The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

For swaglantern
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=37531
Page 1 of 3

Author:  forumjunkie [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  For swaglantern

Hey Swag...

Welcome to the board. I see in another thread you say you are an intelligent man with a nice personality...

Is that true?

FJ

Edited by FJ to also make a joke... :P

Sorry... I thought Athlete was a typo...

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

What? I never professed I was an atheist....where be this dastardly thread?

Author:  forumjunkie [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
What? I never professed I was an atheist....where be this dastardly thread?


Ok... so you believe in God? Just not Christianity?

FJ

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

I respect the truth when truth has been arrived at.....No religion has revealed any truths that cannot be acquired through intelligent and correct reasoning.

Mysticism...lies..innuendo....that is what we have left..and it is not truth.

When you first asked about the "existence of stuff"
A strong, intelligent person would simply state....it is BEYOND our current knowledge on how or why we are here.....we simply DON"T KNOW.....anything else is a lie..... We must continue to gather evidence...facts...etc.... in hopes that they will lead us to truth...anything is a sham.....offensive..and mental abuse.

Author:  forumjunkie [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
I respect the truth when truth has been arrived at.....No religion has revealed any truths that cannot be acquired through intelligent and correct reasoning.

Mysticism...lies..innuendo....that is what we have left..and it is not truth.

When you first asked about the "existence of stuff"
A strong, intelligent person would simply state....it is BEYOND our current knowledge on how or why we are here.....we simply DON"T KNOW.....anything else is a lie..... We must continue to gather evidence...facts...etc.... in hopes that they will lead us to truth...anything is a sham.....offensive..and mental abuse.


Can you give a couple of examples of something we DO know from science?

FJ

Author:  Csquared [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
I respect the truth when truth has been arrived at.....No religion has revealed any truths that cannot be acquired through intelligent and correct reasoning.

Mysticism...lies..innuendo....that is what we have left..and it is not truth.

When you first asked about the "existence of stuff"
A strong, intelligent person would simply state....it is BEYOND our current knowledge on how or why we are here.....we simply DON"T KNOW.....anything else is a lie..... We must continue to gather evidence...facts...etc.... in hopes that they will lead us to truth...anything is a sham.....offensive..and mental abuse.


Ok. Now could you answer fj's question?

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don not believe in the supernatural .........period.

Examples of what we do know from science?.......before I waste time on this (no offense) I have to make sure you are serious?

Author:  Signum Crucis [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is a philosophical/theological debate forum. They're serious.

Siggy

Author:  forumjunkie [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
I don not believe in the supernatural .........period.

Examples of what we do know from science?.......before I waste time on this (no offense) I have to make sure you are serious?


As Siggy said... We are serious. I rarely joke around on these forums... And then, it is usually only after a couple of beers.

FJ

Author:  Csquared [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, so you are an atheist.

Author:  Bonaventure [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

forumjunkie wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
I don not believe in the supernatural .........period.

Examples of what we do know from science?.......before I waste time on this (no offense) I have to make sure you are serious?


As Siggy said... We are serious. I rarely joke around on these forums... And then, it is usually only after a couple of beers.

FJ



Hmmm I wonder if someone has hijacked FJ's account again. :P

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

A fact is defined as reality....something that is true.

So a scientific fact could be a cell membrane..... (this is too easy - no offense).....something on the radio just bleeped out about Iran acquiring atomic power....the list of scientific facts that were verified and proofed to develop the atomic bomb should be enough eh' ......the air we breath....do you think it's possible to isolate everything we breathe or do you think we breathe just oxygen?....gravity......can I hang you off the side of a building and let go?....would you like to argue this one.......I wouldn't. .......See Ayn Rand if you feel like getting into a philosophical discussion on whether or not a chair is really a chair.....Religion, along side bogus philosophical arguments are one is the same really.....just in case you were heading that way.

Author:  Csquared [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.

Author:  pax [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
A fact is defined as reality....something that is true.

