Dude, go back and reread everything we said

YES! I do wish they would bring back my ORIGINAL 'science in the Qur'an' thread as none of my topics were rationally addressed let alone disproved, not to mention, it proved to be a clear demonstration of the lack of character some posters around here possess... ;)

Any way, science exists as the concept of proving your theory through experimentation, and in NOT resorting to authority for an answer.

We all know how much some hate even the thought of the existence of someone or something which is much greater than 'thy almighty self'...

God calls that 'pride' and 'arrogance'... ;)

And Aristotle called 'pride' the 'crown of all virtues'.....and we know he existed. I'm prepared to believe him.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

well, than I fail to understand how "Don't do a or b will happen to you" is the purview entirely of philosophy?!?

I am sure that it was philosophy which had originally invented ethics. However, since science is a refinement of philosophy, in that it goes on to provide concrete [u]proof[/i] by experimentation, aren't we just splitting hairs here? Any way, science exists as the concept of proving your theory through experimentation, and in NOT resorting to authority for an answer.

Having never specialized in philosophy at all, I would like a demonstration of how ethics are purely philosophical in nature? Also, it might help my understanding if you can show how the (way) above is in error?

(This is so much more interesting than religious crap, isn't it!)

If your concern is how people will react, that is observable and within the realm of science/epistemology.

"If a biologist in society X at time Y performs vivisection on rabbits to determine if cosmetic Z is effective, there is an overwhelming change that people with a predisposition to empathy with animals will become uncomfortable upon learning of these experiments. Such individuals have historically operated in groups to oppose such actions and ..." is psychology.

"If a group decides that the marginal cost of several non-human mammals' suffering is worth less to them than the marginal benefit of learning the effectiveness of a nonreconstructive cosmetic (e.g., a breath mint), that group exercises teleology ("the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few") with a high value gradient for the well-being dependent upon the status of individuals. Such a group is likely to concentrate discomfort on small subgroups, such as using its military or police for projects that generate considerable discomfort for the subgroup and trivial improvement for the group as a whole..." is ethics.

Does that make it clearer?

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

To explain in a different vein here: Science is the fruit of philosophical principles. A byproduct if you will. They're intimately related but because they deal in different spheres of reality they warrant seperate definitions. Science DOES influence philosophy on the occassion that a particular philosophic assertion or school is irrational (as in Rationalistic) and oversteps its bounds. Science corrects that. However I don't believe a rational philosophy ever steps on science's toes by definition. To the extent it does this it is irrational.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Every Sperm Is Sacred ~ Monty Python

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Sign me up for the pagans then...

---------------------------------------

This might have been better placed in the 'Stem Cell Research' thread. :-) hehehee

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

House OKs plan to keep cross on Mount Soledad
Vote moves issue to federal arena

By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
Union-Tribune reporters Craig Gustafson and Matthew T. Hall contributed to this report.

July 20, 2006

WASHINGTON – In a move that eventually could trigger a test of church-state separation provisions in the Constitution, the House agreed yesterday to transfer the land beneath San Diego's Mount Soledad cross to the federal government.

After a brief debate, House members voted 349-74 to seize the land and give it to the Defense Department in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the 43-foot-tall cross.

“The memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our nation's war dead and veterans,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine. “Therefore, the display of the Mount Soledad cross on federal property . . . is constitutional.”

Hunter was one of three San Diego-area GOP congressmen who co-wrote the legislation to preserve the cross, which was dedicated in 1954 as a Korean War veterans memorial.

Under federal law, which is more flexible on the issue than California law, religious displays have sometimes been allowed to stand on public property if they have historic or cultural significance.

Reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed among San Diego's elected officials and others.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who lobbied the Bush administration to save the cross, characterized the House vote as “great news.”

But others, including Council President Scott Peters and City Attorney Mike Aguirre, said the House vote simply complicates a problem that will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

“I think it makes things worse, not better,” Peters said. “It doesn't change the legal landscape because the law doesn't care whether it's a city government or a federal government that owns a cross on public land. The legal issues are still the same.”

