Searching \ for '[OT]: religion <- Something for nothing <-- Gas Ch' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page:
Search entire site for: 'religion <- Something for nothing <-- Gas Ch'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: religion <- Something for nothing <-- Gas Ch'
2000\11\15@123045 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Well, this seem to be on the fine line...

This brings us to the point where we have to ask ourselves: Is it true that
"any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic?" If we
have not studied the matter to the extent that we can understand and
knowledgeably comment on the science, are we, in fact, discussing religion?

On the one hand, Russell was not stating that we should believe one thing or
another, but rather was stating that science is asking us to accept an
assertion that does not seem any more contrary to "common sense" than what
theologians have ask us to accept for years.

On the other hand, he was doing it in a tongue in cheek manner and implying
(I thought) that the creation "theory" might not be so bad...

On the first hand, Russell didn't make the statement in a way that was an
overt personal attack on anyone.

On the second hand, the implication was pretty clear (to me anyway) that
people who blindly accept explanations from scientists of things they do not
understand (because they have not had the training required, etc...) and can
not see (because they are too ephemeral, etc...) are on just as shaky a
ground as those who blindly follow religious leaders.

Now... to bring this to a close, "on the gripping hand" any single subject
that turns one against another is more damaging to this list than the
subject is worth. Period. Notice that this speaks against both those who
make such statements AND those who are turned by them. I'm here to deal with
this sort of thing. Email me, NOT THE LIST, if you are bothered by some
other list members post. At least email them directly (privately) rather
than publicly.

So, my ban on religion is extended to ...protons that 'might' appear/create
themselves, 'spontaneously' in 'space' even if YOU KNOW this is wrong... or
if YOU KNOW that this is right.

If WE have a chance of knowing it, then we should talk about it. If Morgan
says, "you ought be to able to cause a reset by..." then I can go and test
that, and say "nope" or "ahyep."

Few people on this list can comment intelligently on sub atomic physics. And
if you have a documented authority in that area THAT OTHERS WILL ACCEPT, I
will still not invite you to talk unless you propose to TEACH US ALL the
things you learned.

radO made the first religious statement, Russell added to it and Dan was
turned by it. Can we learn to see and not follow that path in the future?

      n 1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without
           generally accepted proof [syn: belief, tenet]
      2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he
         believed all the Marxist dogma"

Really, what I want to stop is DOGMA, and REASONING IN ADVANCE OF THE FACTS,

Comment your code, show all steps, quote references, keep it impersonal.

Send flames to:>>

James Newton (PICList Admin #3) 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: or .org

{Original Message removed}

2000\11\15@141019 by Dan Michaels

James Newton wrote:
>On the first hand, Russell didn't make the statement in a way that was an
>overt personal attack on anyone.

As many, many, many past examples on piclist show, the first
guy rarely makes an overt personal attack, he just acts as the
"catalyst" to the guys who get pissed off, and pile in next.

Jeez, we just went thru this same thing two short weeks ago
- when James had to step in with his "clenched fist".

"Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead
of [the same] old ones [again and again]" - I think you said
something like that, James.

-- hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See for details.

2000\11\15@172715 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
I suspect, that if you ask a large group of agnostics and atheists whether
they believe that some intelligent entity could have had a hand in the
creation of the universe (back in the realms of existance where physics
finds things "weird"), you might find that a fair precentage will agree
that it's possible.

Unfortunately, there's a VAST gulf between such an assertion and the tenants
of any current major or minor organized religion, so such and admission is
effectively meaningless.


-- hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See for details.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...