RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible?

RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 3:54:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It's true that you specified the Christian God, but it is not true that MM expanded the discussion. Rather, it's a case of you trying to narrow and divert it. It beats the impossible task of trying to talk about every single version of God at once. Actually, the only seemingly impossible task here is to get certain people to read and understand English. The topic is whether Science and Religion are incompatible, not whether Science and a particular notion of "God" are incompatible. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 3:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ALL THINGS-- as far as I can tell, that includes everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. See previous. A thing is an object; a happening is an event. It's called English. K.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ALL THINGS-- as far as I can tell, that includes everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. A thing is an object, a happening is an event, and you are an illiterate. K. I would start believing in miracles if you could actually get through a single post without being a pompous cunt. So I'm now going to tell you someTHING. People who know THINGS about words know that THING is not merely a synonym for object, it is its own THING. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing quote: Definition of thing 1 a : a matter of concern : affair <many things to do>b things plural : state of affairs in general or within a specified or implied sphere <things are improving>c : a particular state of affairs : situation <look at this thing another way>d : event, circumstance <that shooting was a terrible thing> 2 a : deed, act, accomplishment <do great things>b : a product of work or activity <likes to build things>c : the aim of effort or activity <the thing is to get well> 3 a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entityb : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearancesc : a spatial entityd : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being 4 a things plural : possessions, effects <pack your things>b : whatever may be possessed or owned or be the object of a rightc : an article of clothing <not a thing to wear>d things plural : equipment or utensils especially for a particular purpose <bring the tea things> 5 : an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated <use this thing> 6 a : detail, point <checks every little thing>b : a material or substance of a specified kind <avoid fatty things> 7 a : a spoken or written observation or pointb : idea, notion <says the first thing he thinks of>c : a piece of news or information <couldn't get a thing out of him> 8 : individual <not a living thing in sight> 9 : the proper or fashionable way of behaving, talking, or dressing —used with the 10 a : a mild obsession or phobia <has a thing about driving>; also : the object of such an obsession or phobiab : something (such as an activity) that makes a strong appeal to the individual : forte, specialty <letting students do their own thing — Newsweek> <I think travelling is very much a novelist's thing — Philip Larkin> Now stop being such an illiterate, stupid, mentally ill douchebag with no concept of how English works. If you're trying to argue that in this context, the only possible meaning it could have had is objects, then prove it.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Actually, the only seemingly impossible task here is to get certain people to read and understand English. The topic is whether Science and Religion are incompatible, not whether Science and a particular notion of "God" are incompatible. Oh right, you're so concerned about staying on topic that you repeatedly questioned and demanded answers from him for several pages.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:46:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I would start believing in miracles if you could actually get through a single post without being a pompous cunt. So I'm now going to tell you someTHING. People who know THINGS about words know that THING is not merely a synonym for object, it is its own THING... Now stop being such an illiterate, stupid, mentally ill douchebag with no concept of how English works. Yeah excuse me, bozo, but you're looking more illiterate with every post. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. The secret word is context. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:52:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Actually, the only seemingly impossible task here is to get certain people to read and understand English. The topic is whether Science and Religion are incompatible, not whether Science and a particular notion of "God" are incompatible. Oh right, you're so concerned about staying on topic that you repeatedly questioned and demanded answers from him for several pages. Well, I thought confronting him with the fact that he had no case would shut him up. But I should have known better, and I don't expect it to work with you either. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:03:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker If you're trying to argue that in this context, the only possible meaning it could have had is objects, then prove it. I just spotted that edit. I guess it must have dawned on you that you might be building your castle on sand. At least, I hope so. I hope you didn't think you were going to catch me out. If you did, make a note for future reference. [:)] K.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:40:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. The secret word is context. But if all things includes all of space and all of time, then time is not linear and events were also made when God made all things. They don't actually happen, the 'happening' is our perception of them. In your statement you didn't mention context at all... you were proclaiming that things and objects were the same, which is why you got the response you did (and I even asked about context). Oh, and you're a stupid cunt.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:46:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well, I thought confronting him with the fact that he had no case would shut him up. But I should have known better, and I don't expect it to work with you either. A good way to work on that whole 'pompous cunt' thing would be to make yourself more open to the possibility that you're wrong.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 6:43:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I did specify which God I was talking about. MM expanded the discussion, or he tried to. I made no reference to Buddhists or to the Hindu gods. MM introduced those straw men. It's true that you specified the Christian God, but it is not true that MM expanded the discussion. Rather, it's a case of you trying to narrow and divert it. The topic title considers the broad sweep of religion. Its focus isn't the Christian God, and the "problem of evil" which so preoccupies you not only has nothing to do with topic, it isn't even a problem for religion generally. I don't know why you find it necessary to pollute every attempt at intelligent discussion with your peculiar obsessions, but your ludicrous attempt to accuse others of trying to "expand" the discussion is really quite droll. K. Droll but not dull . . . In your OP you referenced a survey on the topic. In the "by religion section" we can see that the overwhelming number of respondents are Christian. There was also a section of respondents by political party . . . Republicans and Democrats. AFAIK, large Buddhist and Hindu populations do not house those political parties, and there are large factions of Christians in those parties. Pointing to the Christian God is hardly off topic. You really should be more "aware" of the subject of your thread. I introduced the topic of theodicy in reply to a poster's misbegotten notions of the evolution of furry fish (or not) while pointing to the paleontological evidence for five mass extinctions, so I was very much on topic of religion and science. (my post #95)

dcnovice -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 6:51:31 AM)
FR Given that John's prologue was written in Koine Greek, I'm not sure battling over the English meaning of "things" is all that productive. A more fruitful question might be what "all things" may have meant to those hearing the passage in the first or second centuries. I've always taken the words to mean the whole of creation, including humankind, but then I've never delved into the question. Bonus trivia: John 1 was considered such a core text that it was read at the end of each Roman Catholic mass prior to Vatican II.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. The secret word is context. But if all things includes all of space and all of time, then time is not linear and events were also made when God made all things. They don't actually happen, the 'happening' is our perception of them. In your statement you didn't mention context at all... you were proclaiming that things and objects were the same, which is why you got the response you did (and I even asked about context). Oh, and you're a stupid cunt. I didn't "mention" the context? Ferfucksake, I quoted it. And you provided it: The Gospel of John. The context of John 1:3 is "in the beginning," and non-linear time doesn't have a beginning. But hey, keep swinging. The poor lonely brain cell obviously needs the exercise, and I think it's helping. You're becoming more creative. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I introduced the topic of theodicy in reply to a poster's misbegotten notions of the evolution of furry fish... Yeah, and the scary thing is that you really do think they connect somehow. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well, I thought confronting him with the fact that he had no case would shut him up. But I should have known better, and I don't expect it to work with you either. A good way to work on that whole 'pompous cunt' thing would be to make yourself more open to the possibility that you're wrong. Well, I guess if you shut up then I'll have to admit I was. [:)] K.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:01:45 AM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event is a kinda better guide vincient planet earth ~4.5 billion year olde life has been around probably ~4 billion of those...perhaps a bit more..perhaps a little bit less religion has been around 50 years - 2000 - 10 000, perhaps 100 000. I'd ban the lot of them.

Musicmystery -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:05:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. The secret word is context. But if all things includes all of space and all of time, then time is not linear and events were also made when God made all things. They don't actually happen, the 'happening' is our perception of them. In your statement you didn't mention context at all... you were proclaiming that things and objects were the same, which is why you got the response you did (and I even asked about context). Oh, and you're a stupid cunt. I didn't "mention" the context? Ferfucksake, I quoted it. And you provided it: The Gospel of John. The context of John 1:3 is "in the beginning," and non-linear time doesn't have a beginning. But hey, keep swinging. The poor lonely brain cell obviously needs the exercise, and I think it's helping. You're becoming more creative. K. In several religious systems, including Hinduism, Taoism, and many primal religions, their isn't this "God did everything" assumption -- for the Greeks, the Universe created the gods. For many, the Universe just always was, vs. created. So...if folks want the discussion limited to the Abraham religions, it's worth clarifying that at the outset. At the same time, that's just announcing "we're going to cling to assumptions," so the conversation is likely to be circular.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The context of John 1:3 is "in the beginning," and non-linear time doesn't have a beginning. But hey, keep swinging. The poor lonely brain cell obviously needs the exercise, and I think it's helping. You're becoming more creative. But Creation DOES have a beginning-- it began OUTSIDE of time. So you CAN have non-linear time that has a beginning, at least if you agree that God created the world as opposed to just being its keeper or whatever. God created a universe where time is not linear, the non-linear time began when he created that universe-- simple. There is no mention of God creating Himself, or of being created by anyone or anything else, and that's something that would have to happen before all of this Heaven and Earth stuff (ie: in the REAL beginning)... so I'm pretty sure that the Bible is talking about the beginning of our universe, not the beginning of God, meaning God is before/outside/apart from our universe, as well as probably being within it. Even if God DIDN'T begin at all, there was definitely some state where He existed but our universe did not... because creation cannot occur unless the thing that is created does not yet exist. I don't know what God was doing before he created the heaven and the earth, and I'm not an omnipotent being, but I'm pretty sure that you can't create something from within before it even exists. Or maybe you can, because it's not like there are any rules that I know of preventing God from doing so... but I'd need to see some references for that. I'm not even going to insult you this time because it's just getting in the way.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:33:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. The secret word is context. But if all things includes all of space and all of time, then time is not linear and events were also made when God made all things. They don't actually happen, the 'happening' is our perception of them. In your statement you didn't mention context at all... you were proclaiming that things and objects were the same, which is why you got the response you did (and I even asked about context). Oh, and you're a stupid cunt. I didn't "mention" the context? Ferfucksake, I quoted it. And you provided it: The Gospel of John. The context of John 1:3 is "in the beginning," and non-linear time doesn't have a beginning. But hey, keep swinging. The poor lonely brain cell obviously needs the exercise, and I think it's helping. You're becoming more creative. K. In several religious systems, including Hinduism, Taoism, and many primal religions, their isn't this "God did everything" assumption -- for the Greeks, the Universe created the gods. For many, the Universe just always was, vs. created. So...if folks want the discussion limited to the Abraham religions, it's worth clarifying that at the outset. At the same time, that's just announcing "we're going to cling to assumptions," so the conversation is likely to be circular. I will patiently once again point out that the respondents in the OP linked survey were overwhelmingly of the Abrahamic Faith, Republican, and Democrat. So, your persistence on bringing in Tao, Hindu and other beliefs is way off topic.

Musicmystery -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:59:51 AM)
OK. But the problem then is the one outlined above. If we set our assumptions as the parameters, we only find what we think we know.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 9:00:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I introduced the topic of theodicy in reply to a poster's misbegotten notions of the evolution of furry fish... Yeah, and the scary thing is that you really do think they connect somehow. K. Ohhhh . . . . I didn't intend to frighten you, child. Perhaps you will feel safe hiding under your bed for awhile.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625