I know we have slipped off topic a bit , but this story of Donny the doberman,
is also compelling.




I'm tending to agree with Will's above statement, for the most part.

So now you want to claim that to believe in God is so outrageous that it is "trolling"?

I think that it shows how out of touch the average atheist is with the common people. The majority of people believe in a God who was the creator of the universe and manking, they believe in the soul, they believe in all of the things I have talked about.

The elitist views of some may consider that faith is worthy of contempt and scorn - but the yet these people hold a faith in "science" which is as blind as the worship of any religion. Their acts of faith seem to be the feeding of their own sense of superiority.

Wow. Just... wow.

You really don't read what people are saying. It's astounding.

Science is not a religion. It does not require faith. Science accepts that what we know today can change tomorrow. Science is not full of absolutes. In fact, if a scientist were to prove that there was a god, it would certainly rock the scientific community but it would be come the Theory Up Which All Is Explained. (not that we have one of those currently).

Religion is just the opposite. It requires faith in something intangible. It requires a belief in absolutes. There is not grey area with God.

Unlike some atheists, I am not out to convert. So long as it doesn't effect me, I don't care if you believe in god. The minute you start to impose your god upon me, in whatever form, it becomes a problem for me and I am moved to do something about it.

what makes you think that people who work in the sciences do not also believe in a god? einstein did and aspects of the theory of general relativity built in that assumption.

it's a silly binary game this thread's come to...

How many time I must tell you that religion and science aren't mutually exclusives (but in fact perfectly conciable when you know them and recognize a role for both of them) before you read it?

Maybe I should spam your PMs folder.... :paranoid:

Wow... I was finding this thread interesting and enlighting untill SF has derailed it completly. I could actually see both sides ( even SF view) untill he started down the "animals have no feelings" path. You lost all credibility to your agruement. I can't say for sure that creationism or evolution is right or wrong. It's interesting to me to learn more about each subject. But the minute that you state for a fact that animals have no emotions or feelings, I can't take anything you say serious. Too bad a good thread like this had to get railroaded off course.

No, ignoring what people are posting and sticking to your inane point regardless is trolling. And, as I said above, most people that understand and accept evolution believe in god. In fact, there are atheists that don't accept evolution. This has jack to do with belief in god, so don't play the religious victim card. No one here's going to feel sorry for you for being a persecuted Christian because you're not being persecuted for your faith in god, you're being questioned because you've clearly not thought this stuff through and you're unwilling to listen to others on the subject.

I wonder what makes this particular statement turn you off, as opposed to any of SF's other inane claims.

Wow...

Strange Famous not only do you lack a basic understanding of the subject at hand but it appears that you have a personal agenda here which is completely incompatible with this discussion.

You are clearly not here to learn or discuss the issue of viewing creationism as a science but have a goal to bait, derail and frustrate other posters.

Please stop posting in this thread.

once upon a time when freud walked the land and people read him, a distiction floated out from his work or maybe from someone else's but no matter, a distinction between affect and emotion.

the distiction was emotion has words attached.
affect doesn't.

so to say that non-human animals "don't have emotions" is basically to say that they don't have the same kind of language as humans have, which is, so far as we know, kind of a duh point.
but that doesn't preclude affect, which does not preclude feeling.


this is pretty elementary stuff.

If you'd be so kind, I'd like you to define "science" in your own words. Science doesn't always get the greatest reputation these days, and I think that the general understanding of what it is has warped your perception. I've been meaning to start a thread on science in general and I should have time tomorrow to do it. I welcome you to join us in that thread and encourage you to discuss it as I get the feeling that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is from your arguments in this thread. I hope that you take take that statement as an honest critique rather than an insult.
What have you offered to explain to him why he is wrong rather than simply telling him that he is and expecting him to believe you?

Science is the religion of humanism. Science =the blind, unblinking, faith that humanity today has reached the peak of all knowledge

The funny thing is that it is a very destructive religion.

Today's scientist will always rubbish yesterday. Tomorrow is always beyond his imagination.

Wow, your understanding of science is really terrible. Science is, in fact, pretty much the exact opposite.

Wow, hmm. Seems like SF has a hand in similar multipaged threads everywhere like this. I'm starting to think he's just been trolling all this time. If so I've never seen such a persistent troll.

If you're serious; science, by definition is the opposite of that. Now you can harp on the people claiming to do whatever in the name of science all you want, but that's people not science. Science is a systematic study of knowledge and requires no faith. What you're doing is like confusing "grammar nazis" with real nazis.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Science Vs Religion.

