God trumps doctors for many Americans.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

I think you may have mis-parsed the original sentence. Is that possible?:hmm:

Nope. Not talking about the original sentence. I thought it wasn't a half bad interpretation until I read deeper.

Maybe you missed this part:

Originally Posted by Subman1

He operates off of assumptions to draw his conclusions. Nice.

You probably posted right as I edited it.

-S

[joegrundman]

care to elaborate?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

care to elaborate?

Already did. Read again! You post too fast!

-S

[joegrundman]

lol! not usuallly i don't - i'm just having one of those mornings

Daniel Dennet is a philosopher, so drawing logical conclusions from propositions is a big part of what he does, i guess.

Which exact assumption causes the problem?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

lol! not usuallly i don't - i'm just having one of those mornings

Daniel Dennet is a philosopher, so drawing logical conclusions from propositions is a big part of what he does, i guess.

Which exact assumption causes the problem?

I gave you one above.

Anyway, if he is a philosopher, then yeah, I'd have to agree with you that he does everything on assumptions!

Not that i agree with his assumptions of course.

-S

[joegrundman]

...after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science....

i think this here is a conclusion, not an assumption:hmm:

if you include the full sentence, then i think this becomes clearer:

Once nothing follows from a belief in God that doesn’t equally follow from the presumably weaker creed that it would be good if I believed in God—a doctrine that is readily available to the atheist, after all—religion has been so laundered of content that it is quite possibly consistent with science.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

i think this here is a conclusion, not an assumption:hmm:

if you include the full sentence, then i think this becomes clearer:

Not even in the slightest clearer. I think it is almost his intention to be unclear.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Man I'm stayin' out of this thread. This looks like a virtual Viet-nam. Call me a fence sitter, but I believe in both.
My mom has experinced this intorernce first hand.

Here's the official mcbee position:

1. When I need religious enlightenment, I look to scripture.
2. When I need scientific knowledge, I look to science.

I figure you can merge the 2 at some point, but that is beyond my capability of understanding. And frankly isn't relevent to what happens to me in the afterlife.

I think if God, really wanted us to worry about such a trivial subject, there would be more written on the subject, other than a few handful of verses.

There is a purpose for both.

[nikimcbee]

Crap, I'm getting drawn into this thread.



The blind follower drives me crazy regarding the science/religion subject, on either side of the debate.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Crap, I'm getting drawn into this thread.



The blind follower drives me crazy regarding the science/religion subject, on either side of the debate.

The pendulum swings both ways, but never stops in the middle where peace and harmony reside.

Edit : It's things like this make you wonder http://www.reuters.com/article/oddly...ddlyEnoughNews