I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

You could explain what "truth" can possibly mean when, as you say, it depends upon which god or gods one chooses.

While some may find the idea of a smorgasbord of mutually exclusive truths attractive I really must insist upon having they present the definition of the word truth they are using.

The Truth? You can't handle the truth.

Movie quote of the day? How about, Heeeere's Johnny!

The truth is that there are no square circles. Apparently you missed that part of the talk around here?

I asked for a definition of truth which allows for contradictory and even mutually exclusive truths depending upon which god or gods one chooses. I never did understand faith-based truth and since you are posting as though you know what you are talking about I thought I would take the opportunity to ask you.

Will you post the definition you are using? Thanks in advance.

I gave you a truth. You asked for a truth. I gave you a axiom.

You gave me something you called "truth" but which matches no definition of the word I know of or can find. Therefore I asked you for the definition you are using. As to axioms again the problem of so many mutually exclusive ones depending upon the god or gods chosen.

If you were not avoiding specifics to avoid the obvious challenge, HOW do you Know? you could have avoided the issue of multiple gods.

NONE of you have dared to touch it.

All I can see is your claim religion is truth. I pointed out there are many religions therefore there are many truths. I pointed out they can be conflicting and mutually contradictory. Looks to me like I touched it.

Would you have been happier had I premised it with "That is all BS because" of so many religions?

I have seen a theory offered but that is unproven.

Theories are never proven.

It is a absolute truth, no round squares. No circles that are squares.

But the round earth does have four corners.

You continue to refuse to answer how ALL the different religion can all be a single truth. What do you mean by truth when there are obviously so many different, contradictory and mutually exclusive truths because of contradictory, different and mutually exclusive religions?

You refuse to address the most obvious question about your obviously false assertion. I refuse your implied groundrule that the only issue is western christian pseudo monotheism.

This is a starting point of placing a truth on top of a truth and so on.

No you have many conflicting ones side by side as equals. You want to sell the idea that, among others, heaven and hell, reincarnation, and this is all a dream in the mind of the sleeping Vishnu all ALL equally true at the same time.

This is how we establish law and justice. This is also how we place fact into science.

I am a scientist. That is not how it is done in science. I cannot explain what you non-scientists think you are doing.

True blue is blue till we add yellow and then we have the fact of green.

That's an artifact of the way the eye perceives color.

You think to hard.

I expect you to use words with their agreed upon meanings and when you do not I expect you to give the definition you are using.

You place Faith where it does not belong.

I have no faith. I have either knowledge or ignorance. Knowledge comes only from observation of fact.

Thinking simple can and does lead to to thinking harder but I'll be dang if I can teach you how to think simple. Try it, it might help you in your thinking harder.

You're very welcome.

I do not welcome your admission you do not think or conversely are unable to think. It is not clear which you are trying to say although it may be both.

If you use words in your "thinking" the words must have defined meanings. You are using several words you cannot define. Therefore you are not thinking. At best you are stringing words together until they sound nice.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Ahhh, but chaos is what you invite. And not into just the mathematical part of life. Once chance is taught in the math at our schools, it moved into all parts of our life. Particals do indeed pop into and out of this verse, you call it chance. But what appears to be chance to you and me, at times, is no doubt Design to the Designer.

Then I do see the true "liberal tactics" used here. Deny , deny and deny the truth and offer anything but the truth as real. Shoot down the thinker with ad hominem. Make fun of his speech---or spelling, even if he/she speaks well enough to be understood. Take out the underpinnings of law, science, and speak untruths. Remove design, and God and offer only random in it's place.

And the only thing you need really do is make up your mind if your on the inside looking out, or, on the outside looking in. Once you placed yourself where you belong the direction you need go is 'Self Evident' and that also has 'Truths' that are absolute.

You still have not provided a reason to assume a Designer with any directly observable evidence. You simply argue that chance is not chance but design, but nothing that shows how we can prove there is a Designer. You offer interpretation but no way to test the interpretation to make it a theory instead of a hypothesis.

I gave you MY truth.
Or such as I see it.

When one chooses to ignore such potential truth in the eyes of another, there is little to sway that person's beliefs.

