All education is religious

[buckeye]

All education is religious

August 12, 2008
http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080812/OPINION03/808120326


I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education" crowd, but
I must first burst your bubble with a cold hard fact: "ALL" education is
religious. Your overall understanding of life comes from an established set
of beliefs. Evolution is simply that - a set of beliefs (theories).
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!

This country was not only founded on Christianity, but so was its education
system.

Today's public education claims to be fair and balanced. Why then is
Christianity the only religion not welcomed in public schools?

In his Sunday column, Len LaCara stated the Chicago Tribune article summed
up the battle well: stating that the Mount Vernon community was split with
one group condemning John Freshwater as a religious predator promoting
creationism and intelligent design and the other group seeing him as a
heroic father figure, persecuted for his Christian beliefs.

Question: Why isn't "intelligent design" being taught alongside of
"evolution?" The theory of evolution is full of holes, while the Bible has
been attacked by many scholars and never disproved - once. If things truly
evolved - where is the transitional evidence? Scientists are finding
evidence of "Intelligent Design" in everything.

LaCara stated: The idea of a secular school system that favors no religion
drives them crazy. The problem with "putting God back in the schools" is
this: Whose God should be there? LaCara also stated: The time and the place
for religion is at church and at home.

The First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.

Question: Where's "the free exercise thereof" if it is restricted to the
church and home?

The trend of public school students leaving their faith behind after
graduating high school is staggering and strong evidence that "a religion"
is being taught or these students would not be abandoning their faith.

Schools have replaced truth, facts, logic and history with myths, feelings,
imaginations and politically correct stories. Family values are being
ridiculed, redefined, and replaced with the "right" attitudes, beliefs, and
behavior, resulting in a socialist society.

Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. Hitler's success
came through indoctrinating the minds of the youth ... Wake up America!

For those desiring the truth about John Freshwater, you can hear it from
his own colleagues, who spoke on his behalf at the Aug. 4 school board
meeting, you can do so at:

Don't
miss the seven different parts of the Aug. 4 meeting.

Nancy M. McFarland
Coshocton

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[Kilmir]

I just can't help but laugh at items like this. It's so riddled with
logical fallacies, lies, misinformation, appeals to emotion and plain
stupidity that I really have to wonder how anyone could possibly take
stuff like this seriously.

Wasn't that John Freshwater guy not the person that branded crosses in
children's arms? And if so, why is he not in prison or at least in a
mental institution?

Post by buckeye
All education is religious
August 12, 2008http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080812/O...
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education" crowd, but
I must first burst your bubble with a cold hard fact: "ALL" education is
religious. Your overall understanding of life comes from an established set
of beliefs. Evolution is simply that - a set of beliefs (theories).
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
This country was not only founded on Christianity, but so was its education
system.
Today's public education claims to be fair and balanced. Why then is
Christianity the only religion not welcomed in public schools?
In his Sunday column, Len LaCara stated the Chicago Tribune article summed
up the battle well: stating that the Mount Vernon community was split with
one group condemning John Freshwater as a religious predator promoting
creationism and intelligent design and the other group seeing him as a
heroic father figure, persecuted for his Christian beliefs.
Question: Why isn't "intelligent design" being taught alongside of
"evolution?" The theory of evolution is full of holes, while the Bible has
been attacked by many scholars and never disproved - once. If things truly
evolved - where is the transitional evidence? Scientists are finding
evidence of "Intelligent Design" in everything.
LaCara stated: The idea of a secular school system that favors no religion
drives them crazy. The problem with "putting God back in the schools" is
this: Whose God should be there? LaCara also stated: The time and the place
for religion is at church and at home.
The First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
Question: Where's "the free exercise thereof" if it is restricted to the
church and home?
The trend of public school students leaving their faith behind after
graduating high school is staggering and strong evidence that "a religion"
is being taught or these students would not be abandoning their faith.
Schools have replaced truth, facts, logic and history with myths, feelings,
imaginations and politically correct stories. Family values are being
ridiculed, redefined, and replaced with the "right" attitudes, beliefs, and
behavior, resulting in a socialist society.
Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. Hitler's success
came through indoctrinating the minds of the youth ... Wake up America!
For those desiring the truth about John Freshwater, you can hear it from
his own colleagues, who spoke on his behalf at the Aug. 4 school board
meeting, you can do so

miss the seven different parts of the Aug. 4 meeting.
Nancy M. McFarland
Coshocton

[Kope]

What does God want from us?

Be kind to fellow human being and animal, in return God will reward
us
glorious life in paradise.

How to achieves a happy life in this world and in the hereafter?
What is the purpose of life ?
What does God want from us?
What is the key to Heaven?

What kind of people will enter Heaven {Paradise / Kingdom of God }?

People who believes in God And do good to other human being.

People who will inter heaven those are whom the other human are safe,
safe from his/her tongue and hand.

People who will inter heaven those are respect and honors all human
beings irrespective of their religion,color, race, gender, language,
status, property, birth, profession/job and so on.

People who stand out firmly for justice even as against yourselves or
your parents or your kin and whether it be against rich or poor.

People who have patience, forbearance, generosity, bravery, justice,
truthfulness, modesty, fulfilling the promise, satisfaction with
having only a little .

People who makes peace among the people.

People who say with their mouth what is in their heart.

People who do not shout. speak politely keeping their voice low.

People who honor old people is showing respect to God.

People who suppressed his anger, when he had in his power to show it,
God will give him great reward.

People who feed the hungry and visit the sick, and free the innocent.

People who are patient in adversity and forgive wrongs.

People who are nearest to God, who pardoneth, when he had in his
power
him who would have injured him.

People who persistent in good actions.

People who speak only good words, otherwise remain silent.

People who feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the
sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the wrongs of the injured.

People who kind to God's creatures, God is kind to him; therefore be
kind to man on earth, whether good or bad; and being kind to the bad,
is to withold him from badness, thus in heaven you will be treated
kindly.

People who admonish his wives with kindness.

People who enjoin one another to do what is good and forbid one
another to do what is evil.

People who love the poor and bring them near you God will bring you
near Him on the Day of Resurrection.

People who has the most complete faith is he/she who has the best
manners.

People who show forgiveness, enjoin what is good and turn away from
the foolish.

People who pardon and forgive other. do you not love that God should
forgive you?

People who choose best words to speak and say in the best possible
way.

People who always speak the truth. shun words that are deceitful and
ostentatious.

People who nice to people who work under your care.

People who willing to compromise.

People who dress modestly.

People who avoid watching dirty movies/ magazine.

People who avoid substance abuse such as drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.

People who earn an honest living are the beloved of God.

People who believe that a white has no superiority over a black nor a
black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

You are not better than people (of other races) unless you excel them
in piety.

The best people are those who are most useful to others.

Whoever does not express his gratitude to people will never be
grateful to God

Power consists not in being able to strike another,
but in being able to control oneself when anger arises.

Honor your children and thus improve their manners.

God is merciful to those who show mercy to others.

Every son of Adam makes mistakes and the best of them are those who
repent.

Verily there are heavenly rewards for any act of kindness to a live
animal
Every good act is charity. A man's true wealth hereafter is the good
that he does in this world to his fellows.

the truthfulness lead to righteousness and righteousness lead to
paradise.

God enjoins you to treat women well, for they are your mothers,
daughters, aunts.

A sincere repenter of faults is like him who hath committed none.

How will God Almighty Judge us?

This life is a test for each individual for the life after death. and
the dead will be resurrected for judgment by God.

