Neither did I, and neither did the source you cited.

No, that's not "reasonable." But you do have the freedom of those thoughts.

No thanks, I'll leave indoctrination in the hands of the religious people.

Definetly a good rule.

And yet you're a theist. Go figure. Who woulda ever thunk that you align your views with 80% of the world when as you state, it's a "waste of time."

If it's rude and inconsiderate to tell others your beliefs, why are you being so rude and inconsiderate?

Your "free" to have those thoughts.

i can reason to it through holes in absolute knowledge. whether you accept that as legitimate or not is inconsequential to me. i find it beneficial in daily life. it helps me to better understand what i see and hear and experience and gives me something interesting to do. without that construct, i could not possibly understand any part of existence. there is a whole lot of nothing out there, and it contains a really really finely knit persistent reality.

that is messed up. seriously. weird.

and i find against a consciousness here that does view it as an externality the concept of god a godbeing or something like that is not unreasonable. there are many questions left open given either stance, but both conclusions may be reached through base facts. at least as i understand them.

i grant you that there may be some giant piece of information i am missing. definitely. definitely possible. but...im not the only one...

belief is in the mind of the beholder, of course. this is a part of reality that you cannot deny. we know 'that' a lot of things do this or that. 'why' and finely tuned 'hows' are yet unknown.

indoctrination will happen under any system at all times. some set of core values will be passed along, things will be assigned 'good' and 'bad' and very little will be 'externally indifferent' or 'perhaps reasonable given various experience, tho not personally compelling'. i think you guyz is newspeakers. maybe premature to say. but this all this freethinking is giving me the willies.

that argument holds absolutely no water. that i do happen to be a 'theist' (i believe in god) and 80% of other peoplehappen to be 'theists'(i wouldnt want to speak for them) does not mean that i am because they are. or blindy following them. or whatever. i am a 'theist' (i believe in god) because i think it is reasonable construct and a beneficial grounding. i also think its true. but, i grant you its possible that its false. im aware its a belief.

additionally...my thoughts on god and religion do not line up solidly enough with any church group ive found except this one that had 50 people in a 200 person room in louisville. i dont know the name of the place, but its a good time. i appreciate buddhism quite a bit and am open to any information about any belief as any might well be possible. i am very interested in the behavioural aspects of religion and the disparities between those and what is espoused by the respective philosophies. these interests bear on my beliefs, but do not comprise them.

an individual is not the numbers. that is certain.

well, because im not certain you can read a whole sentence. 'forcing' and 'stating' are probably different. what do you think?

i attempt to be respectful in the forums. i am talking with people and it is understood that decorum should be kept in a forum. on a blahg... i feel comfortable saying whatevs. i have a good time. so if im a little rude, i apologize if you are offended. i wont hold it against you. i like you guys. you seem like nice people.

i am aware of this, but thank you for affirming. the question would be whether they are justified or not. i dont know the answer to that. but ive got a feeling..a feeling deep inside, oh yeah. oh yeah.

fighting invisible wars is a waste of time. that is what i believe. if the construct is invalid, it will die.

on the other hand, there is a unified body who is exacting their will over tons of people, who does definitely exist, and who does definitely need to be constrained. and it woudl actually do some good to talk about it and the people who are encouraging the ridiculous and totally fruitless debate you are aiding.

church.would_matter?(1.ounce) if not institution.overarching?
institution(:overbearing=>true).would_stop? if religion.is_destroyed?

as i see it, both of those statements return false. id like to know what you think.

this statement assumes that belief should be restricted to logical reasoning rather than allowed to do any and all that thought could possibly do. the quoted statement above directly describes restricted thought. and, to be honest, kind of stinks of ayn rand determinism if you ask me. in either case, it restricts the questions that science as a process will be asked by assuming the authority of science as a body.

so, to me, science but not authority seems a contradiction, as science is itself an authority. on the other hand, in the concept of freedom of thought, thought exists independently of any other thought. while other thoughts may be deemed beneficial, no particular basis of perception is assumed. it is left to the individual who thinks freely, in contrast to the freethinker who restricts his thought to assumptions based on the thin body of science we have to explain the universe.

so to recognize that science is not the only concept abused by freethought, the logical process cannot hardly be feigned as so simplistic or experientially complete, and yet it is nearly written off as totally obvious at every moment in that statement. it simply is not so...

there is certainly employ for the scientific process. but the conclusions of scientists do not interest me. i like to hear what they have to say, but i do not care what they think.

Allow me to ask you a simple question.

Superstition and ignorance cause suffering and death on a horrifying scale. What would you have us do about it? More importantly, what do you intend to do about it?

I am guessing that he will do what ever thought without logic or science can possibly do....what ever those things are.

What ever ignorance is...its just an opinion...I believe thats averyv's stance. I don't think we can posiibly demonstrate that superstition and ignorance causes suffering or death as he holds that what ignorance is, is just opinion and superstitous beliefs is great for making decisions about ethics, science, politics...

I wonder if averyv thinks suffering and death are just opinions too? After all everything is just human interpretation of the facts and we all ,at the end of the day, just have beliefs. All beliefs are equal. If thats so, I guess Bush is equally right about his foreign/domestic policies as are those who disagree with Bushes foreign/domestic policies. No one should ever have to justify their beliefs when it comes to voting, or paasing laws....or going to war. Oh my!

All beliefs are equal

I can't wait to hear more about this....very interesting.

When it comes to definition of terms and other symbolic representations, it is not unheard of for people to reach very different conclusions. In many cases, there is a great deal of personal bias that colours a persons view as they attempt to define a term, which means that they will invariably alter the definition to suit their own prejudices. This amounts to formulistic propoganda.

The term "freethought" represents thought that is free from religious, social, and political dogma. Freethought holds no prejudicial stance, enabling the freethinker to take a truly objective and rational view of any subject.

not exactly. my stance isthat superstition and ignorance do not cause anything. actions of individuals cause suffering and death on a horrifying scale. the only reason they are allowed to do this is because people pay attention to institutions with overarching norms and sweeping powers. 'cause' cannot be exacted through 'superstition' and 'ignorance'. 'institution' and 'followers', certainly, but even these would be vastly mitigated if everything were not taken on such a massive scale. scope. scope is a very important concept.

and i even agree that ignorance is a problem. people do not understand the actual value of institution, and so allow institution to overrun their lives. the problem here is that individuals have propaganda for education. you can thank the state for that.

yep. thats exactly what i said. cmon man. srsly, thats not cool.

ignorance and superstition are a part of everyone's lives, regaurdless the level of absolute truth they convince themselves is their basis, and so they will make it into those places no matter what you say against them.

also: ignorance is not an opinion. ignorance is a lack of knowledge. a combination of things, including ignorance, leads to opinion. but, again: this is true for everyone. you are not excluded.

ignorance can be an aid in death or suffering. like, if im unaware that a coconut falling from a tree can kill a man and take a nap under a coconut tree, i am ignorant the dangers. if a coconut falls on me, was i killed by ignorance? nope. i was killed by a coconut.

likewise, if i pay attention to a federal government attempting to wrangle the opinions of 350,000,000 people and expect them to do right by us all, that is either ignorance or flat out stupidity. im not sure which. but it is certainly more directly causing more of the things you are speaking on than belief, ignorance, and religion combined.

and then to pick god as the thing that will make the state control you are concerned about go away... i wonder if you guys are theists.

as to what i do about suffring and death on horrifying scales: i dont pay attention to cops and i do my best at not paying taxes. i ignore that jackass who sits in dc and all of the chronies that arent his but look like it because he is painted as the head in all the pictures. i am nice to people, helpful. i dont vote and am running a campaign that woudl like to disrupt the vote, as its a buncha bs anyway. talk about superstition. democracy. hah.

i wouldnt have you do anything. your actions are your own. you could get me some milk, if youd like.

this is an outright lie and i have never said anything that remotely resembles this. i am offended and annoyed. did you suggest i get a blog so you could come here and malign my thoughts, antifaith?

supserstitious beliefs are an individual's to have. unless youd like to restrict them...

foreign/domestic policies, as they are currently understood and acted upon, are inherently flawed. i am not concerned with bush's belief, i am concerned with his agenda. voting is a totally meaningless action, and you might as well wipe your ass with the ballot. vote cthulhu. why settle for the lesser evil?

and lets go check the facts on this 'all beliefs are equal' thing. i wonder what i said that would make antifaith say this? lets run through a few quotes from my conversation with him, and we'll see if he's just making shit up about me

i would like to add to this quote that, if someone were bashing themselves in the head with a chair, it might be kind of you to ask them to sit down.

to the comment about definitions:

i agree wholeheartedly, and am thankful you recognize this. i have a concern that 'no prejudicial stance' is not true in the practical sense, as there does seem to be a prejudicial stance about what is not.

it also, as it seems to me, assumes a prejudicial stance on the best mode of thought, and apparently holds it is so for all aspects of life. if i have misread this, i would like to be corrected.

But, when you run into points that you find annoying, you either do not answer it, change the subject, twist meanings, or you talk about how we can not know anything....but when you make your points appearantly you do think we can know things. You are not consistent mr averyv.
You from our last thread..

I see that you have not changed in this regard mr. averyv. I think you are a troll only. Nothing more.

You just waste space. You are in the habit of adding things that are irrelevant to our concerns, our last thread was reall bad.

Ecclesiastes 5:3 For as a dream comes with a multitude of cares, so a fool's speech with a multitude of words. You are a divine fool averv. You say a lot with half substence...if that sometimes. Same in the science thread. And logic thread.

You contradict yourself so much, its hard to know what you are saying. Also, you still use double speak...just adds to confusion which I think is still your purpose here averv.

I said this at our last thread. "I am ignorant but am improving."

No. You are the one that twists things. You are the one who is inconsistent.
From our last thread...

You contradict yourself. You are not consistent it seems to me. God belief is irrational and superstitious. If it is reasonable for you to put God in your decision making then you are saying it is reasonable for others to do so as well. Our ancestors were fallable and so are all humans in God beliefs. God belief is irrational not reasonable.

Oink oink mr. pig. Want me to dump some cookies in your trough with the milk? Why would I like to wait on you?

I asked if you would appeal to the fact that many are sloppy in figuring out what facts are. It was to show why, much of the time we can not have agreement, but you think knowing is mostly impossible. You have said that. But you did not answer me with that post. It was a dodge.

Was that so hard to say? I ask you what I did for a reason. But you will not follow questions. You do it on purpose.

I verify all your quotes from that thread. We said those.

My two cents...

Have whatever beliefs you want, however wacked out or insane they might be, but as soon as you take them into the public light they are open to criticism. More over as soon as those beliefs start to affect others those others have a right to challenge said beliefs. Then if these beliefs start to not only affect others, but affect others negatively others have a right to view the beliefs as threating. This idea of this threating could be to personal freedoms or just plain harm, although criticism or challenging of ideas isn't harmful.

I should have said that as coherently as you Voiderst. I didn't really.
Thanks.

I think its funny that I can say something like coherently when half the time I'm not sure if I'm saying normal stuff coherently.

Maybe that’s why I was able to say it like that? I mean I rethinking a lot before I speak so that might have something to do with it.

Although once I was forgetting a lot of "not"s and "n't"s on a IM convo... The aftermath of it was that some girl thought I was trying to deconvert her friend. Uh we hadn't even talked about religion the only reason it came up was because she noticed I was atheist from my, then religiously tame, myspace.

That is what I meant, and I assumed averyv new it and was irritated that he was talking about force and "Thought police"....but I did give examples that show exactly what you said here. But, I could have done a better job.

Trying to change peoples minds by demonstrating that there might be serious flaws in thief belief or ideas is not "thought police" it is what human do naturally all the time. It helps us survive and flourish as a species. But averyv twists everything, because he might feel uncomfortable that we point out that God belief is irrational and the burdon of proof is on the theist.

LOL.

Sometimes I think some theist try to misunderstand on purpose.....to viliffy you.

allow me to quickly interject, as verbal redundancy perturbs me to no end, and as i have had quite a debate with averyv regarding just this topic (and, as a sidenote, i have not abandoned our former debate, averyv, i have simply become engrossed with matters in my household, and i will address it again in the coming week).
averyv holds the following in principles:
1. god is not a separate entity without the universe, but is simply comprised of the universe.
2. the concepts, principles, and definitions of man are made by man, and are thusly fallible, and are also thusly a product of the workings of the universe, also known as god.
3. because man's judgements of the reality of the universe are flawed, no man or group of men can happen upon any real understanding of such, and thus each individual's interpretation of such is as valid as the next.

i hold in my debate with averyv that this is all well and good, but his contention against the rational response squad is null with regards to the fact that the RRS does not seek to squelch any individual's thought as to the existence of a higher power, it simply seeks to squelch the organization of the uneducated, indoctrinated mass that adheres to any divine reward system based on so-called historical teachings from a book or books that are provable to be fallacies and are yet used as a basis for mass societal order and/or law.
to be short, believe in god all you want, but realize that your standards are your own. nothing seeks to stamp out individual thought like theism, but you are not a theist, averyv, so don't pick up the flag.

Yeah he is.

i find him to be a deist, a scattered, somewhat hallucinatory hippie of a deist at that, and i've personally found that to try to convince him of the contrary nature of god is pointless and counterproductive, as he sees no merit in the proliferation of organized religion. it's like attacking finland for not actively assisting the allies in WWII.
at the most, i agree that he's a troll. and a weak one at that.

I do not care what he thinks God is. I am now an apatheist. What can we do in the real world with God might exist? Nothing. God is irrelevent. Thats that. I will only take from philosophy what I can use in the real world. I am not a philospher.

I am concerned with social problems that come from peoples God concepts. I made that clear. So, the burdon of proof is on theists, when they say things should be a certain way because God says this or that.

I am wondering if he is a post modern Christian.

Then we should all cut out our tongues get down on all fours and grunt like beasts while we do what ever we like how we like. Why debate? Why discuss? What will come of it when all opinions are equal. Its impossible to know anything. Rationality is an opinion.
A logical argument is an opinion. There is no such thing as logic.
averyv's words "everything isnt an opinion. everything is a fact. the opinions sit in the interpretation. and since you can't hold onto fact any more than the rest of us, what you have is the warm comfort of interpretation.all perspective is interpretation."

Just because it was pointed out to him rationality isn't an opinion. There are some objective facts. There are some inescapable axioms, a logical argument isn't an opinion.....he builds a straw man that some of us are addicted to absolute truths. He does not want debate, but to make confusion and to make straw mans.

I get the feeling that he misunderstands on purpose.

Dr Fear, maybe he treats you differently in discussion. Enjoy.

The cut out of tongues thing reminded me of a philosopher by the name of Cratylus(if I'm spelling that right). He didn't cut out his tongue, but after he told everyone how communication was impossible he stopped talking. He was a student of Heraclitus but I think his reasoning is closer to Parmenides.

The name here aren't that important but the ideas behind them do. Parmenides basically thought change can't happen and we have to relay on reason alone as our senses are flawed. But if we don't use are senses we have nothing to work with in order to use our reason. Also while all belief are equal in a sense that doesn't mean a belief makes truth.

Some beliefs or truths are "more true" then others. Why? Evidence. Science doesn't accept all beliefs just because and the ones they do are bases on evidence. And by saying people can't criticize others for believing something with out evidence you are weakening society. That is if indeed those beliefs are affecting society, which I am pretty sure they are.

P.S. I'm only an intro philosophy student so if I have a flaw or coming across as a smart ass point it out.

I have a green thumb. I like herbs and flowers. I rely on my senses and a logic with plants. Private farmers who also have animals are the same, they sometimes have to rig things with shoddy materials or tools to make things happen. The senses and logic both are important. You have to tinker with stuff until it works, give up and lose money. For me the senses and reason is survival, not addiction to absolute truth like our esteemed mr. averyv would say.
Things can change. Things can work with the senses and reason.

Agreed.

I understand. Agree!

...Voiderest I do not know much of anything. I just have what I have read from atheists and deists from online. Sometimes I just parrot...and have a dim understanding. But I usually can understand things.

drFear, i would like to congratulate you. your 3 points of my understanding are well put. better than i have said.

if this is true, and i comment directly on these contentions in the other post i have put up, then i drop my argument. im not convinced, however, that squelching thought rests nowhere on the implied agenda of the rrs community. i have been wrong before, and am totally open to the possibility.

i appreciate this. i think your assessment of a theist is situationally possibly true, and frequently empirically so, tho not necessarily. individuals and groups with agendas stamp on individual thought. religion, theists, these are just examples.

according to google, which tells me that a theist is one who believes in a personal god, i am a theist. im not a very familiar theist. but im not (intentionally) a troll, either. more than either of those things, im a human who would like some answers. this site and its community, im told, is full of them. i just want to find out what they are worth.

you did not answer my question about whether you were just making shit up about me or not. i guess you avoid questions when it shows what an asshat youre being.

further, i have said on multiple occasions under different contexts that individuals are sloppy or whatever in everything. it does not justify your position and it does not invalidate mine. your asking poor , obtuse, malformed questions littered with unreaisonable assumptions is not my problem. ask a garbage question, get a convoluted answer.

additionally, many are also sloppy in saying what the facts are. your assertion that godbelief is irrational and unreasonable, for example, is not fact. it is opinion. if a conclusion can be reached, it is reasonable. if a conclusion is specifically faulty, it should be demonstrable. whether there is a godbeing or not is unknown. that is a fact. if you want to speak on facts, stick to them.

therefore: use reason and logic in all that you do. you contradict your position with ridiculous comments as these while elsewhere you prove that you cannot read a complete thought with reductions of my thoughts that are not at all what i have said.

additionally: it was a joke, it was not directed at you, and i added an 'if you like' on the end. even if it had been serious, i gave him every opportunity to say no.

but yes. cookies sound nice, thank you for offering.

You are correct Mr. averyv. I missed your question about me making crap up about you. But you did imply it and only later changed your mind.

I never forgot your trolling of that thread. So I did make up crap about you..sort of.. only about the all opinions are equal thing...I was teasing you about that here in your blog. I have not been taking you seriously after you said :



averyv I am a girl. You sounded like a pig to me.

You only assert averyv, you have not shown any contradictions on my part. I value trying to use logic and reason in all that I do. That is my goal that I try to live up to....unlike you......

It is not an opinion it is a fact until you can prove God.

If we believe without any evidences, and we want to be consistent, we must believe everything is true. That is not useful or rational.

Therefore the burdon of proof for God is on YOU. The theist. God belief is irrational unless you can prove God exist.

Also I did troll in your blog. It just occured to me after reading it again.. That was wrong. I errored. I will stay out of your blogs. But I will read them and I hope you continue. Your "intermission" blog is interesting.

well...i would say i stated it earlier and clarified later, but i can understand your position.

additionally, that doesnt have anything to do with opinions. at least, my point in what you quoted didnt. its about perspective.

this is to say that movement is relative. 'falling' asserts a perspective contingent on 'up' and 'down'.

and i state that fairly plainly here. this is not a matter of opinions being equal, it is a matter of perspectives being inadequate. mine included.

so here i assert that, given our defined frame of reference,falling is falling. but, trying to come up with the words to describe the situation is an excercise in futility and the truth of the matter from every perspective cannot be put into a string of words. an understandable description, as noted above, is 'i am falling'. that doesn't make it true.

