• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

new member

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
It seems to me a tad bit rude to ask someone why they don't capitalize and then criticize them for the answer given.

But the given answer didn't correspond with what he is doing - not capitalising 'I', because of the reason given in #28, but then he does it for all sentences.
The end result is: it shuts down the channel of communication, discourages diversity of membership here, and develops an echo chamber of like minded individuals instead. Is that what you want? It doesn't sound very good to me.

Well his apparent views on some simple science seems to show where he is coming from. Is that what you want - the same old stuff - rejecting science because it doesn't seem to accord with his religious beliefs. :rolleyes:
 

chris baron

Member
But the given answer didn't correspond with what he is doing - not capitalising 'I', because of the reason given in #28, but then he does it for all sentences.


Well his apparent views on some simple science seems to show where he is coming from. Is that what you want - the same old stuff - rejecting science because it doesn't seem to accord with his religious beliefs. :rolleyes:

i don't reject science. i reject propaganda that masquerades as science, propaganda that seeks to mislead and corrupt a gullible public into accepting materialistic evolutionist malthusian doctrines.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But the given answer didn't correspond with what he is doing - not capitalising 'I', because of the reason given in #28, but then he does it for all sentences.


Well his apparent views on some simple science seems to show where he is coming from. Is that what you want - the same old stuff - rejecting science because it doesn't seem to accord with his religious beliefs. :rolleyes:
I want compassion, understanding, and tolerance. And it seems like this is what you want too?

upload_2020-1-7_10-32-27.png


Is your disposition on writing style compassionate, understanding, or tolerant? Or is it nit-picking like a monkey?

63730.jpg
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I want compassion, understanding, and tolerance. And it seems like this is what you want too?

View attachment 36115

Is your disposition on writing style compassionate, understanding, or tolerant? Or is it nit-picking like a monkey?

63730.jpg

Well I'll own up to being a bit of a monkey (part of all our heritage) but that doesn't stop me from being honest. :imp:
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
i don't reject science. i reject propaganda that masquerades as science, propaganda that seeks to mislead and corrupt a gullible public into accepting materialistic evolutionist malthusian doctrines.

Best of luck with that. I'm sure you will have plenty of support from all those scientists who are like-minded - or are you going to ignore majority opinion? Or just ignore science altogether? The age of the Earth is hardly disputed - give or take a few hundred million years.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Well I'll own up to being a bit of a monkey (part of all our heritage) but that doesn't stop me from being honest. :imp:
I think everyone's being honest. :shrug:

Is there some reason not to accept someone's words here at face value?

Am I missing something? :confused:
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Well I'll own up to being a bit of a monkey (part of all our heritage) but that doesn't stop me from being honest. :imp:

Wait and see I suppose.

I'm still confused. Are you saying, "Yes" you have reason to think someone here is being dishonest?

Or maybe you think someone here is being dishonest and you don't have reason?

And I'm still not sure about the three words under your name? Is that **honestly** how you are acting towards this new member?

Perhaps you would have room to criticize, judge, and stereotype, if your own behavior doesn't contradict your own chosen slogan? That seems a little dishonest ( or maybe unintentionally hypocritical ) to me.

It's all very bizarre... very bizarre indeed.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
i don't reject science. i reject propaganda that masquerades as science, propaganda that seeks to mislead and corrupt a gullible public into accepting materialistic evolutionist malthusian doctrines.

Sorry, but what you just did is show *precisely* HOW you reject science. You do so by labeling the science you don't like as propaganda. Well, guess what? That is essentially how most science deniers do it these days. If the ideas you are rejecting is what the top notch scientific consensus has concluded, then you *are* in fact rejecting science.

Now, we can go further and ask *why* you are rejecting that science. And, from what I can tell so far, it seems to be because the science rejects your particular religious beliefs. And that is one of the main reasons a lot of people reject science: when the evidence goes against their cherished beliefs, they reject the reasoning and evidence.
 

chris baron

Member
Sorry, but what you just did is show *precisely* HOW you reject science. You do so by labeling the science you don't like as propaganda. Well, guess what? That is essentially how most science deniers do it these days. If the ideas you are rejecting is what the top notch scientific consensus has concluded, then you *are* in fact rejecting science.

Now, we can go further and ask *why* you are rejecting that science. And, from what I can tell so far, it seems to be because the science rejects your particular religious beliefs. And that is one of the main reasons a lot of people reject science: when the evidence goes against their cherished beliefs, they reject the reasoning and evidence.



the true nature of scientific thinking can be gleaned from soviet russia.

Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The 12th party congress called for the expansion of anti-religious propaganda and warns against insulting religious feelings by 'primitive methods' and of ridiculing the objects and ceremonies of faith; claiming that these methods strengthen 'religious fanaticism'. Instead it called for more publication of anti-religious literature of a popular scientific nature, and more analysis of the history of religion.

The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.
"In total, the number of Christians who were martyred under the militant state atheism of the USSR is around 12 million." some articles say 60 million.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yeah but ………… he is now not capitalising all first letters of sentences …….... a true rebel! :eek: :D :D
Or maybe he is a conformist after all... :D:D
Either that, or he is just trying to be polite, making his posts easier to read.
Only he would know why, of course. ;)
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I'm still confused. Are you saying, "Yes" you have reason to think someone here is being dishonest?

Or maybe you think someone here is being dishonest and you don't have reason?

And I'm still not sure about the three words under your name? Is that **honestly** how you are acting towards this new member?

Perhaps you would have room to criticize, judge, and stereotype, if your own behavior doesn't contradict your own chosen slogan? That seems a little dishonest ( or maybe unintentionally hypocritical ) to me.

It's all very bizarre... very bizarre indeed.

I try to be honest in what I express - the compassion, understanding, and tolerance are aspirations. It looks like I won't be conversing much with this person anyway, if he seemingly has certain attitudes to science. Much like I don't usually bother with those who seriously question things like - the age of the universe, age of Earth, and of humans, the role of evolution and our relationship to other life, the naturalness of homosexuality, and morals not coming from some divine source, etc. And mostly, this is because these seem to conflict with some religious doctrine - and they can't have that so that religion wins - which is just so dishonest.

They are welcome to exist with such views but I hardly see it as useful to encourage them. Not that I therefore necessarily will have dogmatic views on all these but they are seemingly the best explanations according to the best minds and our best science.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
the true nature of scientific thinking can be gleaned from soviet russia.

Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The 12th party congress called for the expansion of anti-religious propaganda and warns against insulting religious feelings by 'primitive methods' and of ridiculing the objects and ceremonies of faith; claiming that these methods strengthen 'religious fanaticism'. Instead it called for more publication of anti-religious literature of a popular scientific nature, and more analysis of the history of religion.

The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.
"In total, the number of Christians who were martyred under the militant state atheism of the USSR is around 12 million." some articles say 60 million.

And the Soviet regime was also anti-science. They had some massive crop failures because of their rejection of Darwinism in favor of Lysenkoism.

The point is that when political or religious dogma takes precidence over truth, people suffer. And the best way we know of for finding truth is the scientific method.
 

chris baron

Member
And the Soviet regime was also anti-science. They had some massive crop failures because of their rejection of Darwinism in favor of Lysenkoism.

The point is that when political or religious dogma takes precidence over truth, people suffer. And the best way we know of for finding truth is the scientific method.

was victor frankenstein a scientist? how about dr. moreau the vivisectionist or those who experiment on animals. what exactly is this "science"?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
was victor frankenstein a scientist? how about dr. moreau the vivisectionist or those who experiment on animals. what exactly is this "science"?

Since both are fictional characters, this doesn't deserve any more of a response.

A good rule of thumb to determine established science: look at what reports from the AAAS say. You can also look at other top notch science organizations, if you wish. But the Institute for Creation Research clearly doesn't qualify.
 

chris baron

Member
Since both are fictional characters, this doesn't deserve any more of a response.

A good rule of thumb to determine established science: look at what reports from the AAAS say. You can also look at other top notch science organizations, if you wish. But the Institute for Creation Research clearly doesn't qualify.

doesnt deserve a response. sorry your highness
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
doesnt deserve a response. sorry your highness

If your notion of a scientist is based on fiction, perhaps you should look at what *actual* scientists say and do instead.

So the quick answer is that neither Frankenstein nor Moreau were scientists because they are both fictional characters.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
the true nature of scientific thinking can be gleaned from soviet russia.
Quite the opposite, in my view.
I consider the Communism of the day nearly indistinguishable from religion. From the prophet Marx, to high priest Stalin, to a church called "The Party", etc.

Another way that they mimicked religion was to dispense with science whenever it didn't match their ideology.
Tom
 

chris baron

Member
Quite the opposite, in my view.
I consider the Communism of the day nearly indistinguishable from religion. From the prophet Marx, to high priest Stalin, to a church called "The Party", etc.

Another way that they mimicked religion was to dispense with science whenever it didn't match their ideology.
Tom
If your notion of a scientist is based on fiction, perhaps you should look at what *actual* scientists say and do instead.

So the quick answer is that neither Frankenstein nor Moreau were scientists because they are both fictional characters.

was dr. mengele fictional too?
 
Top