This was a disturbingly sensible reply. Had to double check to make sure I was still in GT. :salute:

Like now I'm debating Genesis and Noah's flood. I was stating how several civilizations existed before and during the flood years and how they have a written recorded history during the exact time of the flood. In fact, most of these civilizations thrived during the so called flood period and none make mention of a flood. I used China as an example, giving mass evidence of their rich recorded history before, during and after the flood. Here's the response I got.

"The Chinese race came about *after* the flood. To say otherwise is to say that the Bible does not see the Chinese as being human. For, the flood was designed to destroy all mankind. All but but eight.

What are you thinking? You like getting attention by saying something controversial and different? Life is not boring when God has His way with you. You seem to think along the lines of having an anti-boredom sentiment. You may stir up the pot for a moment. But, what you throw in also makes it inedible."

Course, I pointed out more evidence, including a list of ancient structures still standing today perfectly that existed before the flood, no matter, I'm a heretic.

Faith can simply make average smart people totally stupid. That should scare us all...

Skybird,

Do molecules factually exist? Atoms? Electrons, Protons and Neutrons? Is it fact that australopithecine existed? If you have never seen a molecule, an atom, or the remains of an australopithecine, how do you "know" that they exist? Or are you simply taking the word of some other people that they do?

For that matter, how do you "know" I exist, or you? I know I exist, but I can not "prove" you exist unless we were to meet face to face - a personal experience. Even if we were to do so, we could not prove to Sailor Steve that we both exist, unless he has met both of us in person. Sometimes knowledge and facts are personal in nature.

Does asthma exist? I don't have it - and thus never having experienced it, must take on belief that it is a real issue for some people. I am told by medical professionals that it exists, but the causes and effects are things I know as "fact" merely from an outside perspective. Using your definition, "true" science would require me to doubt the existence of asthma because I have not experienced it nor have I sufficient external proof to claim it is "factual".

So perhaps its about how much of "science" says something is real? If the debate on something is over - then it should be accepted blindly? Kind of like global warming (when we haven't had an increase in temps for 15 years), or maybe like the "fact" that the earth was supposed to be flat?

I am fine with people applying doubt and skepticism to things. But calling a personal fact a "corruption of knowledge" just doesn't wash, unless you want to say everything that you have not experienced is all hogwash. After all, its just other people telling you what is and what is not...... Same as the priests do....

Its ok to not believe another person's facts. But just because you don't believe them doesn't mean you have the right to deny they exist. If you think you do, go start stamping out asthma, or fibromyalgia, or the claims that electrons exist, or whatever else you find that you have not personally experienced proof of.....

Seriously....worse argument I've ever heard about science. We do indeed know someone is writing.

Fact, noun

• a thing that is known or proved to be true.

synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;

[Warning: rant mode on]

1) Science, is a method.
2) Experiments, a part of the scientific method, are based on reproducibility.

Science does not define or describe reality: science produce models (theories).
This models are always temporary in nature: they are valid till some experiments can prove they are not longer valid.
The beautiful thing about the scientific method is that IS NOT PERSONAL: no matter who does the experiment, the same results are produced. This thing alone enable us to share and understand a given model without the need to agree on anything personal each other. This, imo, has been a huge conquest.

Science is just a tool to measure what we call *reality*, an instrument that we use to produce MODELS to predict outcomes (to know, to a certain degree how things work as mechanisms) of this *reality*. Let's say the *external reality*, to me more esplicit.

In this regard, the scientific method has been very successful, better than wathever religion system we used in the past (and, I bet, in present and future) for the same scope. This means religion is useless? That science is all we need? Not at all, obviously. But it means we should stop to make unneccessary confusion about the two.

I'm free to learn how to handle complex scientific examination machines and check them tiny little bits and chips out like others did before me. The terms you used mean models, theories, btw. And as such the concepots constantly have been refined. The difference between a scinetific theory and a relgious claim is thzgat the first can be made an object of exmaination and research, the second not. But you insist the second to be a fact - your fact, your personal fact. But there ain't no such things such as "personal facts". There are facts which then can object for excmaination TO ALL AND EVERYONE, or absence of facts. For a schoizophrenic patient, the voice in his head is real. Still, the only thing that is real here, is the fact that thgere is a delusion. The phenomenon of that delusion itself exists, the patient "hears" that voice for sure, but what it shows, is unreal.

You mix subjectivity and objectivity. Facts are objective always, or they are not facts. There are no "subjective facts". Subjective only are: interpretations. And interpretations themselves again can be made object of examination to check whether they make sense or not.

Indeed many people on the internet claim to be somebody else than they are. ;)

But you fight empoty air again there. It does not matter, for the sake of your argument'S focus, whether we talk over the wire or watch each other in the eye. What reaches our brains is the inpout of stim,ul.i from our perception organs only. I have often said that the world is not what our senses allow us to see it like. We do not prove its shape and form and essence by just perceiving it - by that we only prove that our senses work the way they have been designed in the cause of evolution. And they formed that way becasue that way proved to allow us to orientate oursaelves in this world around us, no matter how that world really is. The veil of Maya still deceives all. Our eyes are not precise enough an optical instrument to project sharp images onto our retina, the picture indeed is unclear, like if you are missing 4-5 dioptrines and wera no glasses. Still the brain sharpens the image, in other words: it interpretes the input from the optical nerves. How can it do that if it never has had a blueprint as a standard by which to judge what clear, sharp image quality means?

True science would require you to retest the claims science makes about asthma existing, its causes and therapies. And that is what science does. ;)

How often must I tell you once again that serious science NEVER would claim ultimate, total, absolute, final truths - that that is against nature and essence of science. Every serious scientist knows that the mere presence of an observer already has an effect of the subject or matter he observes. With the scientific philosophers emerging from quantum physics, that became clear at the latest. Today'S sience business unfortunately to wide degrees has flalen victim to opporutnistic bribery and corruption, and peop,e think about how to serve their careers and reputation, and how to secure more money, and publish more articles. Quality is suffering due to that, and politically wanted stuff gets squeezed into "scientific" work, which is especially true for climate science, since here science is meant to serve as a propagandistic argument for wanted monetary redistribution in the world (IPCC), and immense subsidies for industries promising jobs and generating profits (German "Energiewende"). Science in many areas is in a pitiful state, I could also list pseudoisicences like social sciences or psychology, not to mention fake brtaqnches like genderism which is about pure ideological indoctrination. Still: the meaning and criteria for what is meant by and qualifies as scientific methodology, remains unchanged. You complain about its massive abuse only. And regarding global warming, you again simplify yourself while you attack them to do so. But the issue is more complex, and the focus should be on other aspects of it anyway. And may key factors of it get completely ignored, while those beign poicked out more and more serve as excuses for huge social engineering and brainwashing experiments.

There is no such thing as "personal fact". That is a lousy excuse only by which you want to deceive others over your attempt to sell the object of your interpretation as a fact of reality "as is". You could as well claim thnat the city a fata morgana shows you is real, because you call it a a "personal fact". Maybe you indeed are schizophrenic and hear God's voice in your head, but still it would not be a fact of reality that there is a God who speaks to people isnide their heads. [/quote]

The right to claim they do not exist, I have for sure, whether it would be reasonable to do so, is something different.
Asthma, electrons, fibromyalgia all could be made objects of my examination, if I wish that and invest the time and resources, or I trust in the good work of others before me and read what they had to say about their examinations of these things. Your claim that you hear a deity talking to you or that it is out there, cannot be made an object of testing. It's just in your head, and that might be a too vivid fantasy, or lacking education, or schizophrenia - I don't know, or in your own words: I cannot even know whether you really exist, maybe you are only an object of my own creative imagination, and I made you the way you "are" just to entertain myself in this ongoing dialogue that I write all by myself?

The point is just this, and I have said this many times in varying formulations. The world is what it is, no matter whether we perceive and understand it in full or not. It is. If now you claim there is a quality who wqant to add to it in explanation, like a divine creatur and eye in the sky watching your precious fate, then you either prove cour claim to show that you are right, becasue the burden of evidence undinably is on you (you add something to the world, not me), or you better keep your idea to yourself else you risk of being seen as person suffering from hallucinations. Not what you believe is what has brought me into arms onc e again, or lead to your exchange with Steve. Your claim of it being real like the table I sit at, while avoiding objection by declaring it a restricted part of reality that only is open for you to access - that is what this all is about.

There ain't no such things like personal (=subjective) facts. There only are personal (=subjective) interpretations, which can make sense, or not. Call your belief your way to interpret the meaning of your life, and I tock the box, leave you alone, and we both live our life. But call the object of your faith a fact, and I will demand you to prove it.

