
The Doctor
The Doctor
TopPoster
now saying religion is a science
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4o0b2$1ai$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
The Doctor
TopPoster <TopP...@Poster.com,> wrote:
>Doctor are you brain dead or do you act that way to get sympathy? are you
>now saying religion is a science
>
>
Look who is talking. Of course religion is a science.
TopPoster
I'm selling for the City of Edmonton
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4ot8u$lgc$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
The Doctor
TopPoster <TopP...@Poster.com,> wrote:
>If you have money I can get you a good deal on the High Level Bridge that
>I'm selling for the City of Edmonton
>
Not interested.
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4papt$1h9$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
John Fleming
scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $ISn't philosophy a science?
No.
It's a humanity.
The Doctor
John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
>
>No.
>
>It's a humanity.
>
No, it is both.
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d4qnr0$j0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
John Fleming
> $John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the> $>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
> $>
> $>No.
> $>
> $>It's a humanity.
> $
> $No, it is both.
It is a hummanity, or a liberal art, but not a science.
Ivan Gowch
(The Doctor) wrote:
==>In article <rlt071h32kd5ots65...@4ax.com>,
==>John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
==>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
==>>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
==>>
==>>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
==>>No.
==>>
==>>It's a humanity.
==>No, it is both.
No, it's not. There's absolutely nothing scientific
about either philosophy or religion.
Religion, in fact, is the diametric opposite of
science.
The Doctor
The Doctor
John Fleming
> $Ivan Gowch <the_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> $>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:18:24 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
> $>(The Doctor) wrote:
> $>
> $>==>John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>==>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
> $>==>>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $>==>>
> $>==>>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
> $>
> $>==>>No.
> $>==>>
> $>==>>It's a humanity.
> $>
> $>==>No, it is both.
> $>
> $> No, it's not. There's absolutely nothing scientific
> $> about either philosophy or religion.
> $>
> $> Religion, in fact, is the diametric opposite of
> $> science.
> $
> $You really a nitwit! What about the 15th century?
The fact that science, back in the 15th century, was called natural
philosophy is immaterial.
Even with that, the best you could argue is that science is a form of
philosophy, but philosophy is not necessarily science.
In modern usage of the terms, science and philosophy are two totally
separate disciplines. A person can study philosophy without ever
studying science, and a person can study science without ever studying
philosophy.. The two do not overlap.
John Fleming
> $John Fleming <tiun...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:18:24 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the> $>> $In article <rlt071h32kd5ots65...@4ax.com>,
> $>> $John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>> $>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
> $>> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $>> $>
> $>> $>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
> $>> $>
> $>> $>No.
> $>> $>
> $>> $>It's a humanity.
> $>> $
> $>> $No, it is both.
> $>It is a hummanity, or a liberal art, but not a science.
> $
> $What about symbolic Logic?
What about it??
The Doctor
John Fleming <no_...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:22:16 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> $In article <n6d371pk157q7q7g9...@4ax.com>,
>> $John Fleming <tiun...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> $>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:18:24 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
>> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> $>> $In article <rlt071h32kd5ots65...@4ax.com>,
>> $>> $John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> $>> $>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
>> $>> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> $>> $>
>> $>> $>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
>> $>> $>
>> $>> $>No.
>> $>> $>
>> $>> $>It's a humanity.
>> $>> $
>> $>> $No, it is both.
>> $>
>> $>It is a hummanity, or a liberal art, but not a science.
>> $
>> $What about symbolic Logic?
>
>What about it??
>
It can prove that philosophy is a science.
The Doctor
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d504oc$27e$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d504nk$27e$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
John Fleming
scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $In article <84g671tlq0refjafm...@4ax.com>,
> $John Fleming <no_...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:22:16 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $>> $In article <n6d371pk157q7q7g9...@4ax.com>,
> $>> $John Fleming <tiun...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>> $>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:18:24 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
> $>> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $>> $>> $In article <rlt071h32kd5ots65...@4ax.com>,
> $>> $>> $John Fleming <todo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>> $>> $>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:06 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
> $>> $>> $>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $>> $>> $>
> $>> $>> $>> $ISn't philosophy a science?
> $>> $>> $>
> $>> $>> $>No.
> $>> $>> $>
> $>> $>> $>It's a humanity.
> $>> $>> $
> $>> $>> $No, it is both.
> $>> $>
> $>> $>It is a hummanity, or a liberal art, but not a science.
> $>> $
> $>> $What about symbolic Logic?
> $>
> $>What about it??
> $>
> $
> $It can prove that philosophy is a science.
Then maybe you had better post the proof here doctor.
It is easy to say it can prove philosophy is a science. That is very
different from *actually* proving that philosophy is a science.
Untl you choose to post something more supportive of your contention
that philosophy is a science, your contention is unsupported. An
unsupported contention requires nothing more than it be pointed out as
unsupported to render it null and void.
John Fleming
scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $but they can interrelate.
Many fields of study can interrelate and/or overlap. That doesn't make
them the same.
Let's face it, painting portraits interrelates with painting houses.
That doesn't make a house painter an artist, nor does it make an artist
a house painter.
The Doctor
So you want me to prove that philosophy is a science. I consider the
challenge taken.
The Doctor
John Fleming <cnos...@sqrynet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:08 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a desk in the
>scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> $but they can interrelate.
>
>Many fields of study can interrelate and/or overlap. That doesn't make
>them the same.
>
>Let's face it, painting portraits interrelates with painting houses.
>That doesn't make a house painter an artist, nor does it make an artist
>a house painter.
>
A -> B but not B -> A
John Fleming
scriptorium, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> $So you want me to prove that philosophy is a science. I consider the
> $challenge taken.
You will post all your arguments in favour here so that we may debate
their merits.