Re: Collins to head NIH?

On 2009-07-28, snex <xens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-07-27, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-07-27, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:20 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:10:48 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:07 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:04:40 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 24, 9:44 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:54:11 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
On 23 July, 18:42, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

yes there seem to be two sorts of statements about the physical world.
Scientific ones which we are allowed to question. And religious ones
which for some reason we are not.

Get some mainstream theology books (those that refer to folks like
Aquinas and Erasmus, not Gish and Morris).  You will find that there
are few if any religious statements which go unquestioned.  The
distinction you make is empirically falsified.  Try again.
Seriously, keep thinking about it.

but you keep telling us that religious claims arent amenable to
evidence. so how the hell can one question them? explain the process, in
detail, by which theological truths are arrived at. ive been asking
for this for years, and people can never give an answer.

There are many books on philosophy of religion.  John Hick's
_Philosophy of Religion_ comes highly recommended.  Or you can [read]
Descarte, Aquinas, Agustine, and other famous theologians for yourself.

or you can just answer the question. but i know you wont. you never do.

Long ago, I used to do other people's homework for them.  No more.
Either do the work yourself, or stop being a lazy-ass crybaby.

see, this is the stock theist response. and then you chide me for not
wanting to know or not bothering to ask. here i am asking you. and
here you are evading the question.

And yet when people do give you answers, you snip their replies.

Do you own homework, kid.

no idiot liar, i snip obfuscatory bull*** that attempts to evade the
question. these tactics may work on your religious friends when
applied by their snake oil salesmen of choice, but they will not work
on me. answer the questions i ask, not some nonsense you make up.

"Because scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, it is
the enemy of dogma."

*** Taverne, correpondence, Nature 459, 774 (11 June 2009).

the question was "but you keep telling us that religious claims arent
amenable to evidence.

Nope. One-off historical miraculous events are not amenable to
evidence, but the same is true of any other one-off historical event.

so how the hell can one question them? explain
the process, in detail, by which theological truths are arrived at."

Observation, experiment, reason, and analysis. (Because you're
not familiar with religious practice or religious history, this
will appear inexplicable to you.)

In my partner's Quaker meeting, they are currently determining the
nature of prayer. One group comes from a tradition where making
specific requests in prayer is perfectly acceptable. Another is
from a tradition where "prayer is for your benefit, not God's".

Being Quakers, they will resovle this by talking. They will
try different approaches and see how they work (experiment),
they will extrapolate from their accumulated knowledge, and
eventually they'll reach a consensus as to what is best for
the meeting.

Note that they are not trying to establish an empirical fact.
They are answering a question of "ought", and they are doing
so for that particular meeting.


its so sad that you cant even come up with your own evasions,

Is all scientific knowledge tentative?

"Even the most robust and reliable theory, however, is tentative.
A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and --
as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy -- may ultimately be rejected
after centuries of viability."

Amicus Curiae brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State academies of
science, and 7 other scientific organization, in support of
appellees, Edwards v. Aguillard.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

Do you agree?

but
rather can only quote others.

It's a habit I've gotten into from publishing in peer-reviewed
conferences and journals.

but then thats what i expect from people
defending an institution that is, at its root, based on deliberate
falsehoods.

Not that you've managed to show any....


.

Loading