Post reply

Reply to the message by xeno6696

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> Tony, > This is the point where the conversation could spin off into a hundred different directions, but instead, I will ask a couple of questions and see if we can clear some things up. >  > Has a separative materialist framework ever produced something that is an improvement on the natural system? (In order to qualify, it must work in harmony with the material world, and cause no adverse side effects) >  > If we had not previously interfered with the natural order, would you even have a car that needs to be repaired, or a cause to see a heart surgeon? (i.e. Your car and your poor ticker would both constitute poor human design. Your car is actually directly responsible for your poor ticker (ironically). That and your artificial diet which is also poorly designed by humans.) > -What is a "natural diet?"  I would argue that until the last 30 years, no *real* planning ever happened to the human diet... and yes, the best diets seem to be diets that we witness "primitive" man eat, you&apos;re mistaken in that we had any planning whatsoever that led to the Hamburger/Fries/Shake combo as the best dietary item available.  -Actually, the healthiest diet, is a diabetic&apos;s diet.  A diet that would never have existed if science hadn&apos;t discovered diabetes.  ->   > > DHW: You say "[i]there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong[/i]." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ...  and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree.  >  > If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it.  >  > >DHW: How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That&apos;s why the debate is never ending! >  > You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.-The easiest, most flippant, but also most correct argument:  -Is that we have tried the "other" (exclusively) for over 10,000 years with at best, indeterminate results.  At least with the materialist approach, we *know* when something doesn&apos;t work, and can correct for it.-[EDIT]-My actual view is that we must be informed by both--philosophy and science.  (Materialism and religion, if you must.)  -Read my sig if you don&apos;t understand...