Blinded by Science

Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all so much for your posts!

It used to be the term Christian fundamentalist meant a person who believed in a certain set of tenets the first of which is that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I would fall within the definition of a Christian fundamentalist.

The term fundamentalist though began being mixed with the term extremist - e.g. extremist Islamic fundamentalist - which narrowed to the most mean spirited groups acting on religious dogma.

When I coined the phrase at 873, I used the full precise wording, i.e. extremist atheist fundamentalist.

Sadly though, it is true that the term fundamentalist has now been shortened in common usage to mean extremist fundamentalist. And thus my statement in 873 and in 881 might be misunderstood.

IMHO, we ought to be diligent on other threads - especially the evolution v creation threads - to define the terms.

It ought to be received as a reasonable request since others have objected to the use of the term evolution, because the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis. Consequently, we have been careful to use the full phrase, theory of evolution when speaking to Darwin's theory - and evolution when speaking to the more broad and common understanding of gradual change over time.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your concerns!

[tpaine]

Thank you so much for your post! Hugs and *smooches* always!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Hugs and *smooches* to you, too!

[Doctor Stochastic]

One final point - one invented differential calculus and the other integral calculus

No. You should learn some history of mathematics. These things are easy to look up.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How do you classify those who continually post easily exposed lies, such as claiming that someone wrote a bunch of articles when a simple literature search shows that these were written by someone else?

[tpaine]

Whatever.
'Hip' hypocrisy is really boring, -- just in case you didn't know, dearie..

[Alamo-Girl]

You said:

'Hip' hypocrisy is really boring

Presuming you think I am the hypocrite and you are the one "really" bored, perhaps you should consider not spending any further time reading my posts or posting to me.

[tpaine]

I was 'invited' to comment, by betty.

But in any case, if you can't take the heat, perhaps you could stop hypocritically bashing your peers about religious beliefs.

Thank you so much for your post! Hugs and *smooches* always!

"I agree with you on the types 1, 2 and 3 among the religious.
However, --
-- type 3 conduct by someone who claims to be Christian ought to challenged with the following passage --
-- because it may indicate a failure to love, and sometimes we need a reminder:"
-alamo-girl-

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your concerns!

[tpaine]

Thank you so much for your post! Hugs and *smooches* always!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Hugs and *smooches* to you, too!

[MHGinTN]

'Often mistaken'? ... Is that a category?

[PatrickHenry]

I certainly agree with you about the term "Christian fundamentalist," and when in post 873, you used the expression "extremist atheist fundamentalist," I understood that you were being a bit creative, and mimicking the popular usage of "fundamentalist" as being just an agressively persistent buffoon. When I flipped your wording around in post 878, I suppose I put the term "fundamentalist" back into its proper setting, but I didn't give it all that much thought in a theological sense. I was just using your type 1, 2, 3 classification and applying it in another context. It works in both, regardless of the precision of the term "fundamentalist." For what it's worth, I've known Christian fundamentalists who fit all three types. And -- separate but current issue -- I never thought you were a hypocrite.
[Uncontrollable hugs and smooches.]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for the explanation and encouragement!

I wasn't thinking about the Christian theological implications of the word when I coined it or when I replied to you. It does indeed have a specific meaning in Christian theology apart from any conduct of believers.

Hugs and *smooches* always!

[balrog666]

Amused placemarker.

[tortoise]

The one I personally thank FWIW is The One. As in 1x1x1=1. And 1x6.6billion=6.6billion. But if 1=0 then, 1x6.6billion does not =6.6billion. It equals zero. Therfore 1=something.

Ummm... That doesn't make much sense. We could be talking about marshmallows and it would make as much sense. While you're at it, work n^0 = 1 into your mix.

Incidentally, in some important parts of mathematics (e.g. the parts that actually have descriptive value of the underlying reality) "1" and "0" have the same consequences. We can only assert relative values and patterns therein, but "1" really does equal "0" in meaning. All we can assert is that they are different, not what the difference is.

[tpaine]

And -- separate but current issue -- I never thought you were a hypocrite.

Blessed be those who stir the pot as 'peacemakers'..

"[Uncontrollable hugs and smooches.]"

[betty boop]

Alamo-Girl wrote, fairly dripping with sarcasm

How do you know A-G was "dripping with sarcasm," tpaine? I have never known her to "drip with sarcasm." Not about anything, ever. It's simply not her style.

IMHO, you have an unfortunate habit of attibuting motives to people you don't even know. FWIW.

You criticize Alamo-Girl and me for our hypocritical lack of neighborly love. Be that as it may, may I point out that "love of neighbor" is not sentimental love? Sometimes it is "tough love?" And the reason motivating that sort of thing is the genuine concern that one feels for the well being of one's neighbor?

Of course, even love can be resisted.

[betty boop]

Hello A-G!!!

WRT nothing in particular and everything in general, I came across some lines last night that I wanted to share:

"Love, in fact, is the vocation which includes all others; it's a universe of its own, comprising all time and space -- it's eternal."

From St. Therese of Lisieux. I thought you might like this....