Peters added, “We'd be better off waiting to hear what the Supreme Court said about the city ownership before we tried this new gambit.”

Aguirre agreed, saying there is no basis for the federal government to seize city property.

“Although I have high regard for Congressman Duncan Hunter, this really is not helpful to us because what it basically says is that we're not going to allow the court process to work its way through,” Aguirre said.

Cross supporters said the vote heralded new momentum for them.

Charles LiMandri and Phil Thalheimer, two local leaders in the effort to preserve the cross, said they are optimistic the Senate will support the measure, although they acknowledged its fate is less certain there.

“I think prayers are answered sometimes and I think that's what's happening here,” said LiMandri, an attorney active in the legal battle.

Church-state separation advocates criticized the House action.

“This bill is a gratuitous attempt by Congress to improperly intervene in an ongoing lawsuit,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Congress needs to butt out.”

The House vote – which sent the issue to the Senate – paved the way for what could be a new legal dynamic in the long-running battle over the cross that stands atop 800-foot-high Mount Soledad. Should the Senate approve the legislation and President Bush sign it, foes of the cross have vowed to challenge the action in court.

Lawyers on both sides of the issue predict that such a challenge would take the focus off the California Constitution, where it has been for 17 years, and place it squarely on the U.S. Constitution's provisions guaranteeing separation of church and state.

Attorney James McElroy, who represents Philip Paulson, the Vietnam War veteran and atheist who first filed a lawsuit over the cross in 1989, said the courts, not Congress, will ultimately decide the symbol's fate.

“I think it's an extremely unfortunate day, when we got what is going on in the Middle East, for the Congress to be wasting its time . . . on a local issue like this that is obviously unconstitutional,” McElroy said.

Hunter's bill, H.R. 5683, seeks to preserve the Mount Soledad Memorial by vesting title to the memorial in the federal government and having it administered by the secretary of defense.

Rep. Brian Bilbray, the Carlsbad Republican whose district includes Mount Soledad, told House colleagues of the time his father, a veteran of the Korean War, pointed out the monument when Bilbray was a boy.

“I remember as a child, my father driving past and saying, 'This is one of the few memorials in the country that recognize the heartbreak of what went on in Korea,' ” said Bilbray. “I am shocked at a time of war . . . that we're talking about destruction of a war memorial.”

William Kellogg, president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the cross and the walls with plaques memorializing veterans atop the hill, said he has renewed hope that the cross will stay put.

“It's probably the most promising set of developments we've had in a long time on this issue as far as the possibility of keeping the cross where it is,” Kellogg said. “I think it has truly raised the possibility that that could occur.”

However, those seeking to remove the cross say it is a Christian religious symbol and should not sit on city land. They note that historical maps refer to the monument as the “Mount Soledad Easter Cross.”

“If this bill were nothing more than a veterans' issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today,” said Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego. “But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about: It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others. It is about a uniquely religious symbol on public land.”

This was Hunter's third attempt to protect the cross with federal action. Hunter leaned on his seniority in the House and friendships to move the legislation quickly through the lower chamber with only perfunctory votes – and no hearings – in House committees.

Hunter also earned the endorsement of the Bush White House, which released a statement in support of the legislation.

“The administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 5683,” the statement read. “The people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people.”

Bilbray and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, joined Hunter in sponsoring the legislation. Reps. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, and Davis voted against it.

California's two Democratic senators – who have argued that public money should be used to help preserve missions that hold Catholic services because of the historic nature of those buildings – have indicated support for protecting the cross.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said she believes “the monument is a historical memorial to our veterans and should be allowed to stay.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that “because of the history and significance of this monument to so many veterans and San Diegans, it should be preserved.”

But cross foes vowed to continue the court challenges.

“The courts will invalidate the transfer,” said McElroy, the attorney representing Paulson. “This is going to inflame people's emotions, but it won't succeed.”

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court order forcing the city to remove the cross by Aug. 1. That deadline, set by U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. – who first ordered the cross removed in 1991 on the grounds it violated the state constitution's ban on government support of religion – would have imposed a $5,000-a-day fine had the city not removed the cross.

