[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It is one thing to insist that the phyiscal world is the only possible world and that beliefs in a separate spiritual world are fantasies or delusions. People holding that position may, indeed, be correct. However, when people act as though science might, some day, prove or disprove spiritual reality or pretend that the words substance and accident as used by Platonic or Aristotelian philosophers and theologians, has the same meaning as used by mechanistic or physicalist philosophers they are being every bit as silly as they are accusing the theists of being.
Challenging the Platonic/Aristotelian/theist definition of substance on the grounds that it makes no sense or that it appears to have no basis in one’s perceived reality is fine. Pretending that when a theist uses the word according to over 2000 years of tradition it really means something else simply makes one appear to fail to understand the language.
[/QUOTE]
In defense of Fantome, when I responded to post #356, I was being a bit flip, but I don’t think that came across.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
In defense of Fantome, when I responded to post #356, I was being a bit flip, but I don’t think that came across.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that Fantome’s position is stupid, but this is not really new stuff, (and Bricker’s thread in GD lays it out pretty well). I just figure that (even in the Pit) these discussion will go better if folks at least recognize what the other side is saying, even when they feel it is utter bunk.
I cited Fantome’s remarks as the clearest examples of the phenomenon I was describing. Similar remarks can be found scattereed through the thread.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I don’t think that Fantome’s position is stupid, but this is not really new stuff, (and Bricker’s thread in GD lays it out pretty well). I just figure that (even in the Pit) these discussion will go better if folks at least recognize what the other side is saying, even when they feel it is utter bunk.
I cited Fantome’s remarks as the clearest examples of the phenomenon I was describing. Similar remarks can be found scattereed through the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with you there, which is why I’ve been referring people back to that great post of Bricker’s. But, it’s one of those SDMB never-fail-you-can-set-your-watch-by-it phenomenon that any explanation of theology will have challengers disputing whether or not the theology has any basis in scientific reality…even if the discussion is meant to be instructive as to what the theology is (as Bricker’s post was meant to be), and not for the purpose of witnessing or apology.
Which always kind of puzzles me, because the purpose of a post like Bricker’s is to fight ignorance.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
If you mean in the pants area, male Tyrannosaurs probably didn’t have penises. 
[/QUOTE]
No Kidding!:
[
](http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/639)
There’s a visual image for ya!