On the day of judgment God will judge each person on an individual
basis not our religious affiliation ie Islam, Christainty, Judaism,
Hinduism etc . God Almighty knows what's in the heart of man/woman
and
will judge us based on our deeds and the choices we make in life.
Remember, one day you will appear before God (The Creator) and you
will answer for your deeds. It is your own conduct which will lead
you
to reward or punishment, as if you had been destined therefor.

God says in the Holy Quran 67:2 “It is He who created death and life
for you that He may try you, as to which of you is best in works....

The Holy Quran, 21:47 "On the Day of Judgment, We shall set up scales
of justice so that no one will be dealt with unjustly in any way;
even
if someone has an act as small as a grain of a mustard seed, We will
bring it to account, and sufficient are We to settle the accounts."

The Holy Quran 16:111"The day will come when every soul will serve as
its own advocate, and every soul will be paid fully for whatever it
had done, without the least injustice."

The Holy Quran 4:124."As for those who lead a righteous life, male or
female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest
injustice."

The Holy Quran 2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who
follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,-
any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,
shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear,
nor
shall they grieve.

===============
i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win
the clash of civilization.

http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha

[DanielSan]

Post by Kope
What does God want from us?

You're posting this to alt.atheism. We don't believe in God. Try not to
post this to alt.atheism in the future. Thanks!

[4635 Dead]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:45:15 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by Kope
What does God want from us?

You're posting this to alt.atheism. We don't believe in God. Try not to
post this to alt.atheism in the future. Thanks!

God wants our foreskins.

He's a hobbyist, you see.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

[z]

Post by Kope
What does God want from us?

You're posting this to alt.atheism. We don't believe in God.  Try not to
post this to alt.atheism in the future.  Thanks!
--
****************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it?                                    *
****************************************************

Apparently God wants us to bug folks who aren't interested by telling
them moral imperatives which are either intuitively obvious to every
healthy adult, including many nonhuman animals (except, perhaps, the
poster), or else a collection of random superstitions, tribal taboos,
and pet peeves, too arbitrary to be universally adopted (except,
perhaps, by the poster).

I wish God wanted a meaningful, brain-fatiguing discussion of high-
level transcendent topics regarding what we now know about the
universe and ourselves and how the two fit together and what, if
anything should be our goals as individuals and as a society, rather
than a bunch of toddler Sunday School prattle served up by those who
proclaim themselves to be morally superior on the grounds of being
inferior in imagination. Oh wait, maybe He does.

[z]

Post by Kilmir
I just can't help but laugh at items like this. It's so riddled with
logical fallacies, lies, misinformation, appeals to emotion and plain
stupidity that I really have to wonder how anyone could possibly take
stuff like this seriously.
Wasn't that John Freshwater guy not the person that branded crosses in
children's arms? And if so, why is he not in prison or at least in a
mental institution?

Post by buckeye
This country was not only founded on Christianity, but so was its education
system.
Today's public education claims to be fair and balanced. Why then is
Christianity the only religion not welcomed in public schools?

...

Post by Kilmir

Post by buckeye
Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. Hitler's success
came through indoctrinating the minds of the youth ... Wake up America!
For those desiring the truth about John Freshwater, you can hear it from
his own colleagues, who spoke on his behalf at the Aug. 4 school board
meeting, you can do so http://youtu.be/Db560QnoQUEDon
miss the seven different parts of the Aug. 4 meeting.

Indeed:
"We are religious people, but we were offended when Mr. Freshwater
burned a cross onto the arm of our child. This was done in science
class in December 2007, where an electric shock machine was used to
burn our child. The burn was severe enough that our child awoke that
night with severe pain, and the cross remained there for several
weeks. … We have tried to keep this a private matter and hesitate to
tell the whole story to the media for fear that we will be retaliated
against.
We are Christians who practice our faith where it belongs, at church
and in our home and, most importantly, outside the public classroom,
where the law requires a separation of church and state."
http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/08/04/22/freshwater_upd.html

Possible punch lines:

1) No wonder Christianity is the only religion not allowed in the
classroom.
2) Good thing he wasn't a Moslem.
3) The damn atheists won't let you teach your class about the physical
basis behind stigmata any more.
4) "Spare the electric branding rod and spoil the child".-Proverbs
5) No, we don't allow this type of cross-burning either.
6) Good way to make a kid pray to Jesus.

and the winner is:

7) Smalltown America knows how to educate their kids; no wonder the US
has the best educational system in the world!!!!

Still, you gotta be sorry for anybody who went through High School
answering the roll call to "Freshwater, John". No wonder he came out
warped.

[ZerkonX]

Post by buckeye
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education" crowd,
but I must first burst your bubble with a cold hard fact: "ALL"
education is religious. Your overall understanding of life comes from an
established set of beliefs. Evolution is simply that - a set of beliefs
(theories).

As I see it, the mistake that Nancy McFarland makes here is while
evolution, or just say 'science', has beliefs and religion has beliefs
they are not intellectual equivalents. Science is composed by humans and
it's beliefs are subject to revision whereas religion's are not.

There is too much difference between: "I believe something until proved
otherwise" and "I believe something that is absolute and therefore
unchangeable". So, ALL education is not religious by using this line of
demarcation.

This simple distinction is recognized and has been recognized for many
years among more 'open-minded' (READ: Normal) people on both sides of
this fence. It is a forced issue. Closed minded dogmatic minorities who
reside in 'religion and 'science' are getting too much attention and way
too much money pushing this crap.

[Bert Hyman]

Post by buckeye
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education"
"ALL" education is religious. Your overall understanding of life
comes from an established set of beliefs. Evolution is simply that -
a set of beliefs (theories).

Nonsense.

Religious belief is just that: belief. All so-called religious
knowledge comes from revealation, which is to be taken on faith
without proof, or even the possibility of proof. Belief without proof
is taken as a sign of virtue, while asking for proof is sinful.

In the real world, all learning is subject to demands for proof. All
of science is involved in finding that proof.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "theory"

[Jack]

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by buckeye
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education"
"ALL" education is religious. Your overall understanding of life
comes from an established set of beliefs. Evolution is simply that -
a set of beliefs (theories).

Nonsense.
Religious belief is just that: belief. All so-called religious
knowledge comes from revealation, which is to be taken on faith
without proof, or even the possibility of proof. Belief without proof
is taken as a sign of virtue, while asking for proof is sinful.
In the real world, all learning is subject to demands for proof. All
of science is involved in finding that proof.
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "theory"
--

No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

[Bert Hyman]

Post by Jack

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by buckeye
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education"
"ALL" education is religious. Your overall understanding of life
comes from an established set of beliefs. Evolution is simply that
- a set of beliefs (theories).

Nonsense.
Religious belief is just that: belief. All so-called religious
knowledge comes from revealation, which is to be taken on faith
without proof, or even the possibility of proof. Belief without
proof is taken as a sign of virtue, while asking for proof is
sinful.
In the real world, all learning is subject to demands for proof.
All of science is involved in finding that proof.
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "theory"

No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

More nonsense.

A "theory", in the scientific context, is a hypothetical explanation
of some behavior of the real world, subject to proof (or disproof) by
experiment and observation.

There's absolutely no "belief" involved, at least not as the religious
sort use the word.

If you're a layman with no particular interest in making the tests, or
even reading about them, you're free to be as lazy as you like and
believe whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like, but don't
confuse your mental laxity with the actual state of the world.

