NOMA - Is this the answer?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:That dictionary also once defined atheists as being evil as well. BTW, #2 is refering to #1.[/B][/QUOTE]My bad, did not read the definition that closely. I am sorry.I did look up the definition of atheism. It states one who believes that there is no God.belief - in theology, FAITH, or a FIRM PERSUATION of the truths of a religion.I have a question, can I see some sources that state that atheism and agnosticsm are not religions? All my life, I was told these are religious beliefs. Never have researched it that much.When did the Webster's dictionary define an atheist as being evil? Very interested in finding that one out.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I would agree with atheist and agnostics in being more honest about where they get their morals from. I am an atheist, but to give the other side a fair consideration, are there not others from the other side who are honest about where their morals come from?Or was this statement more of a generalization sweeping across the boards of religions?What is your opinion on atheism/agnostiscm [boy I really need to learn how to spell these words] as being classified as religions?Very interested in what you have to say.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

meet me over at ORIGIN OF LIFE thread if you want my own ideas. I used him for whom I know who not only taught teachers evolution lived a "belief" in and is sort of "switch and bait" or the reverse just to gage someonelese opionion I do not know and am not face to face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,

​

what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.

​

This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

---

​

All morality is subjective. It is dependant on wheither it is that of a society or an individual. Atheists and agnostics are just more honest about where they get their morality from.

---

wOOW this is an awfully strong third period. Are you sure you can mean this? I think Amorality is subjective but there are some objects in ethics that no matter what calculs text one learned from ought be aboslute even if by law they were or are not. I hope you are part of the latter.BTW, much of what you say comes out as being disjointed and confusing like this;There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.What does that mean?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002][/B][/QUOTE]In a text on Chinese Science Needham (a good biologist) notes how often things came to the west FROM China thru areas of Muslim and Indian living etc and I suspect that the turn made on the graph of what in the West is known as "Pascal's triangle" may have come ultimatiely from China through Muslim scholarship or not (I do not know)but any absolute rotation still I have left undecided about the anti-Aristotelianinsm inherent in Galelio's defense of natrual facts use which still could be more from Islamic sources than Chinese. I do notknow. NO edit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Hi,

​

A few questions.

​

"It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc."

​

Am I reading it correctly that some in the church think that the dicipline of biology is NOT a part of chemistry or physics? What was meant by this statement?

---

I meant to quote the Vatican Document directly rather than arguing from what philosophy Gould was inclined to believe etc. You are free to interpret it differently but even reporters for major newspapers were unable to discern what Gould rather clearly in his own typewriter wrote etc. I take that reading I did of the text TO denote for any misconnotation still invloved etc etc words "runs counter". My post on Origin of LIfe idicates why time is of essence here such that two periods of more than two sentences is unable to merely bracket out the content that is or is being referenced.
[B][QUOTE] What do you think? I am sorry, I lost where this is going. But is that not why we have lumped all the "hard" sciences into one magesterium, to avoid biology not being chemistry and physics, or do we do so becuase there are some overalapping there?[/B][/QUOTE]It was "going" to Germany as you can see even once again in Mayrs recent intro to Margulius and Sagan new book on microbes. My Grandfather FIRST taught ALL SCIENCE at a college, then was Chair OF Biology and eventually became an expert in Field Biology. Mayr is correct that Biology can not be lumped with chem and physs as some philosophers of science have thought etc and I would agree it needs some autonomy but I do not hold the "organacist" position sensu stricto as my materialism should yield etc.I did not take that line of thinking farther becasue it either in the context of this thread was able to deny or reject GOuld's empricism (as for instance S. wright may have thought he did etc etc Phillip Johsnon ad nauseum etc etc etc.) or merely showed that word for magesterium on my view is "system". From which the talk could re-iterate or hermenutic all over again,

quote:

---

"This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics. "

​

Molecular mechanics is my focus and interest, but one has to look at the large picture.
OK

​

That is why I consider all when I look at evolution of life or of the earth.

​

Ok
Yes molecular mechanics is where I want to spend the rest of life in, but it will only give me a limited view.
Why do you say so?? What if the 1/2 eternity so invovled had use of actual infinity that continues to bifurcate in behaviorisms relative to any internal field???? by increasing a finite quantity only. I dont only think this way but it is possible.

​

It think, this is what the creationist are hung up on, they do not consider the "big" picture outside their beliefs.

---

I did, and do. [B][QUOTE] I believe that anything may be considered science regardless of where it comes from, if it is accepted by the consensous. I believe that this was made in the Magesterium of Religion,
What was?? anything that was made????but it does have some impact on the Magesterium of Science.OkAs I go on, in reading Gould's book, I am wondering how he thought it would have been possible to keep the different Magesterium from affecting eachother.
[/B][/QUOTE]GOT me. I think he was thinking of his heritage and where he had already landed with respect to some cone which I have indicated i think was any residual Marxism that his surrounds would not allow him to disabuse himself of if he had wanted but I do not know Steve this well. Maybe he really was married to this philsoohy out of respect to Richard Lewotin. I dont know.
[B][QUOTE] And no, I am compleltly open to the other side.[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, I did miss this. ThanksOSPECIALK ADDED"'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad McFall:
There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.What does that mean?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002][/B][/QUOTE]In a text on Chinese Science Needham (a good biologist) notes how often things came to the west FROM China thru areas of Muslim and Indian living etc and I suspect that the turn made on the graph of what in the West is known as "Pascal's triangle" may have come ultimatiely from China through Muslim scholarship or not (I do not know)but any absolute rotation still I have left undecided about the anti-Aristotelianinsm inherent in Galelio's defense of natrual facts use which still could be more from Islamic sources than Chinese. I do notknow. NO edit.[/QUOTE]I think Brad's referring to the pre-Western science of the Islamic world & China. It wasn't 'Muslim science' but it is just 'science' as we know today, albeit in a more primitive stage; however this step is crucial because the Muslim stage is the key to the current Western domination of scientific world. Some Muslim scholars are annoyed by this 'takeover' (in their minds only IMO), but if the science works, anything goes.btw: Fellow board personalities, some of us wished to understand Brad McFall, and some even wished for a rosetta stone to decipher his words. Now that wish is fulfilled--see how Anne talk with Brad? This lady is the key to Brad's thoughts!

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006: belief - in theology, FAITH, or a FIRM PERSUATION of the truths of a religion.Not all beliefs are religious in nature.I have a question, can I see some sources that state that atheism and agnosticsm are not religions? All my life, I was told these are religious beliefs. Never have researched it that much.I had shown earlier why they aren't religious beliefs. A religion is a belief system which is centred around the belief in a supernatural power or deity. Atheists and agnostics have no such thing.When did the Webster's dictionary define an atheist as being evil? Very interested in finding that one out.

​

Where Did We Get Our Definition For 'Atheist'? Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht (Reply) (7-00)Even Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary has, as a synonym for atheism, the word wickedness. To be fair, they list this definition as archaic; however, its very existence speaks volumes about the public's attitude toward atheists. Many people throughout history have used the word atheist to insult and degrade those people they do not like.

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006: I would agree with atheist and agnostics in being more honest about where they get their morals from. I am an atheist, but to give the other side a fair consideration, are there not others from the other side who are honest about where their morals come from?No, since they are claiming that they had received their morality from a mythical being. In other words they are basing their morality on fear of what their deity may do to them if they don't obey its commands. Atheists and agnostics, on the otherhand, base their morality on reason and that it is just the right thing to do.What is your opinion on atheism/agnostiscm [boy I really need to learn how to spell these words] as being classified as religions?It is nonsense and only an attempt to drag them down with theists. I.E. "Well if it is only a belief in a fairy tale than so is yours"

Originally posted by Brad McFall:wOOW this is an awfully strong third period. Are you sure you can mean this? I think Amorality is subjective but there are some objects in ethics that no matter what calculs text one learned from ought be aboslute even if by law they were or are not. I hope you are part of the latter.All morality is subjective even on the scale of a culture.

Would you mind giving another synonm of "scale of culture". I said OK to your notion @ "big picture" but if one was programming GIS for instance this would be the whole bottom line and yet if you leave the phrase such I will not know how to read any intent(for instance not my own)for molecular biology since this COULD be a ref to inter alia "molecular mechanics" but the size of a replicator would I my own notion NOT be objective to changing criticism of "group selection" on the notion of additive variance into the additivity defintion. I would find with homology rather a MORE formal and less empric consequence than I have begun to specify as to the implementation of computer assisted exploratory data analsyis still a part of this "culture" but likely not on the "scale". IE still my speculation does not exist but could be taught.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Would you mind giving another synonm of "scale of culture". I said OK to your notion @ "big picture" but if one was programming GIS for instance this would be the whole bottom line and yet if you leave the phrase such I will not know how to read any intent(for instance not my own)for molecular biology since this COULD be a ref to inter alia "molecular mechanics" but the size of a replicator would I my own notion NOT be objective to changing criticism of "group selection" on the notion of additive variance into the additivity defintion. I would find with homology rather a MORE formal and less empric consequence than I have begun to specify as to the implementation of computer assisted exploratory data analsyis still a part of this "culture" but likely not on the "scale". IE still my speculation does not exist but could be taught.

---

I had said "on the scale of A culture".
As for the rest. ?????[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-22-2002]

Yes, but when I "said" MUSLIM SCIENCE, I was not refering to my own reading but any support GALELIO may have got (put) in writing or not from Averooes that provided evidence of social distrust of Aristotle. Some of wESTERN herpetologists have gotten this declination about over the edge of Magog etc by saying that the evironment of color change in Chamelons does not exist objectively as Aristole had reformed it or not from prior Chinese (but this I have no info on ...)when all that was really being discussed was if Galelio had dropped the ball. This was not afoot ball it may have been the sound of a frog however.If one reads Jammer on the history of force and mass(two books) and figures out how to avoid Einstein's inflection then it becomes quite critical how this notion of mass arose out of medieval thought and if it is larger due to infinite compoenetability both ying yang, hindu and muslim science etc etc others etc may be germain to what magnetisim materially is in our ciruclation of words that may be a response to egyptian secrect places that cause strife when only localized as non-spiritual materiality BY NON RELIGOUS PEOPLE in power of the people.The declaration declared people equal not matter.

Oh, yes of course I understand THAT. Peace out.I am not undercover in Toronto but it may sound like I can cross that boarder at will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Oh, yes of course I understand THAT. Peace out.

​

---

I wish I could say the same for most of your postings.

It is really amazing how childish SOME not all of religious activists can be.So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods. It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-23-2002]