|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 10:48:07AM -0500, Jonathan wrote:
"Uncle Steve" wrote in message ... On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:25:04AM -0500, Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. I hate it when that happens. Fred, I know you didn't do that on purpose because just I know you don't know what kind of software I use, nor how it might be subverted for trivial tactical reasons. The "alt.poetry" newsgroup is the icing on the cake. Don't worry, I am not phased by your unprofessionalism. Are you ok? Drink too much last night? What do you mean by 'ok'? And my drinking was nominal. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 05:37:50PM -0000, Keith W wrote:
Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Plutocrats dont care a flying fig about the beliefs of the people. That's arguable. As long as they can hang on to power and wealth the people can believe anything they want. Do you think our putative plutocrats prefer an ignorant population or an educated population? The best historical example of a plutocracy was the ancient Roman republic. The Romans adopted gods and belief systems from around the mediterranean in a thoroughly promiscuous manner. They had civic institutions much like ours as well, or at least with enough similarities to make direct comparisons more than just possible. How would you characterize our plutocrats in the West? I'm not really comfortable with the simplistic 99%/1% dichotomy that's been recently popularized. We ought to be able to derive a better taxonomy of class in the West. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 05:37:50PM -0000, Keith W wrote: Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Plutocrats dont care a flying fig about the beliefs of the people. That's arguable. As long as they can hang on to power and wealth the people can believe anything they want. Do you think our putative plutocrats prefer an ignorant population or an educated population? They undoubredly prefer a population eductaed in the right way. They can make them more money. The best historical example of a plutocracy was the ancient Roman republic. The Romans adopted gods and belief systems from around the mediterranean in a thoroughly promiscuous manner. They had civic institutions much like ours as well, or at least with enough similarities to make direct comparisons more than just possible. How would you characterize our plutocrats in the West? They want money and power and dont give a damn about what your religious beliefs are. Do you seriously think that Bill Gates loses sleep over how many of his customers are presbyterian ? Is it your belief that Lakshmi Mittal agonizes over the fact more people are not Hindu ? Personally I dont see Warren Buffet funding a new religious crusade anytime soon. Keith |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 07:42:19PM -0000, Keith W wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 05:37:50PM -0000, Keith W wrote: Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Plutocrats dont care a flying fig about the beliefs of the people. That's arguable. As long as they can hang on to power and wealth the people can believe anything they want. Do you think our putative plutocrats prefer an ignorant population or an educated population? They undoubredly prefer a population eductaed in the right way. They can make them more money. Meaning ignorant and stupid. Intelligent people with balanced emotions don't **** up their environment and promote racism and religious delusions. The best historical example of a plutocracy was the ancient Roman republic. The Romans adopted gods and belief systems from around the mediterranean in a thoroughly promiscuous manner. They had civic institutions much like ours as well, or at least with enough similarities to make direct comparisons more than just possible. How would you characterize our plutocrats in the West? They want money and power and dont give a damn about what your religious beliefs are. I disagree. They encourage religion because it is a great big distraction, and leaves said plutocrats with less meaningful opposition. Do you seriously think that Bill Gates loses sleep over how many of his customers are presbyterian ? Is it your belief that Lakshmi Mittal agonizes over the fact more people are not Hindu ? Personally I dont see Warren Buffet funding a new religious crusade anytime soon. That is all besides the point. Actual plutocrats are a socio-economic class, and not necessarily representative of your contrived selection of examples. And it should be noted that plutocrats attract people who want to suck-up to the "powerful", and who trade their obedience and support for favor. Assholes like "William Black" are probably in that secondary class, if you want to get specific. Meaning that people like that don't quite have the intellectual horsepower to be actual plutocrats. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 07:42:19PM -0000, Keith W wrote: They want money and power and dont give a damn about what your religious beliefs are. I disagree. They encourage religion because it is a great big distraction, and leaves said plutocrats with less meaningful opposition. Do you seriously think that Bill Gates loses sleep over how many of his customers are presbyterian ? Is it your belief that Lakshmi Mittal agonizes over the fact more people are not Hindu ? Personally I dont see Warren Buffet funding a new religious crusade anytime soon. That is all besides the point. Well no it is precisely the point. Actual plutocrats are a socio-economic class, and not necessarily representative of your contrived selection This selection was picked at random from the list of the top 10 richest people in the world Take a look at the list and tell us which of them are actively supporting evangelism on a large scale http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires of examples. And it should be noted that plutocrats attract people who want to suck-up to the "powerful", and who trade their obedience and support for favor. True but irrelevant to the contention that they are peddlers of religion Assholes like "William Black" are probably in that secondary class, if you want to get specific. Meaning that people like that don't quite have the intellectual horsepower to be actual plutocrats. William and I have our disagreements but I dont see him as a plutocrats lackey. Keith |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 02:56:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, No. There are people who want to use science to invalidate religion, too. Well I know that, duh. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. That's only part of the issue. The entire purpose of the two is different (except to those people who abuse them). Religion isn't at all comparable to science anyhow. Within Christianity alone there are several distinct ontological levels ranging from simple-minded biblical literalism to the plutocrats in the Vatican who go about the work of managing the politics of the faith. At least among real scientists, everyone is agreed on what science is and how it should be done. Religionists can't even speak about the epistemology of their faith without revealing the game to outsiders. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 10:21:45PM -0000, Keith W wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 07:42:19PM -0000, Keith W wrote: They want money and power and dont give a damn about what your religious beliefs are. I disagree. They encourage religion because it is a great big distraction, and leaves said plutocrats with less meaningful opposition. Do you seriously think that Bill Gates loses sleep over how many of his customers are presbyterian ? Is it your belief that Lakshmi Mittal agonizes over the fact more people are not Hindu ? Personally I dont see Warren Buffet funding a new religious crusade anytime soon. That is all besides the point. Well no it is precisely the point. Actual plutocrats are a socio-economic class, and not necessarily representative of your contrived selection This selection was picked at random from the list of the top 10 richest people in the world Take a look at the list and tell us which of them are actively supporting evangelism on a large scale http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires You're confusing oligarch with plutocrat. of examples. And it should be noted that plutocrats attract people who want to suck-up to the "powerful", and who trade their obedience and support for favor. True but irrelevant to the contention that they are peddlers of religion I didn't say that they peddle religion, rather that they support its imposition on the body politic. Any random plutocrat _may_ "peddle religion" as you say, but that would be an individual matter. Perhaps it is clearer if I suggest that Conrad Black is a plutocrat, whereas Bill Gates is probably not a plutocrat. And if I've got my family history at all straight, Joseph Close Harsh was probably a plutocrat whereas Peter Mendelson probably isn't. Assholes like "William Black" are probably in that secondary class, if you want to get specific. Meaning that people like that don't quite have the intellectual horsepower to be actual plutocrats. William and I have our disagreements but I dont see him as a plutocrats lackey. Opinions vary. I'm not terribly attached to the idea, but from my perspective it does seem likely. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 11:23:02PM +0000, Fred Hall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote on 1/1/2012 in : On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 02:56:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, No. There are people who want to use science to invalidate religion, too. Well I know that, duh. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. That's only part of the issue. The entire purpose of the two is different (except to those people who abuse them). Religion isn't at all comparable to science anyhow. Within Christianity alone there are several distinct ontological levels ranging from simple-minded biblical literalism to the plutocrats in the Vatican who go about the work of managing the politics of the faith. At least among real scientists, everyone is agreed on what science is and how it should be done. Religionists can't even speak about the epistemology of their faith without revealing the game to outsiders. Regards, Uncle Steve ******** I take that to mean you've run out of rhetorical road. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: At least among real scientists, everyone is agreed on what science is and how it should be done. And that's why there is never any disagreement about scientific claims (like Global Warming, for example). There is rarely any disagreement about scientific claims primarily because so few do any fact-checking to see whether the methods, experiments, data, or conclusions all match up. The global warming debate is riddled with ideological whores and pseudo-scientists so there's no shortage of argumentative controversy. I specifically stated "real scientists", which automatically disqualifies commie pinko fake scientists. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On 2/01/2012 9:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. That's why. Additionally Science is about HOW. Religion is about WHY. Insisting that the two must be 'reconciled' is rather like insisting that apples and aardvarks must be 'reconciled' into a single critter. We find the common aspect - DNA - then argue that the difference is just a phase transition. Sylvia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 18th 06 04:18 AM |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 17th 06 11:58 AM |
On inroads by the right's "ID" and creationism: Open letter to AAAS president Omenn | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 22nd 06 05:42 AM |