When has religion irked you personally and why?

you too maligar, is that hair?

0 Replies

So - what is the operational definition of the difference between believing in creation and "creationism" Maliagar? - ie, what does your lot DO that is different?

(This is a genuine question, by the way - one difference I can posit is that the church (it seems thereis only one, so I need not specify!) now accepts the teaching of evolution, while the creationists would like to see it stopped - is this so, for example?)

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

So - what is the operational definition of the difference between believing in creation and "creationism" Maliagar? - ie, what does your lot DO that is different?

I already explained it in my previous postings.

Quote:

one difference I can posit is that the church (it seems thereis only one, so I need not specify!) now accepts the teaching of evolution, while the creationists would like to see it stopped

You got it (unlike other people who insist in not getting it).

Now, one thing is evolution as a scientific theory, and another is its adoption as a metaphysical, quasi-religious (i.e., non-scientific) explanation of reality.

:wink:

0 Replies

Is quasi-religious anything like quasi-god?

0 Replies

Gee, thanks, Maliagar - I have not time to wade through the sheer volume of your, and others', postings to look that up. I would have thought it fairly simple to explicate, but so it goes. Unless you are saying that the difference I mentioned is the ONLY difference? If so, you differ only in chronology - "the" church having done its best, in its time, to quash such teaching, I believe? (Though I admit the timing IS of some note - the creationists being so ridiculously anachronistic).

I presume you intend to clarify your basis for saying that the theory of evolution has become quasi-religious in its nature? - (other than the tendency of most lasting scientific theories to develop a belief around them that is, initially, resistant to counter evidence).

0 Replies

Hi, dlowan, how is OZ today? I think you are engaging with a quasi-maliagar.

0 Replies

Today, Oz sucks, it being Monday morning. You think we have a Maliagar doppel-ganger here? Or is Maliagar only half here today?

0 Replies

A quasi-maliagar with a quasi-knowledge of the quasi-catholic dogma, trying to explain himself with quasi-opinions.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Gee, thanks, Maliagar - I have not time to wade through the sheer volume of your, and others', postings to look that up.

Sorry, but I have no time to write it again for the 4th time.

Quote:

Unless you are saying that the difference I mentioned is the ONLY difference? If so, you differ only in chronology - "the" church having done its best, in its time, to quash such teaching, I believe? (Though I admit the timing IS of some note - the creationists being so ridiculously anachronistic).

Timing is a key difference. It took a while for everybody to understand the strengths and limitations of that new cultural phenomenon called "modern science". Science itself has evolved in its own understanding of what it does... and what it is unable to do (some backwards believers in science still believe it to be all-powerful and all-good, but the most knowledgeable are beyond such myths). Galileo's understanding of science is not Einstein's. Few scientists today would be as naive as Galileo was in some of his claims.

Another key difference is the extent to which The Church (cathedrals, monasteries) sponsored not only the arts, but also scientific research during the Rennaisance... a point that I've also developed extensively in another thread, providing relevant evidence.

Quote:

I presume you intend to clarify your basis for saying that the theory of evolution has become quasi-religious in its nature?

Some people tend to mythologize certain scientific hypotheses, and accept them as absolute and definitive explanations.

Quote:

(other than the tendency of most lasting scientific theories to develop a belief around them that is, initially, resistant to counter evidence).

We agree on this one, so I'm sure you understand what I mean.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar's quote: "Another key difference is the extent to which The Church (cathedrals, monasteries) sponsored not only the arts, but also scientific research during the Rennaisance... a point that I've also developed extensively in another thread, providing relevant evidence." All one-sided evidence without including how the church also curbed scientific research is incomplete information.

0 Replies

Maliagar,

So is the beginning of the Bible wrong? The 7 days and all?

(Pssst, we are all here "for free" and you might consider that the rest of us might not have as high an estimation of your 'contributions' so as to make your patronizing about charging for or giving away free lessons 'not too smart' and 'not interesting (for us)').

You are trying to act like you were clear about your beliefs in the creation/evolution debate when in reality it had to be squeezed out.

So now, pray tell, how do you fit evolution into the Bible?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

All one-sided evidence without including how the church also curbed scientific research is incomplete information.

Since it is information you didn't have, I'm helping you have a more complete point of view.

And I'm doing it free of charge.

Do I hear a thank you?

Cool

0 Replies

Did you know that merry-go-rounds make me extremely dizzy??

Why don't we all go out for a beer! :wink:

0 Replies

I like your round little cap, maliagar. Is that one of your groupies with you? I know it isn't interesting for you, to nail your hide with the observation that you are no different than the creationists; it is nevertheless doubletalk for you to route your boring arguments around it.

0 Replies

:wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:

So is the beginning of the Bible wrong? The 7 days and all?

Wrong question.

Here's some homework for you to do on Labor Day:

(1) Review of what type of discourse can we say that it is "right" or "wrong", with respect to what, and in what senses.

(2) Study what types of discourse (literary genres) we find in the Bible.

(3) Arrive to your own conclusion on what books of the Bible can be said to contain "right" or "wrong" statements, with respect to what, and in what senses.

Then, you can start asking questions that do not assume the wrong thing.

[I've said many times that your faith is built around a specific metaphysics and epistemology... I wonder if you even know the meaning of those terms, and how they relate to the three points above (homework)...]

Quote:

Pssst, we are all here "for free"...

[Shhhh.... Me too. Tell that to C.I. Shhh...]

Quote:

you might consider that the rest of us might not have as high an estimation of your 'contributions'...

By now I'm fully aware of the things you're able to appreciate, and the things that... well, are just beyond you.

You might also consider that my opinion of my own contributions does not depend on the votes of this particular crowd... :wink:

Quote:

So now, pray tell, how do you fit evolution into the Bible?

No need to fit. Two very different discourses. Compatibility is explored at other levels (theology). Do your homework, and then we'll talk.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar, FYI, Able2Know is a free interactive site for all who wish to participate on it. Through the kindness of Craven and all the other volunteers on Able2Know, our use is free and voluntary. Please try to remember this in the future.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

maliagar, FYI, Able2Know is a free interactive site for all who wish to participate on it. Through the kindness of Craven and all the other volunteers on Able2Know, our use is free and voluntary. Please try to remember this in the future.

I've always kept it in mind.

That's why I don't charge for the services I'm providing.

:wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

I wonder if you even know the meaning of those terms

And I wonder if YOU understand the meaning of the term, "supercillious"!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if you even know the meaning of those terms

And I wonder if YOU understand the meaning of the term, "supercillious"!

Yes, I do. Somebody used it before in one of these threads...

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar, I'd like to see you try "charging for your services" on A2K. Just another one of your non-sensical statements.

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know