You won't sway mine, my friend.

I have come by my set of values far too openly to have then trashed by a few random comments here.

You may attack at will, but you shall not deaden my opinion of what is true.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

You still have not provided a reason to assume a Designer with any directly observable evidence. You simply argue that chance is not chance but design, but nothing that shows how we can prove there is a Designer. You offer interpretation but no way to test the interpretation to make it a theory instead of a hypothesis.

Blank Man,

What is true blue? What is true yellow?

Is this not determined by consensue?

Once that truth is thrashed out and set as an example is not an equal portion of both true green?

Can consensue also be called peer review? And why would you not call the hoi polloi a group of experts on the subject of God the Designer? You seem to know nothing about Him. They also are the source of your pay check.

Perhaps you should think simple from time to time? And as the kids say--just sayin...

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Before we begin ... Are you a native English speaker?

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

Several addition points.

What is this HE crap?

He: He or she; generic third person singular pronoun, used to refer to a person or animal of either sex

What use does a god have with sex? How did you determine there was just one? How did you determine which one? Did you get its name?

How did you divine the principle used? Is "he" really stupid?

How did you determine that humans are God?

Is that your preferred description in place of incompetent and malevolent? Or are you saying it or she or they is/are simple?

Did you get the method also?

Please define your usage of PURE. There are many kinds of random but I have never heard of that kind.

Pure:
1) Free of extraneous elements of any kind
2) Without qualification; used informally as an (often pejorative) intensifier
3) (of color) being chromatically pure; not diluted with white, grey or black
4) Free from discordant qualities
5) Concerned with theory and data rather than practice; opposed to applied
6) (used of persons or behaviors) having no faults; sinless
7) In a state of sexual virginity

If WE humans cannot see it but you do see it are you declaring you are not human? Should I be surprised by that declaration? Would you like me to be surprised by that declaration of other than human knowledge?

we:
1) Plural of "I"
2) I (by a royal, as of a royal, or in formal writing)
"in the second chapter we will discuss the numerical implementation"
I didn't know you could have a discussion with a chapter of a book. I thought a discussion required a two way exchange of information. But there the example is in the dictionary.

Let the spelling and grammar flame wars begin.

It is a matter of semantics. Words have meanings. I inquire after the issues raised by the words that were used. I would do the same for any scientific declaration that used such a chaotic mix of words.

Funny, I didn't see a scientific paper.

<edit> fixed quote levels

---

What is true blue? What is true yellow?

Is this not determined by consensue?

Once that truth is thrashed out and set as an example is not an equal portion of both true green?

You seem to think that because we have to start somewhere to build a foundation of understanding, that this should automatically apply to a Designer too. At least I can see blue and yellow and green. At least, if we wanted to, we can argue the labels we give for colors, but that doesn't change that we can physically see them and debate them.

Simply stating that you "see" grand Design, and simply because there are other Believers out there, does not make it enough to be Science Theory.

Can consensue also be called peer review? And why would you not call the hoi polloi a group of experts on the subject of God the Designer?

Peer review consists of people who would be considered experts in their field, proven by their dedication to the scientific method to arrive at conclusions supported by observation and provable/disprovable tests. Scientific Theory should not be left to the laymen.

You seem to know nothing about Him.

Is that so? I guess I wasn't a Roman Catholic for 25 years. I know exactly how the religious view Him, and various other opinions and assertions that are not considered science, and could never be based upon their claims.

They also are the source of your pay check.

Huh?

Perhaps you should think simple from time to time? And as the kids say--just sayin...

Simple thinking tells me not to assume anything. Assuming a Designer would be a basic mistake. You should really try it yourself some time. Try to stop and look at the world with little to no assumptions and see how your perspective changes. You just might open your eyes to a whole new world. Just sayin.

So, why should we assume a Designer with the lack of directly observable evidence to prove it?

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

A contrario, a falsis principiis proficisci, ab absurdo

True blue is blue till we add yellow and then we have the fact of green. You think to hard.

I'm colour blind. From my perspective, dark blue is indistinguishable from purple, light blue might be pink, yellow could be green, and (dark) green can be brown, orange or red.

