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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 12, 2002 19:04:33 UTC


Do you not feel that you can try harder at communication?

Boy, I sure can! Problem is, I have no time. I think we could understand each other a lot better if we could better elaborate our arguments.

You say that I condenscend to you, but frankly I think it is the other way around.

Well, I think that's good then. It means we're both misunderstanding each other. I thought it was only me.

When you say "I have reasons that your poor fundamentalist brain would never understand", then you are not only condenscending, but you are playing the childhood game again.

Harv, I knew you could interpret it that way, that's why I wrote under parenthesis that I was not comparing you to a fundamentalist! Can't you take my word for it?

When I'm under the shower it feels exactly like it's raining, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing. Again, clarity sacrificed for briefness' sake.

I guess there's no point in our discussing issues if you always elect to end discussions in this manner.

I still maintain you don't understand my question. I chose to end the discussion because I don't have time to elaborate it, not because I think you're beyond hope. Quite the contrary!

Man, you and Dick have found each other.

What does that have to do with anything?

You rely on the same reasoning methods and conclude arguments in an identical manner.

So do the 120 people who work with me! So what?

I could imagine that both of you being right about these issues (but not right as if you are both spouting the same position since that's obviously not the case), but you can't cite a single paper in either philosophy or physics that supports your view except the one that you are espousing.

Does that make it wrong then?

My views are all in philosophical journals, physics publications, etc.

Does that make them right then?

That doesn't make them right, but at least I'm introducing concepts and problems that are agreed to by many top minds to be valid issues of concern.

If "that doesn't make them right", what does "that" make them then?

OK Harv, from now on I'll only talk to you about "concepts and problems that are agreed to by many top minds to be valid issues of concern". Which means we'll have very little to talk about, as I'm not interested in arguing religion.

"Top minds". Give me a break!

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 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