heh yeah i noticed the same thing

heres a bit from the same site but this time it's Leah Libresco steering us in the right decision

But I don’t know what to decide!

Luckily, you don’t have to decide. Catholicism is either true or not, before and after you change your mind. Gravity doesn’t fluctuate between true and false depending on your beliefs, and neither does the Church.

There you have it, the catholic church is as reliable as gravity!

Now now youkrst, our Good Lord Himself walked on water, by the infallible word of Gospel Truth. That is Inerrant Proof that God can turn gravity Off, just like He did when He made the sun stop in the sky so the Jews could smite the heathen. What in the blazes are you trying to do by casting doubt on the Authority of Dogma as if some Atheist scientist had a clue about Higher Reality? This is important; how could the church maintain its social power if it had to subordinate its claims to mere observation and consistency?

Having written the above comments, I thought I should do Stahrwe the courtesy of reading the article he posted. It is junk. It has a thoroughly demented theory of ethics, failing to see that evidence must be the basis of knowledge, and that evidence indicates that spirit is a function of matter. The statement in the article that "human intellect cannot tolerate such confinement" is deeply intolerant and inquisitorial, a nonsensical argument from incredulity.

The statement I found most offensive and stupid was that we should "not expect science to be the savior of mankind." Of course we should expect science to save us. We are not going to get some magical God swooping down on the clouds of heaven and declaring the laws of physics redundant, despite the idiot hopes of the fundagelicals. We have to evolve out of primitive belief into scientific knowledge as the basis of culture.

Further in this vein, to say "science ought to be a place where people come together regardless of religious conviction" is a total abrogation of reason in ethics, an assertion that we should respect people who wilfully promote lies and falsehoods. Science excludes arrant bullshit, and so it should. The real challenge for the religious is to reform their ideas so they make sense within a scientific paradigm.

youkrst wrote:the catholic church is as reliable as gravity!

good article to be read and review

psychology, psychiatry, mathematics, linguistics, geology, logic, paleontology, and biology

are you saying these fields are science in the same manner as physics?
if by science you mean the search for knowledge, then, yeah.., but Science? - no. of course the fields you mentioned are not science

ant wrote:

psychology, psychiatry, mathematics, linguistics, geology, logic, paleontology, and biology

are you saying these fields are science in the same manner as physics?
if by science you mean the search for knowledge, then, yeah.., but Science? - no. of course the fields you mentioned are not science

Seriously, ant? Okay, I'll give you a couple of these on technicalities plus rule out psychiatry as unavoidably subjective and imprecise. Geology, paleontology, and biology are sciences. Psychology and linguistics are probables.

Walking on water had nothing to do with turning gravity off. To advocate that it did demonstrates a lack of understanding, or at least appreciation of the discussion of metaphysics and devolves to detriment of said advocate.

Walking on water had nothing to do with turning gravity off. To advocate that it did demonstrates a lack of understanding, or at least appreciation of the discussion of metaphysics and devolves to detriment of said advocate.

Stahrwe is right. Gravity wasn't undone. Jesus is a crafty carpenter and secret glassworker. He was there the night before putting an invisible bridge just under the water's surface.

DWill wrote:

ant wrote:

psychology, psychiatry, mathematics, linguistics, geology, logic, paleontology, and biology

are you saying these fields are science in the same manner as physics?
if by science you mean the search for knowledge, then, yeah.., but Science? - no. of course the fields you mentioned are not science

Seriously, ant? Okay, I'll give you a couple of these on technicalities plus rule out psychiatry as unavoidably subjective and imprecise. Geology, paleontology, and biology are sciences. Psychology and linguistics are probables.

I understand what you're saying here, DWill. And I don't think we are too far off in agreement.

Science defined broadly as a systematic search for truth, then yes, I'd agree that psychology, psychiatry, linguistics, math, anthropology, etc are part of a family that refers to itself as science.

As for a strict scientific methodology involving testing, replicability, and prediction, psychology, sociology, anthropology, fall very short of said methodology. For these areas of "science" are subject to unobservable truths, and lack both testability, and replicability.
The humanities strictly rely upon communications and hermeneutics - highly imprecise because of the subjectiveness of expression and interpretations.


Do you disagree?

Interbane wrote:

Walking on water had nothing to do with turning gravity off. To advocate that it did demonstrates a lack of understanding, or at least appreciation of the discussion of metaphysics and devolves to detriment of said advocate.

Stahrwe is right. Gravity wasn't undone. Jesus is a crafty carpenter and secret glassworker. He was there the night before putting an invisible bridge just under the water's surface.

This is a silly response.

From a scientific/historical perspective, the attestation of an observed suspension of natural law(s) can neither be proven nor disproven by individuals who were not in attendance at the time of a reported anomaly. Hence they are undebatable.

It can only be a personal opinion expressed by individuals who reject anecdotal tales of "miraculous" events. There is zero scientific basis to support any such contention.

As a sidebar, there are documented reports of "medical miracles" described as such, due to the highly improbable, virtually impossible nature of their occurrence. In these instances, we can only admit to our lack of complete understanding and knowledge.
Unless of course you're a self -proclaimed know-it-all.

Thanks

The irony is that scientific progress has, in a sense, led to more chaos rather than less. Further, it has created questions which will never be answerable within the existence of human beings. Where these questions arise, the secular scientist's position is that science will eventually provide the answer. That approach is the other side of the, 'God of the gaps,' canard which the secular scientists invoke against creationists.