Jump to content

DutyCat

Members
  • Content Count

    2,229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DutyCat

  1. You are correct. A ton of money is spent on trivial things...no question. But my comments were made within the context of the relative values of religion and science, which is what this thread, despite its origins, ended up revolving around. As you noted, donated church money is often used to help the down and out. I should have acknowledged that. Now, on the other hand, if you want to talk about wasting money, religious institutions probably spend far more on sustaining themselves than they dole out to the poor. On a national level, guys like Joel Osteen are making millions preaching an
  2. OK, let's "evolve" this conversation in a related direction. A constant irritant for me is the relative amount of thought, time and resources we personally put into religion vs what we put into science. According a 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics study, American's spend about $700 per consumer unit on religious donations. A consumer unit is defined as a family, person living alone, or a couple. That number is about 125 million. So, if we multiply 700 by 125 million, you get 87,500,000,000. That is 87 billion, 500 million bucks folks....all donated to religious institutions. How much mone
  3. I am sorry. I do not intend for it to come across that way. I am just trying to debate the issue, not be arrogant. Also, when I say "you" what I mean is "one, or "we." I will go back and change that, because I do not mean this to be personal in any way. To avoid confusion, I agree "facts" is a better word than "truth." Also, to make my point about religious egocentricity, we can simply consider the biblical statement, "God created man is his self image." In that one sentence, we are not only species egocentric, but gender egocentric. God is described as a male, paternal figure, represen
  4. The problem with this line of thinking is it represents a false synthesis. Theologically minded people accept the science that is overwhelming, but where it is not, or is incomplete, discount it by saying, "Well, that is just a theory." Then on the heels of that, substitute a speculative belief system that "seems" right to them, but does not come anywhere close to satisfying even the most basic standards of the scientific theory that they just discounted. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As to your underlined question--to a scientist, the answer is obvious. At the very center of
  5. This is a common fallacy....intelligent people believe in a supreme being, etc., so it must be legit. "So and so is more educated (implying more intelligent) than YOU and THEY believe." Intelligence is but one component. Equally important is a person's pre-disposition, background, culture, training...a willingness to understand and accept the scientific method....its discipline and its limitations, as opposed to being prejudiced against it. When you roll out belief in a deity or deities you are going "off the grid" of science. That is okay as long as your recognize what you are doing.
  6. VERY nicely done. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. I don't think it will make any difference, however. Ours and similar voices similar,are facing an avalanche of dissent from the general public which is largely illiterate in the scientific method, and wants to stay that way. Religion is egocentric, offering safety and security, in this life and the next, in an increasingly complex, morally ambiguous, and threatening world. I understand its attraction for the common man. People do not want complicated science with all of its leading edge uncertainty and inability to answer t
  7. You are dead on correct with most of your analysis, IMO. I also agree with you about the danger of any self righteously practiced religious fundamentalism. However, even though the US was not founded officially as a Christian nation, it was de facto culturally and that carried throughout most of its history. Many of our laws and customs are rooted in Anglo Saxon Christian traditions. So, even though moderate Christians can synthesize (a false synthesis, admittedly) science and religion, they are much less tolerant to the hijacking of traditional American culture by groups that have custom
  8. To answer all of your questions....that is because it is extremely unlikely that any visitations have occurred, so no one has ever been abducted. It is probably as simple as that!
  9. No, that is not the angle I was taking. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so that represents a large window of opportunity when compared to the "modern era," which for the purposes of this discussion I will say is the last 500 years. Our collective awareness of even the possibility of other worlds and ET's is much shorter than that...a couple of hundred years at most. So, aside from ancient folklore, any report of a visitation would have to be within that time period. That is a very small window, which in my view makes a visitation unlikely unless the Galaxy is teaming with FTL alien spa
  10. I don't think there have been any "slams against religion" here. There has been a discussion and clarification of the scientific method in comparison to religion. We should all be critical thinkers or we do ourselves a disservice. What I try to make clear to anyone I happen to end up discussing this with is that science is about the material universe. Religion is about behavior and belief systems, which don't have hard scientific value. They are driven by emotional needs and taught behaviors. If a person sees value and validity in theology as it applies to them personally...if they use i
