"Outbreaks of metaphysics are not allowed!"
"Stop that! Stop that now!"
"We do not grant liberty for this silliness!"
"You have been warned!"
Colonel Objectivist
Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
"Outbreaks of metaphysics are not allowed!"
"Stop that! Stop that now!"
"We do not grant liberty for this silliness!"
"You have been warned!"
Colonel Objectivist
Last peek(?) ping to the two Ladies, from this knave who would be of your court.
Any feminist could tell you what these imitate!
Nuclear reactors?
and any masculinist!
Listen up punk. You don't know anything about me. This is a value judgment that you have no right to make. Before you characterize me, go look in the mirror.
but it is equally important to be able to communicate ideas effectively.
I do communicate effectively. I am intentionally being terse because it isn't worth the effort to attempt to converse with people who already have their minds made up despite all evidence to the contrary. You want to defend them? Fine by me. I can ignore you too.
Good communication starts with a good vocabulary.
Definitions, definitions, definitions.
Congratulations on the brave attempt to use the word "conflate": the meaning is correct but the tone is incorrect. "Conflate" is a passive not an active verb.
If the 'meaning is correct' then the rest of your statement is stupid. I don't give a damn about the 'tone.' This is only an effort to the confuse the poorly educated. I was specifically objecting to the active conflation of the terms. You need a lesson in logic terms.
He actually "integrates" science and metaphysics, et al.
Assertion Without Proof. He conflates them. Words have precise meanings. Science is based upon experience; metaphysics, by definition, upon theory.
By the way, it is interesting to see you "conflate" science and scientific claims.
These terms are self contraditory. I did no such thing.
The ignorance of the rabble is truly frightening.
Ok. For what it is worth.
I have been through a very lot in my life. I have seen things that make what you describe seem trivial.
Let me ask you. What would Doug Henning seem to be a thousand years ago? Wouldn't he have been able to claim to be some sort of God!?
It is only because of our knowledge and his honesty that we don't think so.
There are many issues here. The problem is we want to mix them all up.
This real world, and the spiritual world, are, by definition, separate.
Why do you people want to keep making them one?
Don't you understand? They are not, and can never be?
I have tried, very hard, to not specifically debunk Christianity. I am only concerned with the truths that can be proved by science.
But you guys keep tying the two together, and blaming it on me.
Why?
You're just not the arbiter of such things, LW.
spiritual does not equal unreal
That is an illogical assumption. There is much evidence of the spiritual in our world and concomitantly, there is no way of disproving it.
Your post is void of rational content, but thanks for alerting me to the fact that this thread is still alive.
1) Unspun, LW wants you to tell him why we keep tying belief in with "fact".
2) LW, unspun wants to know if you could have faith in God if he lowered himself to explaining everything with lab demonstrations? (See the contradiction?)
Not so. As I pointed out, it still wouldn't prove anything about salvation through Christ. THAT'S WHERE FAITH COMES IN, not simply believing there's a God. People can and do believe in God's existence without being saved.
Anyway, no creationist has said creationism has been or can be proven. They've just said it's more rational than believing in evolution.
Well, I believe that's because we like to look for two things:
1. the bases for belief.
2. additional evidence, which may refine and help us to understand our beliefs, and/or which will defend what we believe against those who believe otherwise and promulgate conflicting beliefs, and/or which will hopefully help to convince others of the imperative of what we believe to be imperative.
Well put (granting of course that God can and did choose precisely how he brought what we see into being). The perpestive to which you refer is why John Locke entitled his book, The Reasonableness of Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.