[Jack]

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by Jack

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by buckeye
I would like to pose a few questions to the "neutral education"
"ALL" education is religious. Your overall understanding of life
comes from an established set of beliefs. Evolution is simply that
- a set of beliefs (theories).

Nonsense.
Religious belief is just that: belief. All so-called religious
knowledge comes from revealation, which is to be taken on faith
without proof, or even the possibility of proof. Belief without
proof is taken as a sign of virtue, while asking for proof is
sinful.
In the real world, all learning is subject to demands for proof.
All of science is involved in finding that proof.
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "theory"

No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

More nonsense.
A "theory", in the scientific context, is a hypothetical explanation
of some behavior of the real world, subject to proof (or disproof) by
experiment and observation.

The whole point of testing is to decide if the hypothesis is believable or
not.

Post by Bert Hyman
There's absolutely no "belief" involved, at least not as the religious
sort use the word.
If you're a layman with no particular interest in making the tests, or
even reading about them, you're free to be as lazy as you like and
believe whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like, but don't
confuse your mental laxity with the actual state of the world.

Don't tell me what to do.

[Bert Hyman]

Post by Jack
Don't tell me what to do.

Good luck.

[Jack]

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by Jack
Don't tell me what to do.

Good luck.

Don't tell me to have good luck.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:19 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by Bert Hyman
A "theory", in the scientific context, is a hypothetical explanation
of some behavior of the real world, subject to proof (or disproof) by
experiment and observation.

The whole point of testing is to decide if the hypothesis is believable or
not.

The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:19 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by Bert Hyman
A "theory", in the scientific context, is a hypothetical explanation
of some behavior of the real world, subject to proof (or disproof) by
experiment and observation.

The whole point of testing is to decide if the hypothesis is believable or
not.

The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

prove the scientific method is correct

(or prove that euclidean ellipitical or hyperbolic geometry is correct)

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:04:51 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

prove the scientific method is correct

That's not the issue

Science doesn't have a precept that it cannot
change---it does (mayhaps slowly) as evidence proves
(one way or other) that accepted conclusions are wrong

Religion doesn't have the same ability to change as
evidence is presented---and the ultra-literal
fundamentalists accept NO change whatsoever for any
reason.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:04:51 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

prove the scientific method is correct

That's not the issue

thats because it aint dogma
its the truth (ta-da)

Post by N***@Click.com
Science doesn't have a precept that it cannot
change---it does (mayhaps slowly) as evidence proves
(one way or other) that accepted conclusions are wrong

you just stated above your refusal to consider
that scientific method itself may be wrong

that fundamental percept cannot change
because you have decided it is not an issue for discussion

Post by N***@Click.com
Religion doesn't have the same ability to change as
evidence is presented---and the ultra-literal
fundamentalists accept NO change whatsoever for any
reason.

define evidence in such a way that it does not embed your preconceived notions
and then present such evidence

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:10:07 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:04:51 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

prove the scientific method is correct

That's not the issue

thats because it aint dogma
its the truth (ta-da)

"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Science doesn't have a precept that it cannot
change---it does (mayhaps slowly) as evidence proves
(one way or other) that accepted conclusions are wrong

you just stated above your refusal to consider
that scientific method itself may be wrong

A "method" is wrong? Well, I've never heard anyone
call the "method" of obtaining evidence "wrong", but I
guess if that's what makes you feel good, so be it.

OTOH, a "scientific theory" of...(insert description
here) is done by an accepted "method". If you're
arguing that obtaining evidence and knowledge by
science is wrong, I can't help you.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
that fundamental percept cannot change
because you have decided it is not an issue for discussion

Well, present an argument that the "method" by which
evidence is obtained "scientifically" is flawed.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
define evidence in such a way that it does not embed your preconceived notions
and then present such evidence

"Evidence" pertaining to what?

I would point out that I've never heard anyone deny
that the "method" of obtaining evidence
"scientifically" needs to be defended.

The scientific community would be the judge of whether
the scientific means and methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a "theory"

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:10:07 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:04:51 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The whole point of religion is the opposite. It is
accepted without regard to proof.

prove the scientific method is correct

That's not the issue

thats because it aint dogma
its the truth (ta-da)

"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

bullshit

its a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe
youre hiding your beliefs inside the word -evidence-
and youre either too dim to realize this
or too dishonest to admit it

Post by N***@Click.com
A "method" is wrong? Well, I've never heard anyone
call the "method" of obtaining evidence "wrong", but I
guess if that's what makes you feel good, so be it.

then youve never opened your ears and listened to the real world
its easy to get daily arguments over methods
which are critical to peoples lives fortunes and freedom

Post by N***@Click.com
Well, present an argument that the "method" by which
evidence is obtained "scientifically" is flawed.

you cant prove a negative
youre doing the same thing you accuse fundies of doing
presenting your beliefs as truth
and then demanding others prov you wrong

Post by N***@Click.com
I would point out that I've never heard anyone deny
that the "method" of obtaining evidence
"scientifically" needs to be defended.
The scientific community would be the judge of whether
the scientific means and methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a "theory"

so do you agree that the religious community should be the judge of whether
revelatory means methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a -theory-

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

bullshit
its a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe

Nonsense

It's a generalized description of obtaining evidence to
support claims---usually in terms of science.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

bullshit
its a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe

Nonsense
It's a generalized description of obtaining evidence to
support claims---usually in terms of science.

what are the terms of science
be explicit

youre arguing in circles
do you realize that?
or do you think i dont realize it?

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:56:23 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

bullshit
its a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe

Nonsense
It's a generalized description of obtaining evidence to
support claims---usually in terms of science.

what are the terms of science
be explicit

you're reading it wrong (probably deliberately).

Scientific method is a means of obtaining evidence
"related to science".----As opposed to obtaining
evidence about why social conservatives have done more
to harm America than Communists.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:56:23 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
"scientific Method" is a description of obtaining
evidence---

bullshit
its a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe

Nonsense
It's a generalized description of obtaining evidence to
support claims---usually in terms of science.

what are the terms of science
be explicit

you're reading it wrong (probably deliberately).

im reading you just fine dogma boy
thats your problem

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:39:31 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
you're reading it wrong (probably deliberately).

im reading you just fine dogma boy
thats your problem

But I'm not the one babbling on and on like you,
Marigold

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Well, present an argument that the "method" by which
evidence is obtained "scientifically" is flawed.

you cant prove a negative

Didn't mention any claim that was either positive or
negative---the method is the issue. The "method" is an
established set of scientific paramenters that require
specific things.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
youre doing the same thing you accuse fundies of doing
presenting your beliefs as truth
and then demanding others prov you wrong

What "beliefs"

Ascribing to a "scientific method" of obtaining
evidence is not a system of "beliefs".


