Exactly. All this talk about the legality of the matter is downright surreal. People are actually treating the idea that the school acted appropriately as worth considering.
Honestly, I'm far less interested in punishment or a court ruling than simply finding out "how the hell did this happen, and why is it still being defended?"
Every paragraph should have ended with "By the way, this was over *ibuprofen*. What the fuck were these people thinking?" The very premise of the search was beyond moronic.
I'd say that it's creationism that propped up the idea that religion and science can't coexist, as much as the other way around. As to whether that's progress, that depends on your point of view...
Well, this is an interesting question that no one can claim to know the answer to for sure. Spirituality, in the most "primitive" form - animism, generally - was indeed an result of our natural desire to find explanations for things. If you know absolutely nothing about meteorology, wouldn't it seem that the sky has a mind of its own?
But once it evolves beyond that, into a social *institution*, it exists to serve a social function and evolves to do so.
As for your argument that religions "mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations", I disagree with the "mainly", but even insofar as you're correct, the fact that those attempts *weren't* truly rational is what makes them religious. That's what was so explosive about the scientific revolution - humankind finally figured out a way to rationally find answers without error (which isn't to say that scientists don't make errors).
Speaking of errors, scientists get stuck in their conception of how things are and begin to fail to consider that which is contrary, just like everyone else. But science isn't any more a religion than political ideology is. To include those in the word "religion" is to strip the word of all unique meaning.
Actually, I suppose you're right. A bit pedantic, but right. Of course, I was being a bit pedantic myself, so I guess that's fair.;)
But, to clarify, I wasn't making what you might call a logical statement, in the technical sense. Creationism as a theory is not by itself a rejection of science, but Creationism as a movement, the movement that exists in the real world, is.
Yeah, it was a mistake. I used it for my last post before it for a legitimate reason. As for trolling for attention, I was merely correcting, or so I believe, the previous post. Anyhow, are you seriously angry at me for using monospace font?!
I said science, not atheism. The moment you can demonstrate the existence of God (note: "there's no other explanation" isn't evidence), theism becomes science. Belief in that which there is evidence of is the definition of what religion is not.
I think if you strictly adhere to the principles of the scientific method, the question of "Is there or isn't there a $(DEITY)" should be answered with "there is not enough data to support either assumption."
You're exactly and precisely right (besides failing to consider burden of proof). That is why religion is the antithesis of science. Religion says "well shit, we don't know the answer so let's make one up." Science says "well shit, we don't know the answer so we'd better look into it."
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?
If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up, and science is the rational search for explanations, then the synthesis of religious explanations with the scientific method - the negation of the thesis - would be explanations based on science.
Yes, scientists find themselves faced with the same questions. The difference is that scientists keep trying to answer them with logic and research and testing. That's what science is all about, not saying "God did it" when you don't know the answer.
Seriously people, at what point do we get off the couch and take back this country?
The day the CIA shoots your rabble-rousing ass, as is completely failed to be documented here.
Remember, if you fail to praise the CIA for defending the USA, you're just as bad as those who won't call our troops "heroes" for defending our nation against the Legion of Doom and their headquarters in Faluja.
You know, I'm the last person in the World you'd expect to expect feel anything decent about a corporation. I'm a communist, think all big business owners should be thrown in jail (well, besides than the fact that I'd like to see all jails abolished, but that's another matter), have zero respect for Obama's cruise missile liberalism - or liberalism in general...
But Jesus Fucking Christ. Even Bill Gates gives money to African charities so he can believe he's going to heaven. Even auto company executives tell themselves they'll ultimately helping the economy by laying off thousands of workers. Even those who don't actually give even a theoretical shit about others pretend to for PR reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
What, then, is the difference between a special interest and a political or otherwise ideology?
(also, I have no idea why you were called a troll)
in light of the 2006 wave of young teenage girls smuggling prescription-strength OTC painkillers in their panties.
in light of the 2006 wave of young teenage girls smuggling prescription-strength OTC pain killers in their panties.
Exactly. All this talk about the legality of the matter is downright surreal. People are actually treating the idea that the school acted appropriately as worth considering.