The fact that this topic is always so hotly debated on the internet is very telling. It's telling because it's important that we discuss it.

I love science. It is a quest for knowledge and understanding. I also love it because it's also plain fucking interesting. I also love religion, though I myself am not religious.

The human time line isn't even a spec on the Earths time line. The Earths time line isn't even a spec on the galaxies time line. And if you point Hubble into empty space it shows us vast galaxies so far away that what we see isn't even there anymore because the light took so long to get to us in the first place. Ghosts of a billion years past.

Yet, in all this vastness of the universe exists this strange anomaly of life. Not just that, but life that can question the origin of life itself. We can do lots of things, we can discover, create, design, feel, kill, land on the mood. Born from the animals. We're still just animals though. And any animal will tell you, that your mission is to survive, and that's it. You have to survive. Survival in its essence will push humanity to do and achieve more in our future than all the achievements in our entire human history combined. For starters, our stay on this planet is very finite.

But for us, to survive isn't the only thing that drives us. To understand what happens after we die drives us further. But we will never know that. Ever. The only way to find out what happens when you die is to die. And that's where you take a massive leap of faith that no science can ever prove or disprove. No religion will ever have the right answer. You or anyone you know can die at any moment for any reason. The question on everyones lips is what happens and what does that mean in the grander scheme.

Maybe it means nothing, maybe it means everything. Or maybe we should just worry about what's important here and now.

Science or Religion, they help us answer deeper questions we all ask. And sometimes, neither help at all. Actually, I'd venture to say that we all feel and ask things that can only be answered by ourselves, for ourselves.

One day I'll die, one day we'll all die. One day the Earth, Sun, galaxy, the universe, will all die. What do we mean then?

Maybe eastern philosophy is on the mark, enjoy the futility of it all and smile :)

Clearly you never encountered GunKid. Although slightly less intelligent than SF, GK was even more persistent. Despite being kicked off just about every gun/survival-related BB on the English-speaking 'web, he'd always come back with a new handle...dozens of times per forum per week. Annoying little shit's rotting in jail now.

But yes, this is SF's usual MO. Jump into a topic he knows nothing about, pull numbers/quotes/notions out of his ass, wave them in everyone's face while being roundly panned and shown to have no clue what he's saying, keep insisting that he's right and everyone knows he's right despite an utter inability to provide sources or even meaningful rhetorical backup for his assertions, and then leave after declaring victory. It's a very George W. Bush approach to debating.

That, except 100% not. 180 degrees not that, in fact.

I don't know where all this hate and fear comes from. Christianity teaches love and forgiveness, not hate and fear. So-called Christians sure stop acting Christian when it comes to things they feel threatened by.

Well, science is a failure. It still hasn't figured out how Adam lived for 930 years. :rolleyes:

I dont know why you think Im a Christian?

So called scientific progress has created the worst disasters in human history, as well as some of the greatest benefits.

When science is followed as a religion, rather than a tool for human advancement - it is a complete failure, morally and intellectually.

No one suggests that modern medicine or advancements in agriculture are often good things. And yet no one would suggest that - for example - the pollution of the air and water, the destrction of 1000's of species - are bad things. Science itself cannot tell the difference.

Science the religion rubbishes anything it cannot test - the spiritual side of the world - it is thusly an intellectual failure, a pathetically single minded way of understanding the world while blindly ignoring anything which falls outside of its paradigm and world view.

That statement in particular turned me off because I deal with animals everyday. I take care of 400 head of cattle on my family's ranch. Along with numberous dogs, cats, ect... I can see when my dog is scared, happy, ect... along with the other animals in my care. I can't offer alot of insight into religion vs science, but I'm eager to learn about it. But I do know a bit about animals and their behavior/emotions. ( Oh, SF's other comments make me laugh out loud too, I just shake my head in amusment.:shakehead:)

As a stockman,I presume you slaughter a fair number of cattle each year then?

Would you do so if you believed that cows had emotions as people do?

Well, I was trying to talk about what this thread was about before you took it over and it became all about you...

its not all about me, its all abut the people, who I represent to the best of my ability.4

The snide attacks of the intellectual minority ring very hollow outside of the coffee shop.

Yes. Both of them.

Would you agree, then, that the entirety of your argument can be reduced to the claim that technology and knowledge have advanced faster than we are able to fully understand their repercussion beyond the immediate and faster than we are able to ethically and responsibly use them?

The best way to close this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

The truth will be it own reward. When the theory is proven, and measurable reliable results from complete tests are predictable and accurate. Science will not have a worry, so why get so emotional about it now. That is a huge waiste of nervous energy. Hug your Mum instead.