05 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, thanks. It's highly questionable that a soldier would be fighting alongside total strangers, since soldiers tend to operate in units. The notion of esprit de corps comes into play. However, the concept of "family" might also be extended to all soldiers within the same army. (We should consult Sasquatch on this issue).
Does it read better now?
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDo you love your wife for sex? Do you love you kids for the "virtue" of it? Oh, I forgot... virtue has no worth to you.
Yes, thanks. It's highly questionable that a soldier would be fighting alongside total strangers, since soldiers tend to operate in units. The notion of esprit de corps comes into play. However, the concept of "family" might also be extended to all soldiers within the same army. (We should consult Sasquatch on this issue).
I suppose you'll only understand this if you're married, with kids - but ultimately, Hal is right - science can't explain love in all its forms.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXI think you misunderstand me when I say that virtue has no "intrinsic" value, but is relational in nature (and should be a verb).
Do you love your wife for sex? Do you love you kids for the "virtue" of it? Oh, I forgot... virtue has no worth to you.
I suppose you'll only understand this if you're married, with kids - but ultimately, Hal is right - science can't explain love in all its forms.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by echeceroIf you consider one experiment enough to substantiate a thoery, then how do you explain some of the near death examples I mentioned previously?
Why we mostly have scientific theories as opposed to what other option?
As for a "collection of unsubstantiated claims," that's just silly. Every theory is substantiated by at least one experiment; not to say "proven," but if there wasn't at least some evidence, it would be a hypothesis.
As for "the more they discover, the more they realize how muc ...[text shortened]... k, "That's why we mostly have scientific theories"...would you rather we had more hypotheses?
The problem with many scientists is that they are not opened minded to the spiritual. If you accept some evidence and reject other evidence, it becomes pretty easy to paint whatever picture you like.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressScientists admit up front that they only paint certain sorts of pictures.
If you consider one experiment enough to substantiate a thoery, then how do you explain some of the near death examples I mentioned previously?
The problem with many scientists is that they are not opened minded to the spiritual. If you accept some evidence and reject other evidence, it becomes pretty easy to paint whatever picture you like.