I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

Simply not rational.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Well, present an argument that the "method" by which
evidence is obtained "scientifically" is flawed.

you cant prove a negative

Didn't mention any claim that was either positive or

youre being an asshole
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

cant prove a negative cant prove a negative cant prove a negative
thats their constant refrain
when their lips are skewered on their own hooks

and thats what youre doing now

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
youre doing the same thing you accuse fundies of doing
presenting your beliefs as truth
and then demanding others prov you wrong

What "beliefs"
Ascribing to a "scientific method" of obtaining
evidence is not a system of "beliefs".

if its the truth then it is verifiable
so do so
prove the fundamental assumptions of scientific method are correct
prove the universe is objective
prove the universe is mechanical
prove the universe is explicable
prove events in the universe are replicable
prove everything the scientific method assumes
and then you can claim it is not a system of beliefs

Post by N***@Click.com
I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

thats because youre locked in your dogma

Post by N***@Click.com
Simply not rational.

show the specific error in logic
or are you defining -rational- to mean -agrees with you-

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Didn't mention any claim that was either positive or

youre being an asshole
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

Sounds like you're an expert on assholes, however. That
by personal inspection or scientific method?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
cant prove a negative cant prove a negative cant prove a negative
thats their constant refrain
when their lips are skewered on their own hooks
and thats what youre doing now

Not only are you babbling about something I doubt you
know anything about---but a "method" for obtaining
scientific evidence being something that engendered
such loss of emotional control seems to be more of an
indication of your lack of intellect.

sci·en·tif·ic (sº”…n-t¹f“¹k) adj. Abbr. sci. Of,
relating to, or employing the methodology of science.
--sci”en·tif“i·cal·ly adv.

meth·od (mµth“…d) n. 1. A means or manner of
procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of
accomplishing something. 2. Orderly arrangement of
parts or steps to accomplish an end. 3. The procedures
and techniques characteristic of a particular
discipline or field of knowledge.

[DanielSan]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

But you do post there. Check your headers.

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:26:33 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

But you do post there. Check your headers.

The headers are already there----I hit "reply"

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:26:33 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

But you do post there. Check your headers.

The headers are already there----I hit "reply"

youre just pissing everyone off

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:40:26 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:26:33 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

But you do post there. Check your headers.

The headers are already there----I hit "reply"

youre just pissing everyone off

Take a guess how bad that makes me feel.........

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Didn't mention any claim that was either positive or

youre being an asshole
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

then dont crosspost your bullshit

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:38:36 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Didn't mention any claim that was either positive or

youre being an asshole
ask your buddies in alt-atheism about me

Don't hang out there----

then dont crosspost your bullshit

Ain't stripping misc. groups out just to please your
dumb ass.

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
prove the fundamental assumptions of scientific method are correct

That's nonsense

What assumptions?

a "scientific method" is a methodology

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
prove the fundamental assumptions of scientific method are correct

That's nonsense
What assumptions?

now youre just being an assine fuckwit
you just snipped some of the assumptions

youre not interested in learning
youre mind is closed
and your only interest is reducing rest of us to your cloistered stupidity

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:37:16 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
prove the fundamental assumptions of scientific method are correct

That's nonsense
What assumptions?

List 5 specific "assumptions" of the Scientific method"

THis I gotta see.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:37:16 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
prove the fundamental assumptions of scientific method are correct

That's nonsense
What assumptions?

List 5 specific "assumptions" of the Scientific method"
THis I gotta see.

sorry kid
you thought you were all intellectual and rational and logical
but youre just a piss poor dogma wannabe-troll

try again when you got you better copy

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:39:56 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
List 5 specific "assumptions" of the Scientific method"
THis I gotta see.

sorry kid

Is that a committed, "I can't"??

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

thats because youre locked in your dogma

"dogma" of testing, appraisal, repeatability, etc is
confusing to you?

It's not 'dogma'---it's simply obtaining evidence.

[Free Lunch]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

thats because youre locked in your dogma

"dogma" of testing, appraisal, repeatability, etc is
confusing to you?
It's not 'dogma'---it's simply obtaining evidence.

But the epistemoligical nihilists argue that nothing can be known, no
matter how much it appears that there is real evidence. Like any other
sort of nihilism there is no way to argue against it since they reject
all evidence, all reality, all logic.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

thats because youre locked in your dogma

"dogma" of testing, appraisal, repeatability, etc is
confusing to you?
It's not 'dogma'---it's simply obtaining evidence.

But the epistemoligical nihilists argue that nothing can be known, no
matter how much it appears that there is real evidence. Like any other
sort of nihilism there is no way to argue against it since they reject
all evidence, all reality, all logic.

well then
you go find those epistemoligical nihilists and give them a right good talking to

in the meantime it is not logical
to demand a system be accepted as universally true
in absence of any proof

this is the beginning of logic

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
I don't know what planet you're on by arguing the
"method" by which one tests science is some kind of
alien system that requires one call it what you do.

thats because youre locked in your dogma

"dogma" of testing, appraisal, repeatability, etc is
confusing to you?

prove events in the universe are repeatable

Post by N***@Click.com
It's not 'dogma'---it's simply obtaining evidence.

prove the universe exists

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:32:41 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
It's not 'dogma'---it's simply obtaining evidence.

prove the universe exists

an irrelevant evasion.----because the theories of "the
universe" can change as evidence is presented to answer
questions.

The measurement of the speed of light was considered a
"constant" until a "scientific method" determined it
was not......modern techonology found it.

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Simply not rational.

show the specific error in logic

You're assigning something to a "method" that isn't
relevant to anything

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Simply not rational.

show the specific error in logic

You're assigning something to a "method" that isn't
relevant to anything

youre refusing to acknowledge the man behind the curtain

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:31:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:55:12 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Simply not rational.

show the specific error in logic

You're assigning something to a "method" that isn't
relevant to anything

youre refusing to acknowledge the man behind the curtain

What "man behind the curtain"?

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The scientific community would be the judge of whether
the scientific means and methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a "theory"

so do you agree that the religious community should be the judge of whether
revelatory means methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a -theory-

That's gibberish

The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:56:43 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The scientific community would be the judge of whether
the scientific means and methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a "theory"

so do you agree that the religious community should be the judge of whether
revelatory means methods would support the
conclusions or evidence presented to support a -theory-

That's gibberish
The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

by the standard evidence that can be supported by evidence?
what is gibberish?

youre being hypocritical

you are forbidding anyone outside the scientific community
from critiquing the belief system of the scientific method
but you are calling on people outside a religious community
to critique their belief system

again i dont know if youre being stupid
or if you realize your dogma is not verifiable
and youre shouting to distract people from learning that

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:48:41 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

by the standard evidence that can be supported by evidence?
what is gibberish?

I'd say it's fairly simple---which is why it might be
over your head.

Faith is the ONLY evidence for a religious nut has to
have to believe the truth of a matter.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
you are forbidding anyone outside the scientific community
from critiquing the belief system of the scientific method
but you are calling on people outside a religious community
to critique their belief system

you're nuts---but you've probably been told that before

I've never said anyone "outside" could not test or
verify what a scientific method proved (or
disproved)---only generally speaking a religious
community does not set up scientific labs to do that.

When a religous nut claims is it literal truth that the
entire world was covered with water----it has been
deemed highly unlikey that it occured that way.

When the religious community recounts (as truth) the 3
major "epics" (flood, creation and messiah)---they
cannot explain why those three stories were superceded
by the oldest known Clay table writing describing
almost exaclty what the biblical account does----

Their only "proof" is belief---

The Scientific community (defined generally as the
areas that require proof and evidence) has backing it a
litany of evidence that was done "scientifically" and
must withstand ANY challenge--whether from a religous
front or scientific front.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
again i dont know if youre being stupid
or if you realize your dogma is not verifiable
and youre shouting to distract people from learning that

A "Scientic method" is not "dogma"--it is a method of
obtaining evidence

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:48:41 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

by the standard evidence that can be supported by evidence?
what is gibberish?

I'd say it's fairly simple---which is why it might be
over your head.

id say youre embedding your beliefs into words like evidence
and then pretending words like evidence are belief neutral

thats intellectually dishonest

evidence doesnt exist without a framework to detect and interpret it
but you refuse any discussion of the framework you use
demanding that everyone else accept it as true without discussion

Post by N***@Click.com
Faith is the ONLY evidence for a religious nut has to
have to believe the truth of a matter.

do tell dogma boy

Post by N***@Click.com
I've never said anyone "outside" could not test or
verify what a scientific method proved (or

youre being stupid or evasive
lets be logical

one of the basic constructs is the conditional
if p then q
if the conditional is true and p is true then q is true
if the conditional is true and p is false then q can be true or false

let e represent a statement that some experiment x supports some theory t
e does not appear in an empty space
e occurs within a context that declares
if you follow a particular procedure you will get a valid result
lets call this context the scientific method s
then what we have is
if s then e
if the scientific method is valid then the experiment x supports theory t

im willing to posit this conditional
because it really doesnt concern me at the moment

your argument to date is
if s then e
assert s
therefore e

and you repeatedly refuse any discussion of (assert s)
you merely demand that i accept it as so inherently true
that it does not even need to be mentioned as a proof step
however it must be an explicit proof step
to transform the conditional to (therefore e)

this is called be logically

what youre apparently too dim to realize
is that wiser people than you do not simply (assert s)
they realize s is itself condiional on other statements such as
if (universe is objective) and (universe is mechanical)
and (universe is explicable) and (events are replicable)
then s
so let us call this set of other statements a

your argument is then
if s then e
if a then s
assert a
therefore s
therefore e

that pushes it down one step
with now the demand that a must be true

if i refuse to accept that demand
how logically do you support (assert a)?


mathematics found itself in this position
when such an obvious truth as the parallel postulate was challenged

logic and math realized that it would be an infinite regress
to try to find the one place where truth was so evident and so obvious
that nothing would be taken on faith
that the one fundamental truth that requires no truth
(je pense puis je suis
mais vous seulement croyez que vous penseriez)
it would be a regress without end

instead of math realized that there could be different
mutually incompatiable axiom systems such as eg fg hg
which lead to contradictory results
(such as the sum of the interior angles of a triangle
are at least pi or exactly pi or at most pi)
and that these contradictory results do no invalidate the axiom systems
no one axiom system is deemed inherently true
rather one particular system is taken as the context for a body of theory


so you (assert a) demanding that it is so obvious true that everyone must agree
and when someone challenges you to actually back up your assertion
you whine you evade you attack the challengers intelligence
you do everything but address the matter at hand

theres a very simple solution to your problem
but it is politically disadvantegous
hence you eschew logic and simply whine that i must agree with you

the simple solution is
i believe a is true because it feels like the truth to me
then if someone else says
i believe b is true because it feels like the truth to me
(where a and b are incompatiable)
the political problem is because a and b are equally well supported
(no proof they are true rather they are both just beliefs)
you longer have the privileged position to demand that others accept a

now for people like myself that means that neither a nor b are privileged
which i am quite happy with
it means society must work out a compromise that tolerates a and b
(and c and d and f etc)
and grants each individual the freedom to make their own choice


in the context of education this arises most often
over whether evolution is true or false
and (separately but foolishly enmeshed with the above)
whether evolution is random or nonrandom

because you are so hot on demanding everyone accept (assert a)
you polarize the situation and refuse to accept compromise
thus demand your beliefs be instutitionalized and established
and that students accept your religion

theres actually quite an easy compromise
which is also logically sound

instead of demanding students walking into a biology class
that they must pray to the lord your darwin
and reject the beliefs of their family

instead when they walk in declare we posit evolution
we posit random change
we are not interested in -the truth-
we are only interested in model that is useful within the context of this class

when the students leave that class they are free to leave behind the posit
or they free to continue to hold it throughout their lives

their choice
their freedom

Post by N***@Click.com
disproved)---only generally speaking a religious
community does not set up scientific labs to do that.

at best what youre saying is the belief systems are incompatiable
so what? life doesnt come with definitive answers
live with it

Post by N***@Click.com
When a religous nut claims is it literal truth that the
entire world was covered with water----it has been
deemed highly unlikey that it occured that way.

suppose i posit a diety that can alter any or all reality moment by miment
such a deity could easily do this
prove such a deity is impossible

Post by N***@Click.com
The Scientific community (defined generally as the
areas that require proof and evidence) has backing it a

until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Post by N***@Click.com
A "Scientic method" is not "dogma"--it is a method of
obtaining evidence

youre blind or stupid

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[TehGhodTrole]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:48:41 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

by the standard evidence that can be supported by evidence?
what is gibberish?

I'd say it's fairly simple---which is why it might be
over your head.

id say youre embedding your beliefs into words like evidence
and then pretending words like evidence are belief neutral
thats intellectually dishonest
evidence doesnt exist without a framework to detect and interpret it
but you refuse any discussion of the framework you use
demanding that everyone else accept it as true without discussion

Post by N***@Click.com
Faith is the ONLY evidence for a religious nut has to
have to believe the truth of a matter.

do tell dogma boy

Post by N***@Click.com
I've never said anyone "outside" could not test or
verify what a scientific method proved (or

youre being stupid or evasive
lets be logical
one of the basic constructs is the conditional
if p then q
if the conditional is true and p is true then q is true
if the conditional is true and p is false then q can be true or false
let e represent a statement that some experiment x supports some theory t
e does not appear in an empty space
e occurs within a context that declares
if you follow a particular procedure you will get a valid result
lets call this context the scientific method s
then what we have is
if s then e
if the scientific method is valid then the experiment x supports theory t
im willing to posit this conditional
because it really doesnt concern me at the moment
your argument to date is
if s then e
assert s
therefore e
and you repeatedly refuse any discussion of (assert s)
you merely demand that i accept it as so inherently true
that it does not even need to be mentioned as a proof step
however it must be an explicit proof step
to transform the conditional to (therefore e)
this is called be logically
what youre apparently too dim to realize
is that wiser people than you do not simply (assert s)
they realize s is itself condiional on other statements such as
if (universe is objective) and (universe is mechanical)
and (universe is explicable) and (events are replicable)
then s
so let us call this set of other statements a
your argument is then
if s then e
if a then s
assert a
therefore s
therefore e
that pushes it down one step
with now the demand that a must be true
if i refuse to accept that demand
how logically do you support (assert a)?
mathematics found itself in this position
when such an obvious truth as the parallel postulate was challenged
logic and math realized that it would be an infinite regress
to try to find the one place where truth was so evident and so obvious
that nothing would be taken on faith
that the one fundamental truth that requires no truth
(je pense puis je suis
mais vous seulement croyez que vous penseriez)
it would be a regress without end
instead of math realized that there could be different
mutually incompatiable axiom systems such as eg fg hg
which lead to contradictory results
(such as the sum of the interior angles of a triangle
are at least pi or exactly pi or at most pi)
and that these contradictory results do no invalidate the axiom systems
no one axiom system is deemed inherently true
rather one particular system is taken as the context for a body of theory
so you (assert a) demanding that it is so obvious true that everyone must agree
and when someone challenges you to actually back up your assertion
you whine you evade you attack the challengers intelligence
you do everything but address the matter at hand
theres a very simple solution to your problem
but it is politically disadvantegous
hence you eschew logic and simply whine that i must agree with you
the simple solution is
i believe a is true because it feels like the truth to me
then if someone else says
i believe b is true because it feels like the truth to me
(where a and b are incompatiable)
the political problem is because a and b are equally well supported
(no proof they are true rather they are both just beliefs)
you longer have the privileged position to demand that others accept a
now for people like myself that means that neither a nor b are privileged
which i am quite happy with
it means society must work out a compromise that tolerates a and b
(and c and d and f etc)
and grants each individual the freedom to make their own choice
in the context of education this arises most often
over whether evolution is true or false
and (separately but foolishly enmeshed with the above)
whether evolution is random or nonrandom
because you are so hot on demanding everyone accept (assert a)
you polarize the situation and refuse to accept compromise
thus demand your beliefs be instutitionalized and established
and that students accept your religion
theres actually quite an easy compromise
which is also logically sound
instead of demanding students walking into a biology class
that they must pray to the lord your darwin
and reject the beliefs of their family
instead when they walk in declare we posit evolution
we posit random change
we are not interested in -the truth-
we are only interested in model that is useful within the context of this class
when the students leave that class they are free to leave behind the posit
or they free to continue to hold it throughout their lives
their choice
their freedom

Post by N***@Click.com
disproved)---only generally speaking a religious
community does not set up scientific labs to do that.

at best what youre saying is the belief systems are incompatiable
so what? life doesnt come with definitive answers
live with it

Post by N***@Click.com
When a religous nut claims is it literal truth that the
entire world was covered with water----it has been
deemed highly unlikey that it occured that way.

suppose i posit a diety that can alter any or all reality moment by miment
such a deity could easily do this
prove such a deity is impossible

Post by N***@Click.com
The Scientific community (defined generally as the
areas that require proof and evidence) has backing it a

until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
A "Scientic method" is not "dogma"--it is a method of
obtaining evidence

youre blind or stupid

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:58:21 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Frankly, I believe sewer gas has addled both your
brains........


But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:58:21 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Frankly, I believe sewer gas has addled both your
brains........
But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

free advice
when you find yourself in a hole
stop digging

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:59:25 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

free advice
when you find yourself in a hole
stop digging

Don't play with matches around your strawmen,
MairzyDoats.

[|><\\(\\(\\((@>]

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?
--
Cod Almighty

alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:36:41 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

Because little lambs eat ivy.

[N***@Click.com]

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?

Thought it was a song from the 40's.

[|><\\(\\(\\((@>]

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.
--
Cod Almighty

alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:11:44 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.

A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:11:44 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.

A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?

i really dont know ivy or her sister that well

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:48:14 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:11:44 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.

A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?

i really dont know ivy or her sister that well

Ivy is HOT!

[N***@Click.com]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:16:25 -0700, Aratzio

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:11:44 GMT, in alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.

A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?

A kiddledy divey too.......

[Michelle Malkin]

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
MairzyDoats.

Why do you feel that a Merseyside moniker might somehow be insulting to an
American halfway around the world?

That's a "Mersey-side moniker"?
Thought it was a song from the 40's.

Sure is.

http://deedecom.blogspot.com/2008/02/mairzydoats.html

Mares eat oats
and does eat oats
and little lambs eat ivy
A kid will eat ivy, too.
Wouldn't you?

Sing it fast, so the words run together.

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>
Fuck knows. I just make this shit up as I go along.
--
Cod Almighty
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[TehGhodTrole]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:58:21 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Frankly, I believe sewer gas has addled both your
brains........

You can believe what you like. The Butterfly is exceedingly intelligent and
if you can't grasp the gist of what's being said to you then that's entirely
your own problem, not anyone else's.

Post by N***@Click.com
But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

Why do you feel that I, as a commentator on you and your failure to grasp
the import of the discussion you're having with The Butterfly, explain
anything to you?

Let me put something to you:

The human brain, due to the sheer necessity to avoid being overwhelmed by
endless amounts of data, both useless and important, applies filters to
everything it experiences. Those filtered experiences, all experiences, are
then labelled and interpreted based on other previously filtered
experiences, emotions, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. In short, the
brain, all of its own accord, discriminates against and discards some
information, and in doing that, it gathers and amplifies other information.

A case in point is the brain's active filtering out of smells and scents. If
you are in a room with a man wearing aftershave or a woman wearing perfume,
on first noticing the smell, the sensations and experience will generally
overwhelm other brain functions to the point of distracting the conscious
mind from whatever task is at hand. After a period of time, the mind will
filter the smell out so that the smell no longer triggers any responses at
all; the smell "goes away". The brain does this without any active
realisation or involvement from the conscious self.

Do you agree or disagree with the above?

Do you feel that the above is bullshit in any way, if so, why?

Do you need additional examples before you will grant the above as
scientific fact?

Do you need references to scientific data before you will accept the above
as scientific fact?

If you disagree, I will gladly continue to provide sufficient argument and
data to you to cause you to reconsider your position. If you agree, I will
drop the big clue on you whereupon you will be allowed to slink off and
nurse your badly battered worldview back to health.

So, do you agree or disagree?

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:50:43 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:58:21 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Frankly, I believe sewer gas has addled both your
brains........

You can believe what you like.

That would make me different from you.

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by N***@Click.com
But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

Why do you feel that I, as a commentator on you and your failure to grasp
the import of the discussion you're having with The Butterfly, explain
anything to you?

Because your conclusion is suspect.

Post by TehGhodTrole
The human brain, due to the sheer necessity to avoid being overwhelmed by
endless amounts of data, both useless and important, applies filters to
everything it experiences. Those filtered experiences, all experiences, are
then labelled and interpreted based on other previously filtered
experiences, emotions, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. In short, the
brain, all of its own accord, discriminates against and discards some
information, and in doing that, it gathers and amplifies other information.
A case in point is the brain's active filtering out of smells and scents. If
you are in a room with a man wearing aftershave or a woman wearing perfume,
on first noticing the smell, the sensations and experience will generally
overwhelm other brain functions to the point of distracting the conscious
mind from whatever task is at hand. After a period of time, the mind will
filter the smell out so that the smell no longer triggers any responses at
all; the smell "goes away". The brain does this without any active
realisation or involvement from the conscious self.
Do you agree or disagree with the above?

Your strawman?

No.

Post by TehGhodTrole
Do you need additional examples before you will grant the above as
scientific fact?

More strawmen cannot make it more relevant.

Post by TehGhodTrole
Do you need references to scientific data before you will accept the above
as scientific fact?

How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

[|><\\(\\(\\((@>]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:50:43 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:58:21 -1200, "TehGhodTrole"

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Excellent work, very good reading. Archived for future reference.

Frankly, I believe sewer gas has addled both your
brains........

You can believe what you like.

That would make me different from you.

Thank fuck for that.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by TehGhodTrole

Post by N***@Click.com
But why don't you explain what "reality is objective"
has to do with whether or not a science basis for
supporting a general (or specific) theory on anything
from the atomic theory to black holes has to do with
all that babbling.

Why do you feel that I, as a commentator on you and your failure to grasp
the import of the discussion you're having with The Butterfly, explain
anything to you?

Because your conclusion is suspect.

Meaning you didn't understand it.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by TehGhodTrole
The human brain, due to the sheer necessity to avoid being overwhelmed by
endless amounts of data, both useless and important, applies filters to
everything it experiences. Those filtered experiences, all experiences, are
then labelled and interpreted based on other previously filtered
experiences, emotions, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. In short, the
brain, all of its own accord, discriminates against and discards some
information, and in doing that, it gathers and amplifies other
information.
A case in point is the brain's active filtering out of smells and scents. If
you are in a room with a man wearing aftershave or a woman wearing perfume,
on first noticing the smell, the sensations and experience will generally
overwhelm other brain functions to the point of distracting the conscious
mind from whatever task is at hand. After a period of time, the mind will
filter the smell out so that the smell no longer triggers any responses at
all; the smell "goes away". The brain does this without any active
realisation or involvement from the conscious self.
Do you agree or disagree with the above?

Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

If you are wondering why an illustration in realy big, brightly coloured
crayons is required it's because you can't grasp words.

Post by N***@Click.com
No.

What do you not agree with and why?

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by TehGhodTrole
Do you need additional examples before you will grant the above as
scientific fact?

More strawmen cannot make it more relevant.

So, how long ago did you learn that new word, strawman?

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by TehGhodTrole
Do you need references to scientific data before you will accept the above
as scientific fact?

How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

Why would I want to do that when I never made any such claim?

How about you define reality?
--
Cod Almighty

alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[N***@Click.com]

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

His illustration is a straw man

All he has to do is answer the question
straightforward.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

His illustration is a straw man
All he has to do is answer the question
straightforward.

Who is "he" and what question does "he" have to answer?

[N***@Click.com]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:00:26 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man"

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

His illustration is a straw man
All he has to do is answer the question
straightforward.

Who is "he" and what question does "he" have to answer?

He is who is, and must answer as if he were who he was.

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:00:26 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man"

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

His illustration is a straw man
All he has to do is answer the question
straightforward.

Who is "he" and what question does "he" have to answer?

He is who is, and must answer as if he were who he was.

quoth
i am that i am

also sprach carroll
'They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Kadaitcha Man]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:00:26 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man"

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
Your strawman?

It is not a straw man. It is an illustration leading to a vital point with
respect to your demand about 'objective reality'.

His illustration is a straw man
All he has to do is answer the question
straightforward.

Who is "he" and what question does "he" have to answer?

He is who is, and must answer as if he were who he was.

bluh bluh

[N***@Click.com]

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

Why would I want to do that when I never made any such claim?

The "scientific method" is a tool they use to arrive at
the conclusions.

So any theory or postulation using the "Scientific
method" would fall into your objection of using it.

[|><\\(\\(\\((@>]

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

Why would I want to do that when I never made any such claim?

The "scientific method" is a tool they use to arrive at
the conclusions.
So any theory or postulation using the "Scientific
method" would fall into your objection of using it.

Ok, and the answer to the question is...?

<aside>
Who dragged that retard into here?
--
Cod Almighty

alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

Why would I want to do that when I never made any such claim?

The "scientific method" is a tool they use to arrive at
the conclusions.
So any theory or postulation using the "Scientific
method" would fall into your objection of using it.

Ok, and the answer to the question is...?
<aside>
Who dragged that retard into here?

my bad

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Kadaitcha Man]

morgan mair fheal, ye dronish filthy officer, o you beast, o faithless
coward, o dishonest wretch. Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice, ye

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by |><\\(\\(\\((@>

Post by N***@Click.com
How about you tear down, say, scientific evidence
(obtained by the scientific method) that counters a
claim the earth began on (about) Noon of 4004 BC.

Why would I want to do that when I never made any such claim?

The "scientific method" is a tool they use to arrive at
the conclusions.
So any theory or postulation using the "Scientific
method" would fall into your objection of using it.

Ok, and the answer to the question is...?
<aside>
Who dragged that retard into here?

my bad

Oh, no, not a problem. I want to congratulate you on a job well done. Nice
kook. i can see your pet winning a swag of awards, if it doesn't go
wandering off into busy traffic...

[N***@Click.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:30:59 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:48:41 -0700, mariposas rand mair

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
The religious community (as everyone knows) is not in
the business of scientifically proving (or disproving)
their conclusions (dogma) by a standard of evidence
that can be supported by fact, or evidence.

by the standard evidence that can be supported by evidence?
what is gibberish?

I'd say it's fairly simple---which is why it might be
over your head.

id say youre embedding your beliefs into words like evidence
and then pretending words like evidence are belief neutral

What "emotional belief" skews the scientific determined
speed of light?, or various properties of matter under
various conditions?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
thats intellectually dishonest

That's nonsense.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
evidence doesnt exist without a framework to detect and interpret it

That's what a scientific community does.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
but you refuse any discussion of the framework you use
demanding that everyone else accept it as true without discussion

What "framework" are you babbling about?

The "truth" of science can be mutable. It is not rigid
or unchangable---(as religious nuttery is)

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
Faith is the ONLY evidence for a religious nut has to
have to believe the truth of a matter.

do tell dogma boy

No, I dont "tell"---that's the prerequisite of faith.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
I've never said anyone "outside" could not test or
verify what a scientific method proved (or

youre being stupid or evasive
lets be logical

No, lets be rational----

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
one of the basic constructs.....

Is that a theory based on science is considered truth
unless it is dis-proven ( by science)

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
your argument to date is
if s then e
assert s
therefore e

Pretty much your babble construct

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
and you repeatedly refuse any discussion of

You haven't offered any discussion of anything other
than to say science is bogus.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
what youre apparently too dim to realize
is that wiser people than you do not simply (assert s)

What "wiser people".

These aren't little people who visit you in the night,
are they?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
mathematics found itself in this position
when such an obvious truth as the parallel postulate was challenged

Something is "truth" when an alternative is offered
with supporting evidence

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
so you (assert a) demanding that it is so obvious true that everyone must agree

Nonsense

I've asserted nothing about any "theory".

I have merelyclaimed that the "scientific method" is
the ONLY method to test hypotheses and support evidence
to whatever is being claimed---that "theories" are
subject to change IF evidence can presented to alter
that accepted truth.

OTOH, all you can offer is psychobabble, irrelevant
ramblings about crap that hasn't a whit to do with
whether or a METHOD of gathering evidence is valid, and
I seriously doubt you even know what your mumbling
about.

[cpt banjo]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
instead of demanding students walking into a biology class
that they must pray to the lord your darwin
and reject the beliefs of their family
instead when they walk in declare we posit evolution
we posit random change
we are not interested in -the truth-

They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
when the students leave that class they are free to leave behind the posit
or they free to continue to hold it throughout their lives
their choice
their freedom

Their ignorance. Why not just tell them in an astronomy class that
we're positing the heliocentric model of the universe, but they're
perfectly free to go home and believe that the sun revolves around the
earth. Or that the earth is flat. Or that the earth rests on a
turtle, which rests on another turtle, etc.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
life doesnt come with definitive answers

You just uttered one and thereby fell victim to the contradiction
common to relativism.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
until you can prove something as simple as reality is objective
you dont have the logically wherewithal
to demand others accept your notions of proof or evidence

Define "prove".

Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

Does science have a better track record in predicting phenomena than
do religious theories? You betcha.

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[cpt banjo]

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions?  Yes.  We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

You missed the point -- you sounded like a relativist until you
inserted the snide "we are not interested in - the truth" into your
screed, thereby implying your belief in the concept of truth (which
doesn't include evolution). But then you reverted back to form when
you seemed to say that all views are of equal value and that people
have the freedom to believe whatever they want to.

While people may have that freedom, they will find that there may be
serious consequences from acting on their beliefs. One who believes
that he can jump off a 40-story building and walk on air will find out
very quickly that his belief is worthless.

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by cpt banjo

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions?  Yes.  We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

You missed the point -- you sounded like a relativist until you
inserted the snide "we are not interested in - the truth" into your
screed, thereby implying your belief in the concept of truth (which
doesn't include evolution). But then you reverted back to form when
you seemed to say that all views are of equal value and that people
have the freedom to believe whatever they want to.
While people may have that freedom, they will find that there may be
serious consequences from acting on their beliefs. One who believes
that he can jump off a 40-story building and walk on air will find out
very quickly that his belief is worthless.

i did that just the other day
i dont understand what you think the problem is

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:18:33 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

Because there isn't any evidence that we are all brains in a vat being
given fake data. The most rational approach is to treat what we see and
hear and test as reality and stop making excuses for those who jump to
epistemological nihilism to excuse their own war on reality. Since the
world works as if what we see is real, we might as well treat it that
way, any other approach is foolish.

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:18:33 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

Because there isn't any evidence that we are all brains in a vat being
given fake data. The most rational approach is to treat what we see and

the most rational approach is to understand that that is a choice

im not saying dont make a choice
simply realize it is a choice
and others may choose differently

Post by Free Lunch
hear and test as reality and stop making excuses for those who jump to
epistemological nihilism to excuse their own war on reality. Since the
world works as if what we see is real, we might as well treat it that
way, any other approach is foolish.

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:02:14 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:18:33 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

Because there isn't any evidence that we are all brains in a vat being
given fake data. The most rational approach is to treat what we see and

the most rational approach is to understand that that is a choice

It's not really a choice. Just because some fools fantasize about a
totally untestable claim, that does not mean that this claim is at all
valid. Without evidence for a claim, the believers in it are fools.

Post by morgan mair fheal
im not saying dont make a choice
simply realize it is a choice
and others may choose differently

Post by Free Lunch
hear and test as reality and stop making excuses for those who jump to
epistemological nihilism to excuse their own war on reality. Since the
world works as if what we see is real, we might as well treat it that
way, any other approach is foolish.

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:02:14 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:18:33 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

Because there isn't any evidence that we are all brains in a vat being
given fake data. The most rational approach is to treat what we see and

the most rational approach is to understand that that is a choice

It's not really a choice. Just because some fools fantasize about a
totally untestable claim, that does not mean that this claim is at all
valid. Without evidence for a claim, the believers in it are fools.

your evidence does not exist independently of your belief it is evidence
why its that such a difficult concept to get on usenet
when it is daily challenged in courts?

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:23:17 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by Free Lunch
It's not really a choice. Just because some fools fantasize about a
totally untestable claim, that does not mean that this claim is at all
valid. Without evidence for a claim, the believers in it are fools.

your evidence does not exist independently of your belief it is evidence

Sounds like you're assigning some metaphysical label to
the term "evidence"---when in fact it is devoid of a
"side"

Scientific evidence is either (as close) to truth as it
can be made, susceptible to attack or verification and
if it cannot withstand that test(s) it is not accepted.

Post by morgan mair fheal
why its that such a difficult concept to get on usenet
when it is daily challenged in courts?

Be specific.

What evidence is challenged by what parties in what
cases.

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:23:17 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by Free Lunch
It's not really a choice. Just because some fools fantasize about a
totally untestable claim, that does not mean that this claim is at all
valid. Without evidence for a claim, the believers in it are fools.

your evidence does not exist independently of your belief it is evidence

Sounds like you're assigning some metaphysical label to
the term "evidence"---when in fact it is devoid of a
"side"
Scientific evidence is either (as close) to truth as it
can be made, susceptible to attack or verification and
if it cannot withstand that test(s) it is not accepted.

Post by morgan mair fheal
why its that such a difficult concept to get on usenet
when it is daily challenged in courts?

Be specific.
What evidence is challenged by what parties in what
cases.

the brain is closed
but the mouth is open

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:35:59 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
What evidence is challenged by what parties in what
cases.

the brain is closed
but the mouth is open

Just say you don't have a clue......

[morgan mair fheal]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:35:59 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
What evidence is challenged by what parties in what
cases.

the brain is closed
but the mouth is open

Just say you don't have a clue......

why do you snip things and then complain because what you snipped is gone?

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[N***@Click.com]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:22:38 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:35:59 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by N***@Click.com
What evidence is challenged by what parties in what
cases.

the brain is closed
but the mouth is open

Just say you don't have a clue......

why do you snip things and then complain because what you snipped is gone?

Snipping babbling air isn't really losing anything, is
it?

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:02:14 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal
the most rational approach is to understand that that is a choice
im not saying dont make a choice
simply realize it is a choice
and others may choose differently

Exactly

That's why you choose to post screeds---and we don't.

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:18:33 -0700, morgan mair fheal

Post by morgan mair fheal

Post by cpt banjo
They aren't? Why would you say this unless, perhaps, you don't believe
evolution is the truth.
Does science have unprovable assumptions? Yes. We could all be
brains in vats.

then why do you care if evolution is the truth?

"caring" isn't the issue

The THEORY of evolution is an attempt to explain things
in a means other than just "believing it to be true"

It is "true" only if the evidence supports the
prevailing "theory" (which it does).

The theory can be discarded or modified (as it has)
with the rise of technology

Not so for religous nuttery.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:56:56 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack
No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

But religious beliefs are rooted in faith and are not
dependent on evidence or facts.

[Jack]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:56:56 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack
No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

But religious beliefs are rooted in faith and are not
dependent on evidence or facts.

Okay but I was talking about theories.

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:23:40 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:56:56 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack
No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

But religious beliefs are rooted in faith and are not
dependent on evidence or facts.

Okay but I was talking about theories.

Religious beliefs are not "theories"---they maintain
they are truth---and unalterable.

[Jack]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:23:40 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:56:56 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack
No he's right, a theory is a set of beliefs.

But religious beliefs are rooted in faith and are not
dependent on evidence or facts.

Okay but I was talking about theories.

Religious beliefs are not "theories"---they maintain
they are truth---and unalterable.

That's fine but I was talking about theories.

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:19 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by N***@Click.com
Religious beliefs are not "theories"---they maintain
they are truth---and unalterable.

That's fine but I was talking about theories.

Science is replete with "theories"----they attempt to
explain phenomena by impirical evidence. Some are
absolutely accurate, some are "theoretical" and some
only last long enough for technology to establish them
viable or false.

They remain "theories" until proven or disproven

Scientific "theories" are meant to be challenged.

[Jack]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:19 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by N***@Click.com
Religious beliefs are not "theories"---they maintain
they are truth---and unalterable.

That's fine but I was talking about theories.

Science is replete with "theories"----they attempt to
explain phenomena by impirical evidence. Some are
absolutely accurate,

I'm an engineer so I don't know anything about absolute accuracy.

Post by N***@Click.com
some are "theoretical" and some
only last long enough for technology to establish them
viable or false.
They remain "theories" until proven or disproven

I don't think theories are ever really proven. I suppose sometimes a
particularly well understood phenomena is upgraded from theory to law.

Post by N***@Click.com
Scientific "theories" are meant to be challenged.

Sure.

[Free Lunch]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:19 -0400, "Jack"

Post by Jack

Post by N***@Click.com
Religious beliefs are not "theories"---they maintain
they are truth---and unalterable.

That's fine but I was talking about theories.

Science is replete with "theories"----they attempt to
explain phenomena by impirical evidence. Some are
absolutely accurate, some are "theoretical" and some
only last long enough for technology to establish them
viable or false.
They remain "theories" until proven or disproven
Scientific "theories" are meant to be challenged.

Not really, though they may be as more information is available.

In science theories are the best available explanations for the
observations about a particular scientific discipline. It is true that
some folks end up calling hypotheses theories, but if it isn't generally
accepted by those in the particular discipline, it isn't helpful to call
it a theory.

[DanielSan]

Post by N***@Click.com
Scientific "theories" are meant to be challenged.

But they can only be challenged with scientific evidence.