talkback:


Ken on: christianity's fight for survival

Add your comment

From:	JGR	2002-05-20 21:53:28
Subject:	Coincidence?
Comment:	Stephen Jay Gould passes away, and Kenspe's essay hits the internet with a whap, like Isolani crashing to the floor after bibulously imbibing Holland's finest. It's almost as if the torch has been passed, with no pomp, no parade. I found this essay to be a tonic. Shoot the link out to some frothy-lipped fundies and help change the world, you know, make it a better place.
From:	dr2	2002-06-08 14:47:55
Subject:	Stuckas article on creationism
Comment:	Those who employ the scientific method in their quest to understand the universe around them ultimately find themselves making a series of 'half steps' toward their cherished goal of a comprehensive conceptualisation of reality. These 'half steps' form what amounts to an infinite number of subsequent questions concerning not only that which has so far been 'discovered' to be 'true', but also that which yet remains 'hidden'. Since their progress is measured in mere 'half steps' it does not take a genius to realise the futility, yea, the foolishness of trusting such a method to provide one with answers to ultimate questions. The 'ultimate' irony is that those who place so much credence in the scientific method 'ultimately' find themselves employing the same fundamental (no pun intended) method that Christians use to bridge the gap from the 'known' to the unknown: Faith.
From:	kenspe	2002-07-29 07:13:32
Subject:	Brother dr2
Comment:	Yes, those who use the scientific methods to learn about the Universe DO have faith. They have faith in the scientific method which has been shown to be the best way of looking at the Universe because it yields answers that are repeatible, allowing one to predict the future to a certain extent. There are about 7800 religions worldwide which are able to predict nothing, except perhaps that none of them will ever agree with one another and that they will provide the cohesive basis for one group to beat up another group and take their stuff.
From:	MadPole	2002-09-01 09:12:25
Subject:	Spam
Comment:	'The key issue is not that belief systems are inconsistent, or incapable of trusting themselves, but that they must be restricted as to what kind of assertion they are competent to address.' Sir Roger Penrose I am totally lost. People are trying to use religion to invalidate science. And people are trying to use science to invalidate religion. Should not scientists have a right to assess scientific fornulaa? Should not theologist have a right to access the validity of any religious theory? Why all the 'objective' articles addressing the matter are always bias? The answer might be very simple: 'Why are we trying to bring Iraq to its knees in order to avoid our own problems?'... Why do we always search for answer 'elsewhere' and not in the confinment of the region, be is geographical ir spiritual or scientific or what not, we claim to belong to?
From:	MadPole	2002-09-01 09:25:39
Subject:	Rules
Comment:	No recognized scientition will state that his theory is right because religion is wrong. No respectable theologitian will state that his theory is right because science is wrong. I don't think science or religion is a problem here. I think both have defined set of rules of 'definition'. I think people who are BETWEEN science and religion, who don't have any defined means of doing their reseach are the problem. They just pick and choose any definitions they like, and avoid any commitement to it.. it is not 'their' definition after all. The sky is blue, the sky is red, the sky is orange.. whatever suits the argument...disregarding all the progress science or religion made in their strict modeling methods...Everybody realizes that it is just pure waste of time sooner or later... I can pull quotes from Interent stating this or other...the Truth wins at the end of the day and people who are not interested in Truth... never do
From:	Mike	2003-09-20 22:24:17
Subject:	A great day!
Comment:	It 'will' be a great day when religion, finally sinks it's head into obscurity! With a special good bye to all Judeo/Christian and muslim religions. Since those three have caused most of the suffering and ill will between cultures over the last couple of thousand years. maybe John Lennon's 'imagine' will come true some day! Maybe!
From:	Shelby Sherman	2003-09-21 10:44:09
Subject:	Science and Religion