---

me@rescam.org

'The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself:

In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.'

~ George W Bush

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

'The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself:

In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.'

~ George W Bush

;)

Rarely do I get a chance to disagree with the Koran & G.W.Bush in the same posting.

Thanks for the opportunity, Jeffrey.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I have yet to see anything proven false in my Holy Books by any means other than meaningless rhetoric by people who either don't believe them or don't understand them...

Dude, go back and reread everything we said in "How did they Knooooow, 1400 years ago in the koran?!?!? ;-> :-[ :-8"

Your tenets were proven FALSE. Again and again and again. Go read all these examples of how your bible was WRONG over and over:http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/answers.html

But I guess you'll just ignore that too, jeffrey. Like you've been ignoring "Oasis in Space" that YOU ASKED for?

Ok you keep brining up that same single web site. An entire religon is not wrong becuse of one crack pot web site.

I haven't seen the Koran thred but I'll take a look.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

I haven't seen the Koran thred but I'll take a look.

It was hidden... My second 'attempt' is still visible but not worth reading... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Should we clue Troy in here? :-)
Nah....not yet

Should we clue Troy in here? :-)
Nah....not yet

Its good to be loved.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Should we clue Troy in here? :-)
Nah....not yet

Its good to be loved.

Feel the love! :-)

Do you folks EVER come up with new material? ;)

No...we don't....

Have you ever been mistaken for a rational man?

Just once... then I relized that I was in the kindergarden room. Turns out that the University was no where near there. Go fig.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Do you folks EVER come up with new material? ;)

No...we don't....

Have you ever been mistaken for a rational man?

Just once... then I relized that I was in the kindergarden room. Turns out that the University was no where near there. Go fig.

LOL....good comeback

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

as none of my topics were rationally addressed, let alone disproved

BULLSHIT. You claimed that 'science' in your koran was 'proved' by making allusions to words not actually meaning what they SAID, (ex; you decided 'skies' actually meant 'space' instead, when nothing at all implies space) and making very large leaps re-interpreting general statements into specific modern-science definitions. Which they never were in the first place.
This is the difference between science and bullshit.
Your topics were rationally adressed by science minded people jeffrey. It was YOUR precepts that were not rational to begin with.

Want to continue spouting baloney? I'm sure you could re-post your so-called 'proofs' in here. I'll just go cut'n'paste again.


Read "Oasis in Space' yet jeffrey?

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Troy, this one site is the largest and best at showing how blind and abysmally stupid religious people actually are.

But there are others. Look at the church of the spaghetti monster. It also shows how stupid and ridiculous any religion is, be it christianity, muslim, shinto or bhudda.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Troy, this one site is the largest and best at showing how blind and abysmally stupid religious people actually are.

But there are others. Look at the church of the spaghetti monster. It also shows how stupid and ridiculous any religion is, be it christianity, muslim, shinto or bhudda.

There are a lot of B.S. churches out there, I mean look at Scientology. However the fact that a few, or even many people have pulled off some real bone head and ignorant things in the name of religon dose not invalidate the concept in general. That would be like saying that all psychology is false becuse most of Freud's teaching have been proven to be B.S.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Troy, this one site is the largest and best at showing how blind and abysmally stupid religious people actually are.

Is that a scientific observation, or a generalisation?

I ask, because I'm a minister of religion in the UK ("Church of England"); I have reasonable eyesight, and as far as I know I'm not abysmally stupid (although my granddaughters sometimes ask).

But there are others. Look at the church of the spaghetti monster. It also shows how stupid and ridiculous any religion is, be it christianity, muslim, shinto or bhudda.

I like spaghetti (in moderation) but have never really taken to the cult of the monster. I know a fair bit about Christianity, and don't reckon it stupid or ridiculous (but there are those who enjoy a good argument). I know little about Islam (and worry about it), very little about Shinto (and worry not), and a little about Buddhism which appeals to me.

Am I stupid? How would you tell?

---