  11. Alan, Unfortunately, a personal audience with God, in whatever form it manifests itself, is not empirical evidence. If a person reports a "visitation," then that has to be viewed with the same healthy skepticism as if he or she said they were abducted by aliens. Claimed visitations from God usually take the form of dreams, visions, or the interpretation of some event. They are not verifiable and are more likely self impositions of religious dogma. "I have seen it, or felt it, etc" is what you usually get as a last ditch effort to validate a theological perspective when all other attempt
  12. Okaaaay..... Those he teach theory as "fact" don't fully understand the scientific method either. All though most theoretical concepts can be grouped generally under the term theory, there are actually reasonably clear "levels" of scientific thought, from hypothesis up to law. For example, the "Big Bang Theory" is just that. It is a theory that best meets the available facts. Nothing more. The opportunity to observe it directly is long since past, so we have to rely on indirect, circumstantial evidence. Going beyond the Big Bang, to questions like, "What came before it? How did matter
  13. Sigh. I am hesitant to even say anything here as I have been down this road before. I will just make a few points. 1. There is no such thing as the "religion of science." It is a very defined, absolutely proven, self correcting methodology. It doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter what you think. The methodology is as solid and foolproof as the sun in the sky. What limitations there are exist in the application of the methodology, which requires the human thought process. The human thought process often features an emotional or perspective bias. This is recognized and the m
  14. I also do not like the new American scheme. It looks like it should be called Latin American airways. I have always thought that the best American livery was the old orange lightning bolt Astrojet scheme.
  15. Unclassified pics of the damage should be released simply because they are newsworthy. The USAF is a public, US Government institution, responsible to the citizenry. As was pointed out, they release pics of every other major or minor event (first taxi, etc). Unless they truly can't declassify the photos, then I can think of no reason why they would not release at least one photo, other than to avoid negative press. That is not an acceptable position for a US Government agency to take. If they can't declassify even a single photo without Herculean effort, then they need to come out and say
  16. Fair enough about the conditions under which the fires took place. I did not realize that the T-50 was during a public event. I am not in favor of disclosing classified material. I do not think my comments inferred that. However, as others have pointed out, they might have been able to photo shop out anything classified. If it is was not practical, the Air Force could have just said so. They knew this was a high interest event and to say nothing suggests it might be more about PR than secrecy. I don't know, though. I am not alleging any thing. Just wondering.
  17. Oh, he is, isn't he. Unlikely he would have just come up with that on his own. Also, I too feel that although there is no legal requirement, it reeks of PR spin not releasing photos of the fire damaged aircraft. Heck, we had pics of the T-50 that caught fire within a couple of hours.
  18. I attempted shaving this morning with the EJ......it just takes so much more work and care, and frankly, I don't think the result is as good unless you really work at it. The technology in the Gillette is just superior. I know old school DE shaving is making a comeback among us boomers. I wanted to believe and buy in, but, honestly, I think Gillette has done their homework here, as usual. It is a superior product, and the flexball does make a difference. I did some research to see what others thought. What few reviews I found were either on Gillette's site (pro), or on various DE shaving
  19. I also have an Edwin Jagger DE89 Barley razor. It is beautiful...a work of art. I have tried it a few times and although it might shave as close as the Gillette, it takes a bit more time, attention, and technique. I am still experimenting with it when I have time. The jury is out still.
  20. Ok, so I know EVERYBODY here is going to look at this thread, except maybe our few ladies or dudes with full beards who aren't into shaving. If you are like me, you have felt the pinch of Gillette's increasingly hi-tech approach to shaving and the expense of the continuing arms race between beard and blade. So a couple of months ago, I am at the local Wal-Mart with the missus and come across the new Fusion ProGlide with "FlexBall" technology. After careful consideration of finish (color of metal and grip), I throw one into the shopping basket. Wifey looks at me like, "Really?" I kind of
  21. Elaborate, please. What boxing is the most correct E?
  22. I have one. Took me a year to get it as they has blasted through the initial production run in short order. It is beautiful but has a lot of inexcusable inaccuracies. Some are easier to correct than others.
×
×
  • Create New...