Stitch on 7/8/2009 at 00:51
One thing that is becoming abundantly clear is that Beleg Cúthalion doesn't know the first goddamn thing about science. There's your position of ignorance, Viv!
Note: this may have become abundantly clear pages ago, I've sort of been tuning him out.
Queue on 7/8/2009 at 01:23
Which one?
Fucking page 10...
crunchy on 7/8/2009 at 01:27
The sheep, obviously!
fett on 7/8/2009 at 03:04
The snake. My god people, try to keep up.
crunchy on 7/8/2009 at 03:08
I apologise. I didn't realise you were still playing with other peoples snakes.
henke on 7/8/2009 at 05:25
OMG they are playing that song on the radio over here RIGHT NOW what's going on!? :eek: :(
RavynousHunter on 7/8/2009 at 06:25
Quote Posted by fett
The snake. My god people, try to keep up.
Is it just me, or did anyone else hear that in Dr. House's voice when they read it?
june gloom on 7/8/2009 at 06:29
o/
Beleg Cúthalion on 7/8/2009 at 06:32
Quote Posted by Stitch
One thing that is becoming abundantly clear is that Beleg Cúthalion doesn't know the first goddamn thing about science. There's your position of ignorance, Viv!
Oh, and where's the big surprise? Science questions itself all the time? Do you think I came along on the buttermilk? I've made three statements about this thing in the last posts.
1. People tend to rely on science and its results as if they were final and completely reliable, like I quoted Chimpy and his "stick to the empirical"; guys like Dawkins upheave it to the highest level
2. I think science isn't providing 100% verifiable results (the "hard facts") and that on a more complex level than e.g. replacing the evolutionary theory with a newer evolutionary theory. It's about the general validity of their methods (even if the laws of nature etc. seem to fit perfectly) and THIS is the place where I'd like to have some knowledge about epistemology. That's not to question the general idea of science but to remind people of that it's not necessarily and completely the perfect counterpart to superstition and belief.
3. On the other hand, the image of (a) static and permanently old-fashioned religion which doesn't question itself is posted so painfully often in this thread that the plain ignorance in this respect seems to be much bigger than anything you're trying to impute to me.
@Turtle: The things I'm talking about have meanwhile slipped into the realms of philosophy (what epistemology actually
is). If I was better I could give some examples of theories and their authors but I doubt there will be "facts" of some sort.
Vasquez on 7/8/2009 at 09:52
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
3. On the other hand, the image of (a) static and permanently old-fashioned religion which doesn't question itself is posted so painfully often in this thread that the plain ignorance in this respect seems to be much bigger than anything you're trying to impute to me.
Ok, tell me what's modern religion like? Has it stopped trying to control things (including people who don't belong to the church in question) and don't want to affect on secular laws? Is there no more semi-forced, pushy attempts of converting? Are there no more judgemental statements on lifestyles that don't follow their [usually so far very heteronormative, nuclear-family based] dogma? Is there no more the "if you don't X or do Y, you will go to Hell" -threat? Do they let people believe, worship, be part of a community and yet live their lives in ways that feels right to them?
