Right now the big election of 2008 is going on and it’s the only damn thing on the news. I hope those big time politicians know how to put the USA back on a cleanier track because our dear President as put us in a recession and is STILL paying billions for a war that we will NEVER win. It’s like Vietnam deja vu.

As you can tell I LOVE the President. Oh, if anyone is very patriotic out there, don’t shoot me. I don’t feel like dying.

P.S. I don’t do the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

RE:That is a heck lot bigger difference than what fence-sitter arguments imply.

2 words: Nonoverlapping Magisteria.

@Mitsuki:

“And with regard to the science issue I raised, it’s a difference in opinion that will never be bridged, no matter how much you try to explain. As I grow older, I realise that nothing ever is definite. Who’s to say that your opinion is correct, or mine? I’d rather we just make our stands known, so that we can live alongside each other fine, rather than try to prove that each other’s viewpoints and opinions are flawed and wrong.”

What about fundamental truths? I don’t know whether this which you pose is meant in it’s own strict context but are you going to tell me that the gravitational constant or particle-mass ratios are “opinions”?

When the theories and equations work out and are able to explain phenomenons, your faith in it increases. Isn’t this the case in ancient times when religion was the society’s science? Rather than say that “neutral” views are there to screw up the divide, why not just say that the public belief nowadays is engraved so deep in society that people are unwilling to shift their mindsets off what supposedly proven and moves their world? 5000 years ago, people didn’t dare to offend their gods as those were the “proven” entities that move their world. And it must have been somehow proven in some way or another, be it fake or coincidental or just possibly true, to cause society to be widely influenced by “spirits” and “gods”. How different is that from the situation you describe now?

Heck, we are still using conventional current equations even after it has been proven to be incorrect just because it’s convenient for us.

And your statement smacks of prejudice. You assume that everyone who read up more about religion will think like you. What if I already did and what I said was my conclusion? Instead, why don’t you point out exactly which part of religion contradicts my “bias” statement?

I am not saying anything about whether organized religion is good or bad. I am just saying that it most definitely is not science, nor is it anywhere close to being anything like science. And the so-called “neutral” viewpoints are just trying to screw up that clear and sacred divide.