The most depressing "conversation" I've had in a while

[Drake Tungsten]

It's impossible to be defeated when one places no value on the struggle in the first place.

[Boris Godunov]

Then why even engage? You just waste everyone's time that way. Frankly, I don't buy the "I don't care" line you use in all these defeats of yours. You trot it out far too much. It's just too obvious of a shield for the stinging losses.

[Drake Tungsten]

Engage? I'm relatively sure that I've come nowhere near actually discussing anything of substance with you in this thread. That's what makes your pronouncements of "victory" seem so pathetically adorable to me...

[Boris Godunov]

By participating at all you engage. And don't worry, we can see through your attempts at salving the wounds with a shield of non-chalance. It's okay, the pain will go away eventually. If only you'd follow its example!

[Drake Tungsten]

[Boris Godunov]

Take off all your clothes!

[Rogan Josh]

Let's try again....

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Note that the "stupid scientist" comment was relating not to her belief in evolution, but in her refusal to accept the possibility of it for scientific purposes. Do you not see the distinction here? I'm not sure how to make it any plainer than in the last post!

So seem to twist your definitions to whatever point you want to make. The question that she said no to was:

Can you at least accept the possibility that evolution is fact?

How are we to interpret this question? The way your post reads (and the way she seemed to answer) implies that it is a question of belief systems. If she accepts the 'possibility that evolution is fact', she is accepting that her religious viewpoint may be wrong, and this is unacceptable to her. But nowhere does she say that she would be unwilling to consider it for 'scientific purposes'.

I do not, and will never, accept as 'fact' the idea that the universe is entirely describable by physical law. Period. However, I am willing to behave as if it does in order to perform my science. My beliefs are neither necessary nor relevant.

As an aside, no biologists of any serious merit disbelieve in evolution, and I give that a lot more weight than theoretical physicists.

I find this hard to believe (unless you define 'of merit' as believing in evolution ), but anyway I was not objecting with respect to the study of biology - but to being a doctor of medicine. Evolution as the origin of species has very little to do with medicine....

... akin to an astronomy student refusing to accept heliocentricity.

...just like planetary science has very little to do with astronomy.

Don't you see this is EXACTLY the point of why the girl shouldn't be a scientist?! She's totally UNWILLING to do this. "Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong." YES! And she won't! Ergo...

It doesn't stop you being completely sure though! That was the statement that she made (as you reported it) - not that she was unwilling to work with it, but that she was unwilling to believe it. If you do not accept this, then your statement is trivial because you are just saying 'one cannot study something that one does not study'.

But if this is what you are saying, fine, then you are correct and I am wrong. I had thought though that your post was intended to have content, rather than meaningless platitudes.

[Mr. Harley]

Haven't been on site for a few days. The problem with Islam/Sharia is intrinsic and two fold. First, the Muslims SHOULD be in authority over non-Muslims, not the other way around. That is not going to go over well with most people who aren't Muslim. There is no way around the fact that this central tenant if bigoted and intolerant. WE should be in charge.

Please note that Christian religions are not necessarily innocent in that regard. I left the Catholic Church over it's meddling in politics, attempting to push morals into secular law. Please note both Sharia and the Papacy would disagree with that very concept. The difference is that in Sharia it is a central tenant. Which the majority of Muslims adhere to. If you were talking about Christianity circa 1650, to pull out one date, I would be forced to grant you there was no distinction.

However, the majority of Chritians have stepped away from this world view, including practicing Catholics. When Islam does that, I will withdraw my claim.

Secondly, Islam really doesn't play well with non-Christian/non-Jewish peoples, according to the Koran (the anti-Semitism currently in Islam has roots in the Koran, but I am talking about something much more serious). Essentially, without going and hunting up my Koran, it says that a good Muslim is duty bound to convert or put to the sword all pagans, as in animists, polytheists, etc. That's another reason Islam is involved in so many conflicts.

Christianity's record on this is also pitiful, but again MODERN Christianity has largely gotten past this. If you want to look at the historical record, find me a Muslim society (besides Sufi's, a small minority of under 10%) that has a consistant record of not engaging in aggressive warfare with it's neighbors and being tolerant of religious minorities within it's borders. That is why I am not paticularly fond of Islam. If you want a philosophy that is much harder to pervert than any religion of the "Old Book" try Toaism.

[Al B. Sure!]

ind me a Muslim society (besides Sufi's, a small minority of under 10%) that has a consistant record of not engaging in aggressive warfare with it's neighbors and being tolerant of religious minorities within it's borders.

the Ottoman Empire between 1683 (the last of their aggressive wars) and the 20th century would fit this bill.

[Cyclotron]

Well, not including the Armenian genocides under Abdul "The Bloody Sultan" Hamid II and the continued killings of Armenians and arab nationalists under the triumvirate.

So, it fits the bill, as long as you're not terribly concerned about the whole genocide thing.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Too bad for you then, because it just proves you don't know what you're talking about, not me. In logic circles, this is "Appeal to Authority," one of the most obviously inept fallacies around.

Saying it's right because an expert says it's right is technically a logical fallacy, but it's one we can't live without committing several times a day.

[Drake Tungsten]

I bet Boris thinks he knows more about Plato than you, Ag.

[MRT144]

agathon, dubious authorities rock

[monkspider]

The Ottoman Empire was a load of BS, IMO.

[Cyclotron]

*shrugs* Fair enough. I mean, it did exist, and for a long time, but I guess it's your call as to its value.