The Barbarian Posted August 30, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,082 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I thought the 14th Amendment extended rights to former slaves, and I wrong? Actually, it applies the Bill of Rights to the states, and makes them observe all the freedoms therein. It had the effect of granting rights to everyone in a state, even if the stated didn't like it. 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: If there is such a thing , then that would mean that congress has a right to make a law requiring Islam No, it does just the opposite. It bans anyone from imposing any religion in any public school. Actually, science is about the natural. And it's limited to that. There are other ways of knowing about the supernatural, but science can't do it. 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I guess in a world where you get to make op or restrict definitions for your own purposes, that might be true. However, last time I checked, I do not live in that world. In my World, there is a dictionary, and it says: Doesn't matter. There is a methodology to science, and it can only work in the natural universe. science [ sahy-uhns ] SEE SYNONYMS FOR science ON THESAURUS.COM noun a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. any of the branches of natural or physical science. systematized knowledge in general. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. a particular branch of knowledge. This is kind of the error you see in creationists talking about the Bible "science so-called." The term used to mean only knowledge. It now means a specific methodology for learning about nature. Bad idea to conflate the two. Jesus says that we should separate what is due to Caesar and what is due to God. I believe Him. 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I believe Him also. Then we have no argument. God neither needs nor wants a government hand-out. The founders were wise to keep religion out of government, hence the wall of separation asserted by Jefferson and Madison,who wrote the First Amendment. That was their intent. 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I was concerned that they would be indoctrinated with unbalanced ideas about the natural world as I was in school, and would get some of their notions about what is unacceptable behavior and ideology, from liberal teachers and their student peers, and I wanted to spare them from that abuse. If that were the case, children of scientists would be worse-behaved than other children. And the opposite is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted August 31, 2020 On 8/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, The Barbarian said: No, it does just the opposite. It bans anyone from imposing any religion in any public school. Well, that is what you say, reading the ammendment, I see nothing of the sort. Further more, Cornell Law School has a comment on th 14th Ammendment re: Education, for those interested, and I see nothing there either, in regards to the way you choose to apply it. Quote Actually, science is about the natural. And it's limited to that. There are other ways of knowing about the supernatural, but science can't do it. Doesn't matter. There is a methodology to science, and it can only work in the natural universe. Cute trick, but not effective. I already showed you with an authoritative quote, that science is broader than the limited definition you try to impose upon it. There is nothing wrong with saying something like "Sorry, I misspoke, what I should have said was . . . ", but instead you opted to double down by reasserting your demonstrably incorrect assertion. However, I would agree with you that there is a methodology that only works in the natural universe. Let me rephrase that a bit to be a little bit more accurate, that methodology can only work in the natural universe, but there is not guarantee, that it will even to that! What you are talking about, is NATURAL science, a sub-genre of science, which as I have already shown, is knowledge. If you want to do linguistic games of limitation and selective definitions, we could do that, but there is nothing to be gained by that, except perhaps to make us look like fools. Personally, I do not want to play, there are better things to do with our time. Any methodology, or any discussion about these things, have the limitations of communication, personal biases, and limitations in human logic, etc. How do we even know what is logical, and what is not? We do not know, all we can do is make up rules about it, that we think are true and that we agree to, but the logic of mere humans, is just that, the logic of defective people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted August 31, 2020 On 8/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, The Barbarian said: Then we have no argument. God neither needs nor wants a government hand-out. The founders were wise to keep religion out of government, hence the wall of separation asserted by Jefferson and Madison,who wrote the First Amendment. That was their intent. Funny you should mention that, ironic. Jefferson might not have been pleased to know, that beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. Your taxpayer dollars at work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,082 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: Funny you should mention that, ironic. Jefferson might not have been pleased to know, that beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. Your taxpayer dollars at work! We have often failed to live up to the ideals of our founders. I'm kind of surprised to hear that the government was handing out the Jefferson Bible, however: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today.[1] The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible Can't you picture Franklin Graham having a hissy fit over that one? Edited August 31, 2020 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,082 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: Well, that is what you say, reading the ammendment, I see nothing of the sort. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" which prohibits the government from any imposition of religion or any restriction of private religious practice. And yes, Amendment XIV requires the states to observe the same freedoms. And courts have repeatedly upheld that Amendment, so it's not going to change. 1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I already showed you with an authoritative quote, that science is broader than the limited definition you try to impose upon it. Sorry, your opinion won't change the reality. Science is limited by its methodology to the physical universe. If your faith won't lead you to God, science can't help you. Learn about it here: Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: What you are talking about, is NATURAL science, a sub-genre of science, which as I have already shown, is knowledge. Even many creationists know better... Now what did Paul mean by “science”? The Greek word gnosis means “knowledge” in a general sense, not in the technical sense we use the word “science” today. Greek expert W. E. Vine explains that “science in the modern sense of the word, viz, the investigation, discovery and classification of secondary laws, is unknown in Scripture.” https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/science-so-called/ 2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: How do we even know what is logical, and what is not? It's mathematical, and a branch of philosophy: Typically, a logic consists of a formal or informal language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics. The language has components that correspond to a part of a natural language like English or Greek. The deductive system is to capture, codify, or simply record arguments that are valid for the given language, and the semantics is to capture, codify, or record the meanings, or truth-conditions for at least part of the language. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ So, yes, we can show what is logical, and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts