1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Another reason to ban abortion...

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Cajuncowboy, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,302 Messages
    339 Likes Received
    Difference of course is that scientific theories can be proven, that is the whole basis of the scientific method.

    Religion is ultimately faith, accepting something you cannot prove. You cannot prove the existence of God, you either believe in him or you don't.

    I believe in God and Jesus of Nazareth. However, I know I cannot prove either's existence. I will not know until I die. If there is nothing, so be it, I won't know. If there is, I will be at God's right hand welcoming my son hopefully a long time afterward.
  2. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    There was no ensemble of institutions, procedures, technologies, and scholars that one could plausibly categorize as "science" for Plato to criticize. So your attempt to enlist him as a compelling critic of modern science falls a bit short of the mark.

    I wonder what Plato thought of pederasty, homosexuality, and infanticide? :D
  3. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Your attempts to equate all science with its most speculative branches and to label it as "cosmology" is a rather transparent, and I daresay disingenuous, rhetorical ploy given all the other practical sciences that it conveniently glosses over.

    Methinks you owe more to the Sophists than to Plato.
  4. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    Proven theories would be facts. I was referring to things which cannot be proved, like the origin of life and the universe. Many scientists "preach" the theory of evolution and other such theories as irrefutable doctrine, and react much like a moronic religious zealot when their beliefs are questioned.

    Depends on your definition of "proof". I have a hard time swallowing alot of it, but that doesn't mean there is no proof of certain religious beliefs. In any case, alot of it doesn't require any less faith than saying humans emerged from a primordial ooze and made some undefined leaps to being sentient beings. One path of belief has been adopted by science, and the other by religion. Ultimately, neither may be right. Or, maybe it's a mixture of the two.

    But let's not pretend one requires any less faith than the other.
  5. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,302 Messages
    339 Likes Received
    what proof is there of God or that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead (no writings in the Bible are not proof).
  6. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    :laugh2:

    Sex for pleasure is immoral?

    Whatever. :rolleyes:

    Red Rider made a song about people who think like that.

    Lunatic Fringe.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9852hq0W0
  7. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    I don't know. Would Joseph of Arimathea be a credible source? Beats me. But there are proofs that other things in the bible are true, some pretty remarkable things that go along with history, which lends credence to the notion that the book was divinely inspired.

    Just as much proof for all that lot as there is for much of science. Neither one requires any less faith, and both should be regarded as a sort of religion.
  8. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
  9. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    So what kind of proof do want? You don't seem to want to take eye witness accounts.
  10. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Oh I think we know who the lunatics are....The ones that want to murder babies.
  11. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    14,821 Messages
    2,036 Likes Received
    Actually, Sophistry is far more akin to misrepresenting the statements and positions of your opponent.

    I never once "equated all science with its most speculative branches." I'm commenting on the limitations of science and the problems inherent to a completely naturalistic view of the universe, hence my reasons for quoting Plato. His criticism of scientific naturalism is valid even today, and cosmology is one of the branches where the problems associated with stalwart naturalism are placed front and center.

    Furthermore, physical cosmology may have speculative aspects, but it's no less practical than any other branch of science.

    Now, if you're intimating that I was presenting the multiverse theory as scientific, you're guilty of crass misrepresentation. In fact, if you'll reread my initial post on this topic, I indicated quite the opposite, stating that the multiverse theory was no more scientific than Intelligent Design:

    http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1975082&postcount=295

    Oh, and speaking of Sophists, we should mention how they reveled in the same moral relativism that secular humanists so often employ.;)
  12. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    14,821 Messages
    2,036 Likes Received
    Oh, contraire.

    Modern science is rooted in scientific/metaphysical naturalism - a philosophy whose origins date back to ancient Greece. Philosophers such as Thales, Anaxagoras, and Democritus were noted naturlists. Like metaphysical naturalism, the philosophy of modern science holds that all phenomenon have naturalistic explanations; therefore, Plato's critique remains just as valid.

    His opinions on those issues were probably far closer to yours than mine.;)
  13. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    14,821 Messages
    2,036 Likes Received
    :hammer:

Share This Page