Hello Charlie,
I seem to have hit a nerve, eh?:ehh:
Tell me what dogmatic views i hold. Now be careful here, i will want you to back it up with quotes, not just say what YOU think my position is.
That’s easy. You are dogmatic about your lack of dogmatism. You are dogmatic about the capabilities of science. It’s not a dirty word, Chuck.
The scientific method is by far the best method for understanding the cosmos.
I would agree. However, we weren’t discussing the cosmos. We were discussing societal morality, which is a little more “liberal arts” than hard science.
That was my point. There are some things that science does better than any other method, and there are some questions that science is not equipped to address with any expertise. It’s anti-climactic to know that philosophers have wrestled with the question “what is justice” for millenia, and all they had to do was google a dictionary.:doh2:
Can i do what with the scientific method? If you are trying to imply that because there are certain areas the method can’t be applied to, that we should let faith sneak in then your are incorrect.
It was in the context of “what is justice.” Even you would admit that there are areas where science does not have an answer. I may be mistaken, but I think that’s why those philosophers bypassed Websters dictionary and tried to think about the question “what is justice” deeply.
You are way off with your dates, but that is irrelevant.
Fair enough.
let alone exists.
Its pretty safe to say it exists.
Instead of snipping the sentence to twist what I said, read it in context (an ability you’ve shown little grasp of so far). Can Science explain why or how gravity exists? (See, in context that is what I was asking you). Science can’t, doesn’t care and it is out of its realm. That is the point (kept in context this is glaringly obvious). This should make it glaringly obvious to any middle-schooler that there are relevant areas of life that science can not address, which necessarily limits science’s ability to accurately describe all of reality.
Still, you are dogmatic in your assertions that science will eventually answer all these questions.It is reasonable to assume, after so long a time, that science can’t explain the origins of the universe, that a “theory of everything” will always remain out of reach
And here we have it. We don’t know that answer yet, so lets stop looking and say “god did it”. DARK AGES ANYONE???
Get off your dogmatism, Chuckie. When and where did I suggest the “god of the gaps” by insisting that there are just some things that are outside of the possibilities of scientific inquiry? You WANT this to be true, you DOGMATICALLY INSIST this must be true, but that is because you are either a fundamentalist or simply lacking the ability to comprehend what you are reading. You have admitted yourself that there are things that lie outside of science’s ability to address. Does this mean you are suggesting a “god of the gaps?”
Oh, and you might want to consider looking into the so-called “dark ages.” Turns out they weren’t so dark after all, and the Catholic Church is the ONLY reason that Islam didn’t extinguish ALL classical literature and learning.
It is mindsets like yours that have held and continue to hold humanity back. You are subscribing to a philosophy of ignorance.
You haven’t gotten anything about my “mindset” right so far, so how are you able to intuit my mindset from your pathetic attempts at reading into what I have actually said? Psychic? Tarot cards? Ouija boards?:newidea:
Your faith in science is dogmatic. Deal with it.
Tell me what dogmatic views i hold. Now be careful here, i will want you to back it up with quotes, not just say what YOU think my position is.
It’s plain for anyone who would take the time to read our exchanges here, Charles. Shall we take a poll? Again, “dogmatic” is not an epithet. In just this post you have asserted the superiority of science while sumultaneously admitting there are things that science can’t even address. You have done injustice (check your google link for a definition) to what I have actually written by insisting what I must
really mean when I have suggested no such thing.
Sheesh, for being so “open-minded” you’ve shown nothing but unprovoked and judgmental hostility to what I have actually written here. That’s the pop view of dogmatism, right there!:hypno:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Convert66 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Is this a question? It reads like a declarative statement. The only comparisons were there to demonstrate how absurd it is to reject a moral proscription of homosexual behavior based upon what Jesus didn’t say in the Gospels. As I pointed out, He said nothing about pederasty, but I will assume that you have a moral objection to pederasty. He said nothing about the Roman circus, but I will assume you have a moral objection to death-sport as entertainment. *
To be honest i couldn’t care less what the bible says. You have said at the bottom that you don’t think it is immoral, so were both are in agreement.
You’ve still missed the point. You’ve refused to even look at the point. Your objections to opposition to gay marriage, by insisting that Jesus never said anything about it are absurd. Instead of simply admitting I am right on this (and I am) you brush it aside because you are too dogmatic to actually engage in a discussion, insisting dogmatically that you “don’t have to.”:manvspc:
Sayonara, Chuckles . . .
). As for oral sex, well, I guess the reason the church would consider it wrong is because the man would be wasting his seed correct? I wonder if it would still be wrong if he doesn’t though? 
Same goes for masturbation, suffice it to say, I do really sympathize I’m sure it can’t be easy for you guys, but God bless those who can.
dear me. Exactly what is dogmatic about that?