LoneWolf16 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 ^----Also agreed. Emphatically. I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 How would Christians like it if their religion had to be based on positive empirical truths? Scientists don't want their statistics based on logical claims that can't ever be proved. How about neither impose their will on the other, and we all stay happy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alright, let's stop framing this as an actual scientific debate. Science has nothing to do with what's going on in Kansas. These people wouldn't be capable of caring less about science if it didn't explicitly contradict claims made in their how-to-live-life manual. It's about fear of science, if anything. It is about forcing religious views into the classroom in order to reaffirm their own sense of what's true about this world. How this all is not considered an endorsement of religion by the government is entirely beyond me. Many people don't understand why it's such a big deal. They are fundamentally changing the definition of an entire discipline just to bring it in line with their personal beliefs. That school board member was right when she said it's going to make Kansas a laughingstock. And you know what's worse? Kansas is just the first state to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) nevermind that science is not a dogma, a theology, or even a set of beliefs. If religion is never at fault, neither is science. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Great points Commissar. I still want to stress though that science(statistics) do not suggest one how to live like christianity. Christianity, as well as the intentions are, some of their values and morals confict with this day and age. The book is aging, and with that age, what is acceptable changes. Change is good(i think). Some of christianity does not allow these natural changes in an orthodox/strict conservative point of view. Another weakness that the bible has from time to time is that it can be so vague, so incoherent, that people can make out whatever they wish from the text. Edited November 10, 2005 by WITHTEETH Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 They are fundamentally changing the definition of an entire discipline just to bring it in line with their personal beliefs. That school board member was right when she said it's going to make Kansas a laughingstock. And you know what's worse? Kansas is just the first state to do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes i agree. Kansas students and scientists are already getting discrimination from other sates when they apply. Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianw Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Change is good(i think). Some of christianity does not allow these natural changes in an orthodox/strict conservative point of view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am with you on this one. Progress is good. If people don't adapt their religious understandings to scientific advancements, I guess I would quote from one of the articles posted: 'God gave you a brain. Use it!' (These words were aimed at the Kansas school board members.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blank Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) No. The second definition makes it very clear that explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The new Kansas definition allows those explanations to come from anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree, because it actually says that science is the study of the physical world alone (and the physical world's manifestations). So I think you meant to say that science for the rest of the world does not include natural phenomenon unless it is making itself manifest in the physical world. But it does not say that the explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The rest of the world:Study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment If what you said is true, then there is nothing other than the physical world. Edited November 10, 2005 by Blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 No. The second definition makes it very clear that explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The new Kansas definition allows those explanations to come from anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree, because it actually says that science is the study of the physical world alone (and the physical world's manifestations). So I think you meant to say that science for the rest of the world does not include natural phenomenon unless it is making itself manifest in the physical world. But it does not say that the explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The rest of the world:Study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment If what you said is true, then there is nothing other than the physical world. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blank Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 How would Christians like it if their religion had to be based on positive empirical truths? Scientists don't want their statistics based on logical claims that can't ever be proved. How about neither impose their will on the other, and we all stay happy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That school board member was right when she said it's going to make Kansas a laughingstock. And you know what's worse? Kansas is just the first state to do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lol. I laugh because it is so true. Imposing upon the world of science is not the best way of conversion IMO, if conversion is even their intention. They are either trying to convert people to their way of thinking, or they are trying to make life easier for themselves. But that once again confuses me, for if the latter is true, then they must not believe that being persecuted avails rewards from God, and therefore, they don't seem to be following the heart of God as presented in the Bible. I think they should welcome their own contrast with the rest of the world, and look at themselves as a light in a world of darkness [but they should still be humble, mind you. This wouldn't give them any right to do whatever they want (e.g. start wars) because they believe they are light and everything else is darkness. On the contrary, the very motive behind starting wars would put them into darkness as Jesus says in 1 John 2:9= Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now