Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pushing anti-old, anti-age, anti- not living, anti-ancient is the same.
And it also "makes no sense to rational people."
thats right ... list personality traits then list how they would express:
The context becomes important but you get my meaning. Irrational people people have irrational expressions. And they can be rational in other areas, like cooking.
It is precisely because of looking honestly at what you are saying, that it is discredited.
Rejecting data because it is "ancient" or comes from people not alive is less reliable. It is a criteria that is superficial, immature, and lacks discernment.
Following that (superficial, immature) "reasoning" a person would reject classical music (dead composers), art masterpieces (dead artists), literature classics (dead authors), holy texts such as from Hinduism (dead scribes), and architectural wonders (dead builders).
not at all.
yes, I also made it clear that it depends what we are talking about too.
In terms of describing people being people they are as insightful as today.
in terms of reality they have less data, although as insightful, and thus their over all reality description comes up short.
Its so inoffensive I am wondering why it bothers you?
the scientific method removes labels when discussing reality. That's why people define by statements of belief about god hate it.
however you DON'T "remove labels." you rely heavily on labels and accept or reject data, ideas, concepts, sources, information, based on the labels you like or don't like. (such as "living or not living" "ancient or modern" "religious or not" )
post above expresses the view "people defined by statements of belief about god hate the scientific method." that is not an accurate statement. it is not reliable. it is not valid. with valid being "having a sound basis in logic; reasonable or cogent."
however you DON'T "remove labels." you rely heavily on labels and accept or reject data, ideas, concepts, sources, information, based on the labels you like or don't like. (such as "living or not living" "ancient or modern" "religious or not" )
post above expresses the view "people defined by statements of belief about god hate the scientific method." that is not an accurate statement. it is not reliable. it is not valid. with valid being "having a sound basis in logic; reasonable or cogent."
Again Tzaph, you use a truth like "we all use labels" and then diminish the claim because I use labels. You do not use the claim's merits.
and yes, "People of faith hate the scientific method" is a unreliable base claim. It also is not my base lkine position although I spit oit out every now again out of fusdtration.
Yes, I, being human, are susceptible to labels. So are you. They cancel out. Now back to faith vs the scientific method.
you are wrong ... How I work is look at all the data. I see how all the data inter relates and see if I can come up with a unifying theory that connects the dots and matches what we see.
Your deity isn't even close to the best we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