As a deuteranopic dichromat, I am able to distinguish some colours. Those afflicted with monochromacy cannot distinguish any colours.

My point? There are two: my "design" is far from perfect, and colour is not a good example to proffer when searching for absolutes.

---

If nothing else, this thread is good for Latin lessons.

---

#resist

True blue is blue till we add yellow and then we have the fact of green. You think to hard.

I'm colour blind. From my perspective, dark blue is indistinguishable from purple, light blue might be pink, yellow could be green, and (dark) green can be brown, orange or red.

As a deuteranopic dichromat, I am able to distinguish some colours. Those afflicted with monochromacy cannot distinguish any colours.

My point? There are two: my "design" is far from perfect, and colour is not a good example to proffer when searching for absolutes.

My point?

God had his design perfect when he crated kitties.
And me, for that matter.

The fact that some propose to be less than their design is just His way of letting the world know that we are not able to be at times what we could be.

A lesson I must relearn every day.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Peer review consists of people who would be considered experts in their field,

Things that make me go, "hmmmmmm......"

And what makes you go "hmmmm....." about my quote? Do you believe that laymen should actually peer-review an expert's work? Should consensus be determined by simple popularity of an idea instead of one's depth of understanding of the topic?

Peer: n.
1. A person of the same legal status; A jury of one's peers.

2. A person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

[I asked you if you believed in absolutes.

Ummm, no, that was Guy's question?
Speed limits and all that good stuff.

Ahhh, but chaos is what you invite.

I am modest familiar with chaos theory. It exists regardless of invitation. What kind of chaos are you talking about? What is your working definition of chaos such that it describes what you are talking about? Are you going to bluster and beg off again?

And not into just the mathematical part of life. Once chance is taught in the math at our schools, it moved into all parts of our life. Particals do indeed pop into and out of this verse, you call it chance. But what appears to be chance to you and me, at times, is no doubt Design to the Designer.

What SPECIFICALLY are you talking about that APPEARS to be design? By what methodology do you establish those things are not what they appear to be? Please be specific in your reply. Are you going to bluster and beg off again?

Then I do see the true "liberal tactics" used here. Deny , deny and deny the truth and offer anything but the truth as real. Shoot down the thinker with ad hominem. Make fun of his speech---or spelling, even if he/she speaks well enough to be understood. Take out the underpinnings of law, science, and speak untruths. Remove design, and God and offer only random in it's place.

I merely ask you to define the words you are using and you deliberately misrepresent those requests. Does that not fall under lying in your reality?

Upon what divine revelation from which god(s) do you declare it/they are not random? How do you KNOW it/they are not? Knowing how you feel about a thing is not knowledge of a thing.

And the only thing you need really do is make up your mind if your on the inside looking out, or, on the outside looking in. Once you placed yourself where you belong the direction you need go is 'Self Evident' and that also has 'Truths' that are absolute.

Inside or outside of WHAT? Please be specific in your response.

Please respond without all this undefined gibberish.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

You still have not provided a reason to assume a Designer with any directly observable evidence. You simply argue that chance is not chance but design, but nothing that shows how we can prove there is a Designer. You offer interpretation but no way to test the interpretation to make it a theory instead of a hypothesis.

Hypothesis? A pre-literate tradition handed down from believer to believer from time immemorial is not an hypothesis.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I gave you MY truth.

Opinion based truth. Right up there with opinion based science and opinion based reality.

One might be less embarrassed were this not a science project.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Can consensue also be called peer review?

No.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Let me see if I can help some of you state your case in a more succinct way.

You don't believe in God because he hasn't been proven to exist in a series of repeatable experiments based on arbitrary rules from a very small group of people you call you peers. Ok, got it.

Lets make it even simpler for you. Just substitute the reasons you do not believe in the thousands of other gods any apply them to the one you do believe in. Same thing.

(BTW, the word "science" is in the name of my degree, too.)

Is the other word political or social?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

As there is no known correlation between religious belief and social good the difference would be priests and preachers and shamans and rabbis would have to earn an honest living to the benefit of all.

If you know of any such studies please post them.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult