Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
cynic said:
Expensive burglar,

The original and wholistic meaning of the word "worship" embraces both those definitions of "dear".
Expensive as in "worth ship" which can also be understood as synonymous with "held dear".
Click to expand...

@My expansive fiend:
Sorry!
I should know better, the worth of goods.
But in my line of business,
my fence gives me but a tenth of true worth.

So expansive, ... NOT.
I am awfully cheap!! :p::eek:
 
burglar said:
@My expansive fiend:
Sorry!
I should know better, the worth of goods.
But in my line of business,
my fence gives me but a tenth of true worth.

So expansive, ... NOT.
I am awfully cheap!! :p::eek:
Click to expand...

When pearls of wisdom are offered freely, the price may seem cheap!
Does that cheapen the pearls?
Does it cheapen the issuer?
Does one judge a book by its price tag?
 
A few science related things to kick off the weekend.

Scientists Claim To Have Found Proof Of Extraterrestrial Life

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...to-have-found-proof-of-extraterrestrial-life/

The original paper here..

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/milton_diatom.pdf

Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained (Infographic)

http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html?cmpid=514648

Our entire universe might exist inside a massive black hole, say physicists

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/sp...e-might-exist-inside-a-massive-black-hole-say
 
bellenuit said:
Scientists Claim To Have Found Proof Of Extraterrestrial Life
...
Click to expand...
Hallelujah!

They've finally woken up to the fact that Earth isn't the only place in the universe that supports sentient life!

Talk about slow!

Didn't they realise that they were passing extraterrestrial lifeforms with every venture into space?!!
 
cynic said:
... Does that cheapen the pearls? ...
Click to expand...

In my line of business, the pearls are stolen, ...
So yes, that does cheapen the pearls, somewhat!

My thesaurus gives:

break in
verb. break and enter, burgle, interject, rob, steal
Click to expand...


cynic said:
... Does one judge a book by its price tag?
Click to expand...

I love the library.
And I don't like Judges! :p:

Just my interjection!!
 
Value Collector said:
Do you really think he would be looked on more favourably if he thanked "Allah" everytime he scored a touch down, the Christians would be sickened by that, i doubt he get any support then, the Christians would be tearing him apart and saying it shouldn't be allowed on tv.
Click to expand...

It's not about what people of other religions would say.

It's about what the general population and media say.

Illusion: people claim Christianity is intolerant
Reality: people are more intolerant towards Christians than anyone else.
 
pavilion103 said:
It's not about what people of other religions would say.

It's about what the general population and media say.

Illusion: people claim Christianity is intolerant
Reality: people are more intolerant towards Christians than anyone else.
Click to expand...

The general population is Christian in America, and a lot of the media eg. Fox News and the like are very Christian.

Do you think Christians would tolerate worship of a non Christian god on prime time tv, i dont think they would.

American media is very hateful of atheists also.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So going back to the schools debate, I think RE should be placed back in public schools, as science and religion are two separate topics.

I think children should have a broad view about RE, it is in society, and it benefits them.

My opinion.
 
Tink said:
So going back to the schools debate, I think RE should be placed back in public schools, as science and religion are two separate topics.

I think children should have a broad view about RE, it is in society, and it benefits them.

My opinion.
Click to expand...

So your happy for your kids to have Islamic teachings presented as fact?

Your happy for them to learn the qua'ran, Muhammad's life and the joys of sharia law?

I am happy to have lessons on all the various religions as part of a history class, but if your talking about teaching a religion as fact, that's not on
 
Tink said:
So going back to the schools debate.
Click to expand...

I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently. Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.:2twocents
 
Teach a variety of philosophies as I've previously said:
Christianity
Determinism
Buddhism
Marco evolution (adding new genetic information)
Etc

Put them all in a philosophy class.
Provide evidences for and against them.
Let them think critically.
 
pavilion103 said:
Teach a variety of philosophies as I've previously said:
Christianity
Determinism
Buddhism
Marco evolution (adding new genetic information)
Etc

Put them all in a philosophy class.
Provide evidences for and against them.
Let them think critically.
Click to expand...

the religious tried to get religion into the class room under the science banner of "Intelligent design" and failed, now they are trying to get it in under the banner of philosophy. I actually wouldn't mind philosophy students discussing a very broad range of religious ideas, as long as its not hijacked by religious groups.

I am confused as to why you would put evolution into the philosophy class though, Its science. Even if you don't believe in it and think it is a complete sham, its still a scientific idea, when your talking about genetics it needs to be discussed scientifically, in the science class room.

I don't get why religious people even care about having evolution in the science classes, it is such a small part of the science teaching, unless your doing high level biology a high school student would get maybe 2 - 3 lessons that talked about evolution in there entire schooling.

It's not like we sit primary school kids down and get them to sing evolution songs 3 times a week, and threaten them with hell fire for unbelief.
 
Religion obvious has no place in the science class.

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.

1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz

To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.
 
pavilion103 said:
Religion obvious has no place in the science class.

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.

1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz

To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.
Click to expand...

Provide such evidence, independently peer reviewed with links to the relevant scientific journals and research papers. If you cannot provide, stop with such rubbish assertions.
 
pavilion103 said:
Religion obvious has no place in the science class.

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.

1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz

To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.
Click to expand...

Except there isn't two schools of thought. Evolution is a fact and the process of evolution is a fully developed scientific theory that explains and has examples of all the processes that got us to where we are today from the earliest living cells. The fact that you haven't the interest to look at it through anything other the Answers From Genesis is more a condemnation of you and your closed mind. You just mouth the same half dozen or so "debating points" that the YECs constantly come up with ("just a theory" being number 1 on the list) and even though each point is debunked a thousand times over as any rudimentary search of the net would reveal, you continue to act as if they are gotchas that evolutionists can't answer. Check out the losses the ID proponents had in the states when they went to court in order to have ID taught as an alternative science. The most famous case, which was overseen by a very conservative Christian judge, was thrown out by him in the end as he saw through the ID sham for what it was.
 
Top