On the existence of gods, I think in probabilities. And the probability for deities existing is so extremely small that I do not care to seriously take it into account anymore (nor do I see any need to assume they exist, nor would I argue it is desirable deities would exist). I do not say God does not exist. I say it is absurdly unlikely that God exist. More certainty scientific methodology does not allow, than weighing probabilities. All human experience is empiry in action. And as long as we do not stretch ourselves to embrace all universe, we always necessarily base on not the totality of events taking place, but only a tiny sample. Which leads us to comparing null and alternative hypothesises, sometimes with SPSS, but mostly by handsight. :know:

I don' know why I was all mad at Saudi Arabia, guess I read it too quick.

This article plainly says that it is Sudan: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/23/husband-christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-faith-says-wont-convert/

Along with other tag words like her husband is an American citizen. Sounds like they are looking for retribution money from Christian ministries to me :yep:

after which money has been paid they will drop the case. This is becoming normal in countries like Malaysia for example. Blackmail is all it is.

Well this topic has taken many turns.
Time for another turn perhaps?
Definition of marriage.
Since this all appears to start off from an accusation of adultery by some upset relative did the marriage break some local traditional marriage norms in regards to families trading women as commodities.
Does it all stem from one disgruntled man feeling that he had not got enough goats in exchange for his relative under his definition of marriage?

As for some of the other stuff raised.
Apostacy? the punishment shall be given in the afterlife according to their scripture, so the "muslims" seem to be getting that legal issue completely arseways again.
I notice a few mentions of the word "infidel". That is of course a Christian word. In an Islamic context that word cannot be applied to Christians or Jews as they like Muslims are people of the book. Since this woman is alledgedly a Christian she cannot be an infidel.

Back OT:

She has given birth to a girl. A great opportunity for the Sudanese government to show clemency....I hope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27586067

The most superior civilization has shone again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27593504

Primitives Dreckspack. :down:

I want to comment my feelings just on this sentence (from the link you posted):

The bolden part above is what strikes me so bad.
Not the official motivation of the killing, but the identities of the killers.
It is just so... wrong.

It tells me something very wrong was going on there. I wonder if it is the result of a cultural/educational process, and if yes I wonder about how much this aspect factors in VS personal conscience and choice. And how much the group psychology factors in.

These kind of stories make me think about how life in general could be for these women, even the ones that are not killed, I means given the kind of mindset and disposition shown by her (male) relatives...

I stongly hope the social/familiar background for the majority of these women is better that the one I perceive from the news...

Young women get abused, beaten and pressed into enforced marriages here in Germany frequently in Islamic parallel societies, unfortunately. Sometimes they even get murdered. The family then tells the police that it as their youngest son, sometimes still a teen, because they calculate for youth law giving easier penalties.

Young men also fall victim to this, just that usually they do not get killed, but enforced marriage is at their cost quite often, too. The poatriarchalic structure in their families is such that they mostly cannot stand the pressure from father's commands.

Germany, 21. century. Happens in England, Holland, Sweden, France, and hell knows where else every day.

Beside Sharia law, it is this pathologic family structures that needs to be broken up and fought against. Patriarchalism, and the climate of massive, superstitiously refined sexual suppression and sexual frustration. What the Islamic world massively needs is a sexual revolution. And that does not mean some more hysteria about gay rights and women quota, but the liberalization of relkations between male and female. But that is a frontal attack on Islam'S methods to secure its communal power and control, so figure the chances. Any tyrant knowing his stuff knows that to secure his power he must destroy the natural bonds and loyalties of natural families, and replace them with communal control, like enforcing the gender schemes of ruling males and obedient females. Their shall be no loving equality between both, it is a threat to Islam's claim for power and control.

But over here they try to boost public and official tolerance for parallel justice done by Sharia law. Meanwhile, police officers with migrant background have repeatedly said in newspaper interviews that as migrants they are seen even more as hostiles by their cultural peer groups, then German officers, because their people see them as traitors. The police has given up: the Germans for resignationb, the migrants for fear of their health and the wellbeing of their families. Politicians ignore the problem, demand more tolerance for foreign justice traditions and replace unwanted details of reality with ideology depticting a vision of an infantile paradise.

Coincidentally, this is the latest initiative in my area:

Tackling Forced Marriage in the North East

20 May 2014

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-sto...age-north-east

Coincidentally?

I haven't heard that word before so I had to look it up:

Coincidentally | Define Coincidentally at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidentally
adjective 1. happening by or resulting from coincidence ; by chance: a coincidental meeting.
2. existing or occurring at the same time. Origin: 1790–1800 ...