http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z0gGMgMJDL

This wouldn't happen in polite armed society.

(Oh, who am I kidding? They'll just get warrant and knock on your door with the SWAT team.)

I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

This is a horrible story. I would have gone nuts if this happened to me and somebody, probably a lot of somebody's, would need medical attention after I got done with them.

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

The United Kingdom has a state church and a divinely-protected ruler, while Ireland outlawed abortion up until recently. (I think they still might.)

Seems to me to be more of a situation where a bunch of do-gooders get a little too much power and feel the need to use it, when a little reason probably would be more effective.

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Just a wild guess here: Something between your Christian utopia and a totally secular society is probably best. I am not exactly sure how many countries could fall into this gap between the 2 so it would probably be difficult to determine how successful it is. The US is probably the closest(probably a good sign that both sides disagree on this which likely means that we ARE in that center point). When one side starts getting too much power, the other side protests and starts going back the other way-keeping us in the middle.

(02-24-2010 04:29 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Just a wild guess here: Something between your Christian utopia and a totally secular society is probably best. I am not exactly sure how many countries could fall into this gap between the 2 so it would probably be difficult to determine how successful it is. The US is probably the closest(probably a good sign that both sides disagree on this which likely means that we ARE in that center point). When one side starts getting too much power, the other side protests and starts going back the other way-keeping us in the middle.

Robert, you now have two intelligent posts to your credit.

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Which part? The Inquisition? Burning at the stake those whose scientific pursuits led them to heresy? Intolerance to those with a different religion? Is that better than Iran?

The advancement of civilization was held up by crap like that.

(02-24-2010 10:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Which part? The Inquisition? Burning at the stake those whose scientific pursuits led them to heresy? Intolerance to those with a different religion? Is that better than Iran?
The advancement of civilization was held up by crap like that.

Of course, bear in mind that in the current climate debate, the global warming proponents are the burners and the skeptics are the burnees in that model.
Not a commentary on who is right nor wrong, just an observation that science has its own (fairly vindictive) form of retributions against those who don't conform.
I'd be much more convinced if the playing field were leveled and everybody on both sides could get time and space in conventional forums.
For the record, I'm pretty much convinced that the earth is warming, less certain of the link to human activity, but certain in any event that pollution is bad.

(02-24-2010 08:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 04:29 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Just a wild guess here: Something between your Christian utopia and a totally secular society is probably best. I am not exactly sure how many countries could fall into this gap between the 2 so it would probably be difficult to determine how successful it is. The US is probably the closest(probably a good sign that both sides disagree on this which likely means that we ARE in that center point). When one side starts getting too much power, the other side protests and starts going back the other way-keeping us in the middle.

Robert, you now have two intelligent posts to your credit.

So Owl, He is saying what is best is something between everything. How is that intelligent? or are you grading on a curve now?

People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

"The debate is over", "there is a consensus", "the science is settled". I don't believe they are making a theory claim.

(02-24-2010 07:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

"The debate is over", "there is a consensus", "the science is settled". I don't believe they are making a theory claim.

Exactly. I said TREATED like fact, not that it WAS fact.

We aren't asked to spend trillions because of a "theory" than
a) the globe is warming (the most plausible theory)
b) man is a significant contributor (significance being the key... CLEARLY we contribute)
c) that we can (or even should) do anything about it

(02-22-2010 10:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z0gGMgMJDL

This is a pretty damning critique of both a social welfare state and those who will do anything to make a $ (or €) to satisfy the huge demand for adoption. I guess Airstrip One wants a piece of the action as well.

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

Which religions permit the possibility that they may be "proven wrong"? That in itself is a significant distinction between science and religion.

(02-24-2010 08:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 07:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

"The debate is over", "there is a consensus", "the science is settled". I don't believe they are making a theory claim.

Exactly. I said TREATED like fact, not that it WAS fact.

We aren't asked to spend trillions because of a "theory" than
a) the globe is warming (the most plausible theory)
b) man is a significant contributor (significance being the key... CLEARLY we contribute)
c) that we can (or even should) do anything about it

So does the general body of evidence that was used to support AGW no longer exist because of the "climategate" scandal? Or just certain facets of it? Do climatologists now think that the evidence no longer holds up?

Some theories are well-supported and close to being a fact. Some are in the early stages.

(02-25-2010 06:24 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

Which religions permit the possibility that they may be "proven wrong"? That in itself is a significant distinction between science and religion.

Which is another reason why you need a secular society. Religions won't (perhaps can't) compromise on their beliefs.

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

Say what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetics

Seriously, this is one of the dangers of people who think they're "educated." You really know nothing about this subject. If you're interested, and want to learn, that's great. Otherwise, you do all people a disservice with your uninformed comments.