Honestly, I'm far less interested in punishment or a court ruling than simply finding out "how the hell did this happen, and why is it still being defended?"
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy
Are "special interests" the new name for communists and terrorists? What are you talking about?
Every paragraph should have ended with "By the way, this was over *ibuprofen*. What the fuck were these people thinking?" The very premise of the search was beyond moronic.
The parent didn't call MP3 a container format, (s)he called mp3HD one.
You don't get it, he's a parody of a megalomaniac. *wink*
Please reread my comment you replied to.
Yes, my name is Jeff.
(...?)
Did I miss something?
There's no point voting for the major parties. They're going to win anyway.
I'd say that it's creationism that propped up the idea that religion and science can't coexist, as much as the other way around. As to whether that's progress, that depends on your point of view...
Well, this is an interesting question that no one can claim to know the answer to for sure. Spirituality, in the most "primitive" form - animism, generally - was indeed an result of our natural desire to find explanations for things. If you know absolutely nothing about meteorology, wouldn't it seem that the sky has a mind of its own?
But once it evolves beyond that, into a social *institution*, it exists to serve a social function and evolves to do so.
As for your argument that religions "mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations", I disagree with the "mainly", but even insofar as you're correct, the fact that those attempts *weren't* truly rational is what makes them religious. That's what was so explosive about the scientific revolution - humankind finally figured out a way to rationally find answers without error (which isn't to say that scientists don't make errors).
Speaking of errors, scientists get stuck in their conception of how things are and begin to fail to consider that which is contrary, just like everyone else. But science isn't any more a religion than political ideology is. To include those in the word "religion" is to strip the word of all unique meaning.
Actually, I suppose you're right. A bit pedantic, but right. Of course, I was being a bit pedantic myself, so I guess that's fair. ;)
But, to clarify, I wasn't making what you might call a logical statement, in the technical sense. Creationism as a theory is not by itself a rejection of science, but Creationism as a movement, the movement that exists in the real world, is.
Yeah, it was a mistake. I used it for my last post before it for a legitimate reason. As for trolling for attention, I was merely correcting, or so I believe, the previous post. Anyhow, are you seriously angry at me for using monospace font?!
I said science, not atheism. The moment you can demonstrate the existence of God (note: "there's no other explanation" isn't evidence), theism becomes science. Belief in that which there is evidence of is the definition of what religion is not.
I think if you strictly adhere to the principles of the scientific method, the question of "Is there or isn't there a $(DEITY)" should be answered with "there is not enough data to support either assumption."
You're exactly and precisely right (besides failing to consider burden of proof). That is why religion is the antithesis of science. Religion says "well shit, we don't know the answer so let's make one up." Science says "well shit, we don't know the answer so we'd better look into it."
Maybe the mods are mocking me?
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?
If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up, and science is the rational search for explanations, then the synthesis of religious explanations with the scientific method - the negation of the thesis - would be explanations based on science.
Yes, scientists find themselves faced with the same questions. The difference is that scientists keep trying to answer them with logic and research and testing. That's what science is all about, not saying "God did it" when you don't know the answer.
Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science.
Seriously people, at what point do we get off the couch and take back this country?
The day the CIA shoots your rabble-rousing ass, as is completely failed to be documented here.
Remember, if you fail to praise the CIA for defending the USA, you're just as bad as those who won't call our troops "heroes" for defending our nation against the Legion of Doom and their headquarters in Faluja.
... .....
You know, I'm the last person in the World you'd expect to expect feel anything decent about a corporation. I'm a communist, think all big business owners should be thrown in jail (well, besides than the fact that I'd like to see all jails abolished, but that's another matter), have zero respect for Obama's cruise missile liberalism - or liberalism in general...
But Jesus Fucking Christ. Even Bill Gates gives money to African charities so he can believe he's going to heaven. Even auto company executives tell themselves they'll ultimately helping the economy by laying off thousands of workers. Even those who don't actually give even a theoretical shit about others pretend to for PR reasons.
"What the fuck?" is all I can say.
I know you're just a troll, but I'd love to hear you defend that statement.