Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
It Is A Method...play Dumb & Have The 'prideful' Explain To You

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Residential on March 29, 2002 07:54:25 UTC



He wrote:
"By over defining ourselves we make a simple question require all of us to have a Ph.D. in semantics, linguistics, and etymology."

Response:
These worthwhile professions are not the only
ones who may define words. In fact, they rarely define words, but report on generally accepted definitions and how those came to be. They have the wisdom to leave to others the task of actually creating definitions, since it is not what they do for a living. At least the smart ones have that wisdom. In this forum are several persons better qualified persons to discuss definitions of words like "God" and "spirituality" -- qualified by their personal research and interest. Some of these persons have outlined some of their life experiences and/or published work. Just because you have nothing to say about the definition of "God" does not mean someone else does not.
We have written thousands of words on this topic (definitions and proofs of God) in the past few months, while you were posting to the forum, too!
Can you cite any intelligent remark you made about the topic? I can cite intelligent remarks made by others.

He wrote:
"I think it was Steven Weinberg who said that he had no idea what the term 'spiritual' meant. That strikes me as nothing short of obtuse."

Response:
If Harv may call Steven Weinberg's remarks "obtuse" without being criticized, may we not describe Harv's remarks in colorful terms too without being criticized?

He wrote:
"I think the word 'prove' is the most controversial since most people vary more on their understanding of that term"

Response:
Fine idea: "what is 'proof' to you?"..I think I've seen this idea before. I have asked YOU to "Present your evidence and set a standard of proof"
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/15329.shtml

Your response began with,"Huh?"

Maybe it is a method...play dumb & have the 'prideful' explain to you
but sometimes the ones with higher moral intelligence must actually be honest with one another...
and by definition
'higher moral intelligence' occurs in a minority

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins