legislature fouls up again & Jindal will not stop it

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by red55, Jun 17, 2008.

Page 5 of 6
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    No, sir. It only requires conviction. Atheists simply deny what can't be proven, they don't have "faith" in disbelief.

    You are so confused . . .

    Now, you're talkin'. This is why most scientists are agnostics like myself, not atheists. I do not deny the existence of God. I believe there is a creator but it impossible for us to know if it is a diety, a phenomenon, or nature itself. It is impossible for us to know what God is like or what he expects from us, . . . if anything.

    You don't understand, amigo. Atheists state that God doesn't exist. Science is unconcerned with matters of faith. Science states that there is no evidence of God. That is very different. Absense of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

    As stated before, it is impossible to prove that something imaginary is imaginary. Science only demands that facts be proved to be accepted as facts. Scientific proof of God may exist, but until it is discovered, science can not accept faith as evidence.
     
    red55, Jun 21, 2008
    #41
  2. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Theres only a few things that keep me going back.
    Energy Crisis, Conservatives on the courts so that we don't get rulings taking away property rights.

    Choice,
    The right to choose, (I stole the term from the left)
    I should have the right to use any light bulb, car, etc to use in my own house.
    I don't want my rights to keep and bear arms taken away like in DC.
    Fill in the blanks....
    It seems like our rights are trying to be eroded thanks to the convenient excuse of global warming.


    What a surprise, I believe all 3 of us are in agreement about politicians.
    Where the hell do we go from here?:confused::dis:
     
    Sourdoughman, Jun 21, 2008
    #42
  3. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    If you believe something cannot come from nothing (which scientist believe) then something existed before the Big Bang and whatever that was had to come from something and so on. Those that don't believe in a supreme being must have faith that there was something before the big bang. This something cannot be proven to exist.
     
    LSUAthletics, Jun 21, 2008
    #43
  4. TigerKid05

    TigerKid05 Say Whaa!?!?

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    199
    the whole evolution things gets blown over way to much. in high school, they don't spend that mush effort cramming evolution into our brains. at least in my high school, the teacher said it was only a theory, like everything else and went on with class. no one forced anything on us. it was just another class. people should stop being so thin-skinned
     
    TigerKid05, Jun 22, 2008
    #44
  5. houtiger

    houtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    390
    I have not agreed with SF views on politics very much, but this is what we are all boiling down to. They are in it for the power, not us. To get in office, you have to cowtow to the "party". I've said it before, the biggest difference between the repubs and dems is which set of hogs gets into the taxpayers money trough the next 4 years.

    While I hate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice, I also hate Pelosi, Boxer, Fienstein, Conyers, Schumer, for different reasons.

    I believe more and more there is a shadow govt., the military industrial complex, and whichever party is in power must serve them, or they won't get funded to run again.
     
    houtiger, Jun 22, 2008
    #45
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Good point. Education covers a lot of ground and evolutionary biology is but one discipline out of many. We must teach kids everything we know and let them reason it all out. That is what makes them smarter--not what they are taught, but what they conclude from it all.

    The only time that educated modern people dispute what science tells us is when it conflicts with a personal religious belief or a partisan political conviction. All viewpoints can co-exist in education if we are pragmatic about our labels and don't confuse students by crossing disciplines.
    • Evolution science must continue to be taught in biology, zoology, botany, geology, and ecology classes, with all evidence considered, until scientific research discovers a better explanation . . . if ever.
    • Human beliefs in biblical creation should continue to be taught in social studies, history, anthropology, and sociology, in all its detail and glory, with nothing censored.
    • Political convictions about evolution should continue to be taught in civics, political science, economics, and geography, with all issues debated.
    • Religious doctrine about creation needs to be taught only in churches and parochial schools to church members, with all appropriate robes, rituals and incantations.
    The problems only come when a legislator wants to define science, or a biologist wants to define religious doctrine, or a priest wants to define history, or a sociologist wants to define legislative issues. And vice versa . . .
     
    red55, Jun 22, 2008
    #46
  7. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    You're so argumentative. You must be an ant because you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It seems we basically agree, though I may not use the accuracy of a sniper when I choose my words. Are we really arguing over the definition of atheist and agnostic?

    The main point of my argument is that the atheist position is not a scientific position, it is a dogmatic position on the other end of the spectrum from religion.

    Both atheists and agnostics may think trying to prove or find God is like doing the same for a flying spaghetti monster, but that really seems like a pompous position to take, as if there is nothing to learn from or respect of your fellow man.
     
    lsu-i-like, Jun 22, 2008
    #47
  8. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    While this is logical, I think doing this strictly would be done at the expense of recognizing the possible interweaving nature of many subjects. Religion and science might very well compliment each other if extreme positions are not taken.
     
    lsu-i-like, Jun 22, 2008
    #48
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Free Speech Alley is the argument forum, you know. We do it here to keep the other forums happier.

    I understand and agree. I'm saying that it then logically follows that "faith" means nothing to the atheist just as it means everything to the religious.

    What in the world are you talking about? :huh:
     
    red55, Jun 23, 2008
    #49
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    OK, that is a reasonable suggestion. So sell me on it. Give me an example of how this would work.
     
    red55, Jun 23, 2008
    #50
Page 5 of 6

Share This Page