Comment:	'I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith........Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them.' -Richard Dawkins, 1996. Creationism or Intelligent Design, whatever it is called is merely that 'old time religion,trying to get dressed up, so it can go to school as science. It is a bastard concoction of narrowly sectarian views, hellfire and damnation pulpit pounding preaching, and pseudoscience just as flawed and imperfect as astrology, dianetics and flat earthism. It is actually more than just the assorted nonscientific rantings and ravings of a vociferous group of like minded fundamentalists with a hidden agenda (exposed for all to see)to serve. It is a dangerous ploy to circumvent the constitution and inculcate their own bizarre and hallucinatory version of morals, beliefs and religion into tax supported public schools. It is, by definition, a fraud and the lowest form of deceit practiced by those; who on one hand preach piety and obedience to the edicts of the Bible, while on the other hand, they malign,distort, misinform and just out-an-out lie to further their cause at any cost. It is dangerous, because it preys on the emotion and ignorance of the masses.
From:	John	2005-06-21 17:30:57
Subject:	Scientific logic?
Comment:	All proven 'facts' of science (except those that can be repeated via observable experimentation) are filtered through the fallible human mind of the scientist and therefore are subject to misinterpretation. Evolution has never been demonstrated experimentally. It is an unproven theory. Am I really supposed to believe this theory, (which has never been observed or even demonstrated to occur anywhere at any time) when presented as a 'fact' from a mind that can actually believe that given enough time 'DIRT CAN EVOLVE INTO A SELF-REPLICATING MACHINE'? This is lunacy. If scientists can ever demonstrate how it is possible (with or without elaborate intervention in the laboratory) that the first living cell could happen to come into existence simply by chance then we can talk. Until then I choose to subscribe to logic that makes some kind of common sense. I.E. DNA contains information. Information does not occur by chance. DNA could not occur by chance. I am not talking about the mysteries of quantum mechanics here, just logic that a person of normal intelligence could understand. If you choose to reject the concept of an intelligent creator, that is your problem. I wonder, though, why you find it so important to convince others to follow in your fallacy. P.S. Darwin no longer believes in evolution. And I, for one, am not in this for the money. I just cringe at stupidity.
From:	Neal A. Lampi	2005-12-23 07:00:19
Subject:	Science/Christianity
Comment:	I have not been able to decide if the The Religious Right is being used or by transnational corporations, or if they are in complete collusion with President Bush, and his likes. President Bush has rolled back thirty years of bi-partisan co-operation on environmental issues. He has done this all the while accusing anyone who opposes him in the slightest as being partisan. Forrest product companies get to have all the timber of their choosing, mining interests, get mineral rights few pennies on the dollar, and often never intended to explore or mine, but simply open ski-resorts on their bargain basement land. Energy companies now pollute at will, and we now call it clear skies? Developers pave over wetlands newly re-designated but the Bush clan, for new subdivisions named after the habitat’s they destroyed. The Christian assault has been nothing in comparison the republican assault on the environment. Sure Fundamentalist Christians have been convinced to stand in the bleachers and cheer, at the final days of the late great planet earth, but they are simply providing cover for the same conservative interests that have opposed every environmental and regulatory effort to live in harmony with earth. So these Christians are at fault for not being good citizens perhaps, but their crime is not the same as the cold calculated effort of say the US Chamber of Commerce, or the W.T.O. The suits seated around these tables have a calculated eye on return on investors dividends, and the fat benefits they have coming as board members of these afore mentioned Forest Product, Mining, and Energy companies. Lets get real. We do not now nor have we for some time now lived in a representative democracy.
From:	Lindsay	2006-03-26 08:11:38
Subject:	hmm
Comment:	I'd like to say first, awesome. Well I'm 19 and I'm tryin to figure out all this stuff and read enough to where I can be convinced enough people agree with me so I don't need to worry about being damned to some hell. anyhow, in defense of intelligent design, we know pretty much everything about cells and whatnot, and we know how to clone life from life or birth it from life, we really don't know much about life. you can assemble the dna structure, you can assemble a man, but you really can't zap life into anything. we can mess with cognition, emotions, consciousness, but life, the whole system of creation from nothing, is still a mystery. also, mathematics essentially prove that there is some infinite order, and many would call that infinite order God. Phi is that lovely ration that to many proves God's existence. not the dude God that people like to talk to, but God, just something that exists. well, whatever. i'm just regurgitating information from many people who have certainly said it better, but i thought it was something this argument didn't get into.