and we've been over this one. no need to rehash that. but: i was not trolling that thread. i was trying to make a point. the one described above, actually. and i am not trying to be a troll. i am trying to get some answers. however you take it is your business.

haha. well, i am a human. i have arms and legs, like many human beings. im not a girl, but if i were, id be pissed. was the asking for milk the piggish thing? that was a response to what that person (not you) could do for the ills of the world. i guess it wasnt a very appropriate response, as lots of pepole have gotten me milk over the years and nothings ever really changed as a result of it, but i would have enjoyed it.

consequently, ive not yet recieved my promised trough of cookies and milk.

or was this the piggish thing:

should i be trying to? do i get points for that?

should i be saying things like... 'is what i think that no single point perspective can understand the universal?'

because i feel like id just turn around and answer yes to that.

what am i supposed to poke holes in? that it might be true that there is no god? but, i dont want to poke holes in that. tell me something you do, or something about yourself. ill try really hard to disagree with it.

i assert because its my understanding to date. set me straight, and ill assert differently next time. make mistakes loudly, be corrected quickly. no one has yet given any reason to not believe in god that compare to my personaly compelling reasons to believe in god. i can come up with several compelling reasons to keep religion and government seperate, but i can think of some equally compelling reasons to keep science apart from government.

i feel like im being admonished. i can see you. looming. brow furrowed and lowered, letting me know in nouncertainterms that i should sit straight! fly right! join the allegiance! or be scorned for all of my days....

just kidding. im just not that interested in logic and reason as a way of life. they are tools to use, but im too much fun to be a stoic, and i just dont think emotions are all that reasonable given logic at all times. or that reasonable emotions are logical at all times. or that emotional reasons are illogical, even if they are unreasonable. but you have to define your scope. limits are important, but these are self defined as well. so not that trustworthy.

experiential evidence is all i have to go on. if you have a better yardstick in mind, let me know. ill take a look. as it stands, the weak and strong forces, universal background radiation, hbar, spacetime, blah blah blah are my evidences for god. if you do not want to take them as evidence for god, fine. just for that, i dont take fossils as evidence for evolution.

dont stay out unless you want to. troll all you like. dont expect me to react kindly to it necessarily, but what you do is up to you. im glad you like the intermission. part two to this one will be up eventually.

Avery and Anti-Faith,

I thought you both should know for the record that management of this site doesn't feel as if either of you are trolls. A troll deliberately sets forth an incorrect position with the intent on drawing a flame war with little to no interest in actual discussion. While many of us have made statements that could draw a flame in response, I think neither of you are intentionally misrepresenting your version of reality to decrease the quality of discussion. Anti-Faith, you're one of my favorite posters on the site, your views are not only welcome in the personal blogs of others here, but they are needed.

Thank you Sapient. I really apreciate that. I have been chased off other boards...will not mention their name, because I am an active anti-Christian. I am against Faith and so there are other religions that I have a problem with too, but I am a Christian apostate and know little about Judaism and even less about Islam. That is why I single out Christianity usually. I am actively against the bible and certain Christian denominations.

I am not very educated, I just did bare minimums to graduate. I am in college right now and I am not even college level yet, because I did not apply myself in school. I have problems reading things sometimes, so it takes me a little longer to absorb what I read.

After I became an apostate, Free Thought eventually got me interested in college. In knowing. On the first page of this thread I gave examples of private farmers having to use shoddy materials and sometimes tools to make things work. Make things happen. Tinker until it works. I percieve that all other persuits to understand and make things work, is done the same way, and to me, the fact that we all interpret facts differently is a cop out, when we as a species have benefitted greatly from reaching, stretching for what is real. What is useful. I want what is good, and excuses or arguments from ignorance ( setteling for untested guesses until proven wrong) is not growth. It is not love of humanity either in my opinion.

To me, God is irrelevant until God is proven, and until then we are all we have and that is what we should value. Us. Humanity.
I have no patience for "God says". God concepts and religion should be criticized in my view. Always. Not just ideologies and methods. I do not accept that God or religion get a free pass from the testing of what is good. What is valueable for Us. We are social animals and groups are a necessary and natural thing for humans and so religion needs to prove itself if it is going to oppress with its majority vote in government and community.

I will participate in threads and blogs, but I am only average intelligence and below average education...so I will say stupid things sometimes. Especially when I'm angry sometimes.

Averyv. You frustrate me. I am going to take a break for a while, finnish my homework, but I will try to be civil with you from now on. I like you and think you are a nice person.

Antifaith: first, i stress that i do not defend averyv's position on things. but, as validated by averyv himself, i have gone through almost this exact debate with him, which is infinitely confusing. i have personally accused him of being a troll, as his standpoint has a broad quality that tends to morph along with whichever way the conversation turns. however, through all of it, i have come to understand that 'broad' quality is in fact the basis of his standpoint, that his personal philosophy is to take in all things and consider them equally, in a vain (by his own definition) attempt to be as objective as possible.
as i said, he does not subscribe to 'god' "saying" anything, as he does not see god as an entity, but rather as a sum.
my point in saying this is to dissuade you (unless your motive is to excercise your debating skills) from engaging in this circular goose chase. your arguments would be better spent elsewhere, as they end up being futile from both sides in this case.

averyv: look up the word "deism" and compare it to the definitions of "theism" you found. you will find yourself much more akin to that respect.
i also highly disagree with your notion of "separation of science and state". regardless of how flawed and unfounded in true objective reality science may seem to you, it hardly represents any oppressive government action in the way that religion does.
your argument against science seems to lie in the fact that science as we know it is conducted from a point of view central to the planet earth. that, along with your doubt about the intentions of the RRS, is simply not true. we may be observing the workings of the universe from here, but we are observing things that could be observed in the same fashion from any or all points in the universe at any given time. (p.s. to avoid another 'spacetime' link, your wikipedia spacetime entry never defines time as anything other than a measurement of change in the spatial dimensions of the universe)

the concept of deism that i dont appreciate is the thought that god set it in motion and let 'er go. it seems more like they coasted together, but the idea is there.

first, science should stay seperate so that it is not usurped by the government. i am not concerned, primarily, with science being an oppressive body, but rather the tendency of government to poison and control everything it touches. i find that the 'facts' science produces, however i may feel about them, hold some legitimate weight in public discourse, and think that having powerful stake in them is a dangerous precident, as powerful structures have little issue creating pseudo-science or generating correlation for personal benefit wherever possible.

second, looking to science as a body, in my opinion, restricts the questions that science may be asked. i have claimed this concern before

i see science most valuably viewed as a process rather than a body. i think that an overly statist program undermines this assumption.

i believe that keeping science a private institution is protecting science from being forced into state affairs. it also sets nice precident, keeping institutions in their respective places. it also helps to keep scientists free to publish things that may not be agreeable to a dirty administration. if one of those were to ever pop up.

no, my problem with science is that it does not speak in universal language as it purports to, and is of little use to me personally unless it does. when the m-theory finally moves from its present state as scattered little islands and the theory of everything comes out, we can talk about the universal nature of science. up until then, im telling you, its not universal. we can approximate given scope, but it is not universal.
the intentions of the rrs are not my concern as much as the effects and actions of such an atempt. your intentions, i have no doubt, are fantastic. almost everyone's are.

observing things 'in the same fashion' is not my concern. just as in the argument about 'falling', my claim and issue is that the language (mathematical or otherwise) is inadequate to describe situation independent of perspective.

well, thats actually not true. it actually defines it as a dimension pretty specifically. here is the opening from the spacetime article with emphasis added (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime)
---------------
In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum, in which time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a good deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
-----------------
you should also look to this portion of the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Space-time_intervals
where it talks about what a measurement actually is in spacetime

additionally, from the historical origins section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Historical_origin, it states

if you would be able to point me to the section of the article that defines time as simply a measurement of change in the physical aspects of reality and not a dimension, i would appreciate it. i dont think its there.

you also may look to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_theories_of_consciousness
for more information.