Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[rlg94086]

You just made an absolute statement. This is the problem with Kant, Hume, etc. You cant know anything about anything with ant degree of certainty.

Yep. But, in fairness, their religion isn’t science - it’s worship of self. They are the chick inside the egg, who believe that all that exists is what they can sense.

 

[larkin31]

The statement “There are no absolutes” is in itself, an absolute statement.

Who are you quoting? I did not write that. Who wrote this, and in what context?

 

[larkin31]

Yep. But, in fairness, their religion isn’t science - it’s worship of self. They are the chick inside the egg, who believe that all that exists is what they can sense.

Can we turn this thread into the bashing of each other’s “worship”? Is that ok to do here? Cuz if so, then I do have a rejoinder that would be fair.

 

[rlg94086]

Can we turn this thread into the bashing of each other’s “worship”? Is that ok to do here? Cuz if so, then I do have a rejoinder that would be fair.

I was commenting on “Kant, Hume, etc.” I haven’t made a single comment about your “worship.” I can say that my post was an accurate description of me…about 20 years ago, when I was really into the writings of “Kant, Hume, etc.” - even more so, when I was an existentialist.

 

[StTommyMore]

Who are you quoting? I did not write that. Who wrote this, and in what context?

Post 546 you said there is no absolute truth. This statement is an absolute, and therefore self-contradictory.

 

[larkin31]

Post 546 you said there is no absolute truth. This statement is an absolute, and therefore self-contradictory.

Is there an intentional reason that you did not quote the qualifying prepositional phrase in my sentence? You changed the point of my sentence in a major way.

I will let you correct your own error. Thanks.

 

[StTommyMore]

Is there an intentional reason that you did not quote the qualifying prepositional phrase in my sentence? You changed the point of my sentence in a major way.

I will let you correct your own error. Thanks.

I changed nothing, especially since there ARE absolute truths in science.

 

[larkin31]

I changed nothing, especially since there ARE absolute truths in science.

The sentence began “In science”. You removed my qualifying phrase, which majorly changes the extent of the claim I made.

like this:

“There are no good answers on this quiz.”

vs

“There are no good answers.”

Now I see what kind of argument you like to make here: insincere and devious and without apology or honesty. I will remember StTommyMore on this.

If you think that there is an absolute truth “in science” then go ahead and give one.

But don’t go and trim people’s qualifying remarks from sentences and then claim not to have made any difference. Unless you simply wish to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. Again.

 

[StTommyMore]

If you think that there is an absolute truth “in science” then go ahead and give one.

The square root of a negative number always has a complex result in the form of a+bi. This is always true.

here is another one: id a>b and b>c then a>c

Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1.

The chemical formula of water is H20

Sexual organisms need both male and female to reproduce.

Do I need to go on?

 

[rlg94086]

The square root of a negative number always has a complex result in the form of a+bi. This is always true.

here is another one: id a>b and b>c then a>c

Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1.

The chemical formula of water is H20

Sexual organisms need both male and female to reproduce.

Do I need to go on?

Hey…at least were still on topic.

 

[larkin31]

The square root of a negative number always has a complex result in the form of a+bi. This is always true.

here is another one: id a>b and b>c then a>c

Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1.

The chemical formula of water is H20

Sexual organisms need both male and female to reproduce.

Do I need to go on?

These are not all true. Please review your science and your precision of expression.

Moreover, mostly these are definitional, so they are true because they merely state a definition, like “My screenname is Larkin31”.

Watch, here is one too: The letter T is a letter we have labeled “T”.

Do you have something more broadly objective than human-made definitions?

 

[canadianguy1143]

The sentence began “In science”. You removed my qualifying phrase, which majorly changes the extent of the claim I made.

like this:

“There are no good answers on this quiz.”

vs

“There are no good answers.”

Now I see what kind of argument you like to make here: insincere and devious and without apology or honesty. I will remember StTommyMore on this.

If you think that there is an absolute truth “in science” then go ahead and give one.

But don’t go and trim people’s qualifying remarks from sentences and then claim not to have made any difference. Unless you simply wish to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. Again.

Let’s review what you said starting from Post #546:

In science, there is no absolute truth

so be careful what you call a “religion”. Save the moniker for your own worship, I think.

To which ‘StTommyMore’ replied with:

You just made an absolute statement. This is the problem with Kant, Hume, etc. You cant know anything about anything with ant degree of certainty.

In his reply he had your ENTIRE post highlighted.

Then you replied to him:

Huh?

I made a statement, yes. It is just a subject and a predicate making a claim. I did not claim that there are no claims made in declarative sentences.

I said, there is no absolute truth in science. With the point being, that to call it a “religion” is to falsely compare it to “Catholicism” or other religions in the traditional literal sense of the word.

This post was superfluous as you brought up things that neither StTommyMore mentioned nor yourself in your initial post. What was your point in saying that your statement has a subject and a predicate and that you made a claim. Saying that there are no absolutes in science is not a claim but a declaration.

Then ‘StTommyMore’ repeated his refutation of your erroneous claim with the following:

The statement “There are no absolutes” is in itself, an absolute statement.

And then you act as punctuation police when he omitted the prepositional phrase, “In Science”. Since he was talking to you, and previously quoted your ENTIRE post, you could have tried to explain what you were trying to say rather than your course of action.

You do realize that in science there are absolutes. The Earth DOES go around the Sun.

