Re: [Death To Religion] theory
- Well, I can't think that helps. This is several definitions which reflect
different ways "theory" is used. My use was specific to just the first one,
and that is drastically incomplete. Theories are what science ends up with,
and they are not conjectural, not math necessarily, not a branch of science
or art, not rules or principles, not contemplation or speculation, not a
guess or conjecture.
Come on guy, surely you're smarter than this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "praesto12" <Praesto12@...>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] theory
This is what I got for the definition.
the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation
class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to
well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one
subject: number theory.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as
distinguished from its practice: music theory.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of
doing it; a system of rules or principles.
contemplation or speculation.
guess or conjecture.
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 6:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] NIce little video about the Truth of
We need to understand what "theory" means. All it means is a formulation of
collated and organized information to give and support one or more
conclusions supported by sufficient and accurate evidence (not from anywhere
just my offhanded one of the present). In a real sense all conclusions are
theories. It is important to realize there is no certainty with theories,
but just variable degrees of probabilities. Gravity is a theorized
phenomenon based on a theory of gravity, and there is more than one theory.
Empirically, its effects are realized experientially, as you pointed out.
The galaxy theory of earth is solar-based with earth traversing its sun, not
vice versa as we sense in our experience. When a theory becomes so
overwhelmingly probably (very high probability) it is called a fact.
Gravity is a fact, but not really understood. Evolution of everything is a
fact, and sufficient evidence shows the Darwinian theory of evolution is
factual, to which are added some important elements such as genetics the
source of inheritance. All beliefs are theories of variable plausibility
and rational support. All religions doctrines are theories, even the ones
that claim certainty. Classical, commonsense, physics in a closed system is
based on certainty, the source of determinism. Quantum physics concerns
physical ultimates and their activities and is based on probabilities.
Whatever any of you believe is a theory, whether good, bad, or indifferent,
and to whatever degree of probability or lack thereof. What else could it
- praesto12 wrote:
> I don't despise anyone in this group.I don't think I've presented that, and ifLie.
> I have it's not true.
> I think you need to believe that I am a facist and that I am "narrow-minded.""I belong to and believe whole-heartedly in one of the most hate-filled,
> You need to believe that I am not open to talking to homosexuals,atheist,
> muslims extc. You have to believe something like that because it makes it easier
> for you to reject the Christian message you don't want to hear.
violent religions ever... yet I'm not like that."
Almost like saying "I'm a Nazi and burn Jews but I don't believe in the
what it says nor do I hate Jews."
Ok, that is a bit of an extreme comparison but you get the point
(probably not). You can pick and choose what you want out of your
religion but it is full of hatred, chauvinism, violence, genocide,
intolerance, racism, slavery, infanticide, and so forth. I do reject
it's message and I'd rather not hear it for those very obvious reasons.
Anyone with half a brain would do so as well.
> The scope of email is limited, so "arguing" is limited. But let me say thatWhat jesus? Can I talk him? Where is he? I got something I'd like to say
> I owe nothing to any of you in the context of presenting or not presenting a
> fact or argument for anything. I am not on your clock buddy. I owe you nothing.
> Likewise you do not have to present an argument to me for why you reject Jesus.
> That's between you and him.
Oh right. No one has ever seen him nor is there any evidence he ever
existed. This could be harder than I thought.
> I do not preach.Lie.
> I did not give up on the DH discussion. I'm interested inI'm not sure what DH stands for but most of this is nonsense. And I'm
> learning more on the subject. And, I'm not sure why you are saying that I am
> against rational discussion.
not sure what you define as rational, but I haven't seen much of it.
> You claim that I "despise" everyone. You callAw. Poor, other-Richard. I'm getting a mixed message here in that you
> me "narrow-minded." You are very much as ad homenium as you say that I am. I do
> admit that I dislike "educators" that spend their lives trying to pull
> people away from God. I also feel sorry for them as well.
want us to feel sorry for you but you're the bigger man feeling sorry
for others. Either way, this is just more rambling nonsense.