So a scientific fact could be a cell membrane..... (this is too easy - no offense).....something on the radio just bleeped out about Iran acquiring atomic power....the list of scientific facts that were verified and proofed to develop the atomic bomb should be enough eh' ......the air we breath....do you think it's possible to isolate everything we breathe or do you think we breathe just oxygen?....gravity......can I hang you off the side of a building and let go?....would you like to argue this one.......I wouldn't. .......See Ayn Rand if you feel like getting into a philosophical discussion on whether or not a chair is really a chair.....Religion, along side bogus philosophical arguments are one is the same really.....just in case you were heading that way.


Example 1). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Example 2). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things were fashioned by the same Creator.


Which one is the bogus argument?

Why?

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

That is by far the most obtuse, jumbled, errant rebuttal I have ever read....sorry - just had to throw that out there........you just told me that you indeed recognize a fact....... look up the word "fact" in your dictionary one more time....once you do that....could you please explain to me again that you do not accept the notion that there are any scientific truths....I will need to hear it one more time....

Catholic Cadet wrote:
Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Those aren't my arguments?......what are you talking about?

pax wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
A fact is defined as reality....something that is true.

So a scientific fact could be a cell membrane..... (this is too easy - no offense).....something on the radio just bleeped out about Iran acquiring atomic power....the list of scientific facts that were verified and proofed to develop the atomic bomb should be enough eh' ......the air we breath....do you think it's possible to isolate everything we breathe or do you think we breathe just oxygen?....gravity......can I hang you off the side of a building and let go?....would you like to argue this one.......I wouldn't. .......See Ayn Rand if you feel like getting into a philosophical discussion on whether or not a chair is really a chair.....Religion, along side bogus philosophical arguments are one is the same really.....just in case you were heading that way.


Example 1). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Example 2). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things were fashioned by the same Creator.


Which one is the bogus argument?

Why?

Author:  Csquared [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
That is by far the most obtuse, jumbled, errant rebuttal I have ever read....


I take it you don't read very much then.

Quote:
sorry - just had to throw that out there........you just told me that you indeed recognize a fact....... look up the word "fact" in your dictionary one more time....once you do that....


fact (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Now, would you mind explaining how my post is at variance with the dictionary definition?

Quote:
could you please explain to me again that you do not accept the notion that there are any scientific truths....I will need to hear it one more time....


I never said that at all. I simply pointed out that you are using improper language, and explained to you what fact actually means.

Author:  Yoga [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Catholic Cadet wrote:
Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.


Natural science does not prove things. It demonstrates experimental confirmation of hypotheses and develops scientific theories.

The resurrection is a hypothesis that explains a reported observation of an empty tomb. Another hypothesis says people stole the body. Both explain the reported observation, but neither hypothesis can be tested.

In natural science, a hypothesis which cannot be tested by experiment remains a hypothesis and does not advance to being a scientific theory.

If one concludes that the resurrection is the best hypothesis, that conslusion is arrived at by a method different from that used by natural science.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

So.....the only thing left is that you are just playing word games...you most definitely believe in facts(truth)....but you just don't believe in any scientific facts(truths).........uhm yea......find the straight jacket, have someone help you put it back on and take your meds......

Catholic Cadet wrote:
Quote:
That is by far the most obtuse, jumbled, errant rebuttal I have ever read....


I take it you don't read very much then.

Quote:
sorry - just had to throw that out there........you just told me that you indeed recognize a fact....... look up the word "fact" in your dictionary one more time....once you do that....


fact (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Now, would you mind explaining how my post is at variance with the dictionary definition?

Quote:
could you please explain to me again that you do not accept the notion that there are any scientific truths....I will need to hear it one more time....


I never said that at all. I simply pointed out that you are using improper language, and explained to you what fact actually means.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Neat!....

Yoga wrote:
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.


Natural science does not prove things. It demonstrates experimental confirmation of hypotheses and develops scientific theories.

The resurrection is a hypothesis that explains a reported observation of an empty tomb. Another hypothesis says people stole the body. Both explain the reported observation, but neither hypothesis can be tested.

In natural science, a hypothesis which cannot be tested by experiment remains a hypothesis and does not advance to being a scientific theory.

If one concludes that the resurrection is the best hypothesis, that conslusion is arrived at by a method different from that used by natural science.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/