 

[larkin31]

Let’s review what you said starting from Post #546:

To which ‘StTommyMore’ replied with:

In his reply he had your ENTIRE post highlighted.

Then you replied to him:

This post was superfluous as you brought up things that neither StTommyMore mentioned nor yourself in your initial post. What was your point in saying that your statement has a subject and a predicate and that you made a claim. Saying that there are no absolutes in science is not a claim but a declaration.

Then ‘StTommyMore’ repeated his refutation of your erroneous claim with the following:

And then you act as punctuation police when he omitted the prepositional phrase, “In Science”. Since he was talking to you, and previously quoted your ENTIRE post, you could have tried to explain what you were trying to say rather than your course of action.

You do realize that in science there are absolutes. The Earth DOES go around the Sun.

yes

 

[jackangelo1]

The square root of a negative number always has a complex result in the form of a+bi. This is always true.

here is another one: id a>b and b>c then a>c

Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1.

The chemical formula of water is H20

Sexual organisms need both male and female to reproduce.

Do I need to go on?

do you or anybody know what GOBBLY AGLUPE MEANS OR TRIPE, OR Nonsense? I have the answer,its in my dictionary "? look up Science then Religion, Simple!

 

[StTommyMore]

do you or anybody know what GOBBLY AGLUPE MEANS OR TRIPE, OR Nonsense? I have the answer,its in my dictionary "? look up Science then Religion, Simple!

 

[Dale_M]

Sexual organisms need both male and female to reproduce.

Actually, that isn’t always true. Many species of animals and plants, which normally reproduce sexually, may do so asexually under the right conditions. In animals the process is called parthenogenesis and in plants it is called apomixis.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

destruction by God of a city is not “scientifically” measurable any more than a virgin birth is. I am not sure what you mean.

But, your answer is, “Yes”? You take the destruction of those two cities literally? That God destroyed the cities? And every inhabitant in it was killed? Wow. Ok. I don’t meet many people who believe that.

Do you take the Flood literally too?

Yes, actually I do, but as another poster pointed out, as Catholics we are not required to.I think there was a tremendous flood as related in the Bible & the story of the flood is recounted in other ancient histories, too-Babylon,etc… If I remember, there was a recent finding of a thick layer of silt, suggesting a huge flood,in that same region.Perhaps someone else can find that info?
I meant that a (possibly) volcanic destruction of a city is easily explained through natural causes, whereas resurrection from the dead or a virgin birth is not. Whether a city was destroyed because of God’s wrath can’t be proven scientifically-at least not by any means I know of. But it seems an easier thing to imagine God willed the forces of nature to do something than a supernatural event outside natural laws.Of course, God is omnipotent & can do as He chooses.And he often does.

 

[larkin31]

Yes, actually I do, but as another poster pointed out, as Catholics we are not required to.I think there was a tremendous flood as related in the Bible & the story of the flood is recounted in other ancient histories, too-Babylon,etc… If I remember, there was a recent finding of a thick layer of silt, suggesting a huge flood,in that same region.Perhaps someone else can find that info?
I meant that a (possibly) volcanic destruction of a city is easily explained through natural causes, whereas resurrection from the dead or a virgin birth is not. Whether a city was destroyed because of God’s wrath can’t be proven scientifically-at least not by any means I know of. But it seems an easier thing to imagine God willed the forces of nature to do something than a supernatural event outside natural laws.Of course, God is omnipotent & can do as He chooses.And he often does.

A localized flood (like a Mississippi flood) has been documented in ancient sediments. This is not what the Bible describes, nor what it means. I did not ask you if you thought that the Biblical Flood was based on a more common and recognizable geological event; I asked you if you took the description of the Flood in the Bible literally, as described–to a mountaintop in 40 days, killing all but a pair of every animal form.

Do you take geological events to be caused by God? Is that how you understand the cause of, say, the eruption of Vesuvius over Pompeii, or the tsunami that wiped out all those villages along the Pacific rim, or the movement of the moon around the earth?

 

[jackangelo1]

A localized flood (like a Mississippi flood) has been documented in ancient sediments. This is not what the Bible describes, nor what it means. I did not ask you if you thought that the Biblical Flood was based on a more common and recognizable geological event; I asked you if you took the description of the Flood in the Bible literally, as described–to a mountaintop in 40 days, killing all but a pair of every animal form.

Do you take geological events to be caused by God? Is that how you understand the cause of, say, the eruption of Vesuvius over Pompeii, or the tsunami that wiped out all those villages along the Pacific rim, or the movement of the moon around the earth?

I Must be one hell of a Catholic ,because I believe ,and trust in God Almighty, the Creater of all things that will happen and will happen according to HIS Will/? to be Happy, one must believe and trust God!

 

[estesbob]

A localized flood (like a Mississippi flood) has been documented in ancient sediments. This is not what the Bible describes, nor what it means. I did not ask you if you thought that the Biblical Flood was based on a more common and recognizable geological event; I asked you if you took the description of the Flood in the Bible literally, as described–to a mountaintop in 40 days, killing all but a pair of every animal form.

Do you take geological events to be caused by God? Is that how you understand the cause of, say, the eruption of Vesuvius over Pompeii, or the tsunami that wiped out all those villages along the Pacific rim, or the movement of the moon around the earth?

And this is related to a discussion of Catholics who support homosexual marriage because ???