Study Finds One-third of Medical Studies are Wrong

[MrBishop]

Bish and Prof. Jeezus you two, do you need mommy to smack your two heads together or summit?

He started it!!

It's interesting to see how often "theory" gets misinterpreted by those who tend to follow the faith. How hard exactly is it to understand that it's divorced from "faith"?

It's all in the vocabulary, m'dear BoPster. :hugs:

 

[chcr]

Again, You're more sure of my position than I am. I'm not convinced of anything that I myself haven't experienced. And (to clarify a point) my ghosts and my religion are not one and the same. In fact, I dare say my minister would be quite upset to hear about them. And I'm not trying to convince you either. Simply to make clear my reasoning. Convincing one another is irrelevant. Understanding one another is important.

You're also mistaking a church for a religion. Christianity is a religion. Catholicism, Anglican, United, Mormon, etc are all churches. Religion never oppressed science. Churches did. Symantics, in your view, I know. But an important difference from my position.

Now, just to get us onto level ground, I'm gonna ask you to back up a few millenia for a minute. Sorry, but it's necessary to get us back beyond your view of religion to start off.

The first religions were, in your opinion, based on what?

1. In may last post, I made no referrence whatsoever to you're beliefs, since you pointed out that I misinterpreted them. In fact, I clearly stated that I don't (in fact I can't) understand your position.

2. I have had this or similar discussions dozens of times in forty or so years. It continues to amaze me that I let myself get involved in them. I'm really not interested in continuing this one.

3. My view of religion is that it begins with a primitive peoples superstitious explanations of the world around them. For instance, the sun is in the sky, that must be where the gods live. Fire was likely originally saved from lightning strikes, therefore it's a gift from them. I note that it hasn't really changed all that much. I also find that it is (oops) more than reasonably easy to trace any religion back to an earlier incarnation. What makes one myth more likely than another? Nothing, in fact they're really the same myth at the core.

 

[Professur]

It's interesting to see how often "theory" gets misinterpreted by those who tend to follow the faith. How hard exactly is it to understand that it's divorced from "faith"?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where that separation actually is.

 

[chcr]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where that separation actually is.

I explained it, you don't accept the explanation. You're prerogative, certainly, but it has been explained. Just not to your satisfaction.

Now you see why I say it's a pointless discussion.

 

[Professur]

I explained it, you don't accept the explanation. You're prerogative, certainly, but it has been explained. Just not to your satisfaction.

Now you see why I say it's a pointless discussion.

Rereading the entire thread right now to find it. And no, I don't see that it's pointless. Nothing that expands knowledge is pointless. Unless you refuse to accept that there's anything else to know.

 

[Professur]

Easily. Science makes observations and posits explanations. The understanding that these explanations may be proved completely wrong at any time is implicit in the process. Religion (or myth) posits explanations and then tries to show how the observable data upholds the explanation (whether or not it does). Contradicting a religious explanation is out of the question until such time as the contradiction becomes so self-evident as to cost a religion it's adherents (sometimes even beyond that). I refer you to Copernicus and Galileo as evidence of this.

Is this it?

 

[chcr]

*sigh*

 

[Professur]

Never mind, Chcr. Goodbye.

 

[chcr]

Never mind, Chcr. Goodbye.

Thank you.

 

[Winky]

Have a nice day...

 

[unclehobart]

We need a different subject.

 

[chcr]

Erm... I'd like to vote against midget porn (as a subject, watch what you want).

 

[tonksy]

i dunno...i'm curious as to the agility of the female midget...can she put her ankles behind her ears the way we can?

 

[Gato_Solo]

i dunno...i'm curious as to the agility of the female midget...can she put her ankles behind her ears the way we can?

Hmmm...I would think it would be easier, as the midget doesn't have as far to go.

 

[tonksy]

Hmmm...I would think it would be easier, as the midget doesn't have as far to go.

but each bone is shorter...therefore the physics have changed. i think they might be less agile.......dammit! where is this midget porn?.....um, purely for scientific reasons of course.

 

[Winky]

the way we can?

Hmmmm

 

[tonksy]

what? like we can't?

 

[Inkara1]

I sure can't.

 

[tonksy]

you should stretch more.

 

[chcr]

you should stretch more.

Umm... yeah.