31 Aug 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio,
The latter is much trickier and we are prone to be distracted -- like a Pope who fathers a child
but advocates that priests ought to be celibate. Because the latter is intangible (or less tangible),
I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. Are you saying that the morals of a priest matter because his "truth" is primarily about morals? Or are you just saying that hypocrite's motives need to be examined, but scientist's dont?
-Le roi
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by poopsiecuiTHIS WAS MY ORIGINAL POST THANK YOU
You guys do not get it, so let me spell it out for you. Scientific discovery and experiment is not proven wrong because of the actions of its proponents. Neither is history, philosophy, or religion. Crusades, inquisitions and bad choices by the Pope neither add nor detract from the truth-claims of Christianity. Kingdanwa pulled the same trick on you idiots that he did in the Abe Lincoln thread, proving his point by saying exactly the opposite.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhy do you keep bringing up god?
There is no science that would justify his act, unlike the OT which routinely justifies killing for religion.
Who determines what is justified for scientists to do? What if my "science" was to figure out the slowest way to kill someone, biologically speaking. That's science. And you'd say that it's okay, since it's not as bad as the hebrew's god.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm calling for standards. Let's approach facts in the same way. EITHER we CAN consider a person's morals, OR we CAN'T. Which is is is Boss Man?
After the Lincoln affair, Kingdanwa's ploy was obvious. I'm just not sure what he thinks he's achieved.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaGood Lord, I thought I'd already answered you! Did you read what I posted earlier? Please give it a quick glance, I wrote it just for you.
I'm calling for standards. Let's approach facts in the same way. EITHER we CAN consider a person's morals, OR we CAN'T. Which is is is Bosman?
In the meantime, we can consider someone's morals if we're interested in their morals. If we're interested in something that has nothing to do with morals, we can't. In this case, we are either interested in a) Einstein's morals (a fascinating subject, to be sure) or b) in his equation. If we are talking about b) his entire existence is completely irrelevant. We can even pretend the theory was devised by the Pope, for all the difference it would make.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaNo I would simply say science doesnt justify your act.
Why do you keep bringing up god?
Who determines what is justified for scientists to do? What if my "science" was to figure out the slowest way to kill someone, biologically speaking. That's science. And you'd say that it's okay, since it's not as bad as the hebrew's god.
The OT routinely justifies killing for religion. Religion , unlike science, assigns moral values to acts.
notice I didn't mention god here.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaYou'd first devise a theory. That would be ok. If you started looking for people to experiment on, though, you'd run foul of the Law. And that would be ok too, you sick bastard (I'm addressing your fictional evil scientist self here).
What if my "science" was to figure out the slowest way to kill someone, biologically speaking.
Do you believe that the earth is flat? Yes or no.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompWho cares about the old testament or the qu'ran or any "religious" text? I'm talking about secular truths here.
No I would simply say science doesnt justify your act.
The OT routinely justifies killing for religion. Religion , unlike science, assigns moral values to acts.
notice I didn't mention god here.