Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You are wrong pure and simple.
|
Yorick, I don't mean to be nasty here but was there any need for that? Whatever you think about the idea Eisendram is putting forwards this comment is just going to push the two of you into bitter recriminations. Its not actual flaming, but it also adds nothing to your argument. I read the rest of your post and thought you were being very reasonable, but this line just makes me think you want a fight. I know you don't, and its clear from your other posts that you do respect other peoples opinions, so why did you have to write this?
I don't want to attack you, or make you think I don't like you or something, but I want to voice my opinion that that comment was entirely unecessary and liable to turn this argument sour.[/QUOTE]Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community.
Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.