Dogs have legs. Humans have legs. Dogs and humans are the same thing.

on page 3

11/9/2007 11:26:11 PM

Quote :

"speaking of contradictions..."

Nothing salient. Stop being a pedant.

Quote :

"Yes it does. It means that what you say is "fact" actually "isn't." There isn't a table in front of you."

You misunderstood me. The facts of my experience do not change. The fact is, I perceive a table in front of me. I can't be mistaken about that.

Right now I'm hungry, which makes me uncomfortable. I just made some oatmeal, and now I'm less hungry I feel relieved. Even if I just made Matrix oatmeal, it doesn't change what just happened. I manipulated facts of my experience to achieve a goal.

Quote :

"Are you not scared of the consequences of jumping into a fire? How is that not any different? "

You have to rephrase this or flesh it out some, because I have no idea what you're getting at.

Quote :

"So, science's aim is to find truth. Religion claims to have the truth. Both claim, then, to give truth via following them."

One claims to have truth, the other one claims to seek it. This is where the similarities cease. If an establishment claims to have truth, that doesn't make it a religion.

11/9/2007 11:26:14 PM

Quote :

"As McDanger (more or less) said earlier, as science moves forward, religion simply has to start to stand aside."

And, as Christianity moved forward, it felt that other religions had to "stand aside" as well.

Quote :

"If people who are so weak-minded and socially inept that they need religion to tell them how to act or behave in a socially acceptable, moral way, then that's fine. Some of us don't require that kind of guidance, but whatever."

Nice. Self-righteous, too. Keep proving my point... I mean, those stupid savages...

11/9/2007 11:26:59 PM

Quote :

"^ Oh, OK. So, we just don't want those pesky Christians peddling their religion. So it's OK to peddle against their religion. Got it"

It is now abundantly obvious since we are talking in circles that you are incapable of understanding my point and you seem set on playing the victim. gg.

11/9/2007 11:27:53 PM

Quote :

"Nothing salient."

to you. AKA, nothing of value to you. Once again, dismissing things that don't matter to you, while holding up others that are functionally the same as being somehow bad.

Quote :

"Dogs have legs. Humans have legs. Dogs and humans are the same thing."

More like "Dogs have legs. Humans have legs. Both can therefor move."

Quote :

"The fact is, I perceive a table in front of me. I can't be mistaken about that."

OK, why is that important?

Quote :

"You have to rephrase this or flesh it out some, because I have no idea what you're getting at."

you scoffed at someone who feared retribution. I merely point out that you, too, fear repercussions for your own actions.

Quote :

"One claims to have truth, the other one claims to seek it. This is where the similarities cease. If an establishment claims to have truth, that doesn't make it a religion."

And I say that they are no different, because by following either, the two claim to give truth.

^ No. I am pointing out that you don't seem to comprehend that you say it is OK to say one religion is wrong but not to say that another is wrong.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:31:48 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as how the concept of the Christian God contains logical contradictions, the short answer is: "yes.""

Oh, you're one of those people... the ones who constantly affirm that Christianity contains logical contradictions but never actually state what these contradictions are...

Please prove me wrong about you and actually say one of these contradictions.

...Because if you are operating under the assumption that Christianity has to be incorrect, then there's really little reason to continue debating. I'm not saying that it has to be correct here, but a debate is rather pointless when one begins it with the idea that there is no possible way for their opponent to be correct.

Quote :

"You are so confused I have no idea where to start. You don't even understand what I'm arguing for, so I'm ignoring anything you say from here on out. I can't continue to waste my time with you if you aren't even going to take the time and effort to read what I'm saying."

I feel the EXACT same way about your line of argument on this particular point. You appear to have no idea whatsoever of what I am trying to say, and seem to be making no attempt to understand it.

Quote :

"One salient example of how you're wrong is how the Bible explains sin and consequences. Their explanation for how Jerusalem fell is that people were sinning and God punished them by removing his protection."

*applause*
Congratulations, you've successfully dodged the question entirely! Do it again!

Sin and consequence has nothing whatsoever to do with explaining an observable aspect of the world. Try once more.

Quote :

"Yeah dude you had this shit figured out in middle school."

Putting words into people's mouths sure is good debating, isn't it? I never said that, I just said that it made me go "huh"

Quote :

"Religion is an attempt at explaining all sorts of things. It's also an attempt to tell us how to live -- part of this is based on their explanation of the ultimate reality of things."

So, THAT'S how you've been defining religion this whole time... that it tries to define both morality and the world. Looking loosely at "religions" throughout human history, I can see how one would come to this conclusion. By my definition earlier, though, "religion" that branches into explaining the behavior of the physical world is not actually religion, it is an ignorant attempt at science. And as far as I know we had been operating under the latter definition in this particular debate.

Quote :

"So, science's aim is to find truth. Religion claims to have the truth."

Correction: Science's aim is to find truth relating to the functionality of the observable universe. Religion claims to have the truth relating to aspects of the universe that transcend the observable. Like I said before, without this specification, you're just saying that apples are competing with oranges to see which one is more of a fruit.

Quote :

"As McDanger (more or less) said earlier, as science moves forward, religion simply has to start to stand aside. Religion is the Old-World's science. It was an attempt to explain the then unexplainable."

And as I said earlier, modern/actual religion (Christianity at the very least) does not make any attempt to explain the workings of the universe, outside of human morality and spiritual (or metaphysical) aspects. Once science starts explaining the spiritual, though, I will agree with you and stand aside. I don't see this ever happening, however.

Quote :

"But for explanations on how the physical world works? Just please give way and leave that up to science."

Already done, and in this regard science isn't in conflict with religion in the first place.

11/9/2007 11:34:10 PM

Quote :

"to you. AKA, nothing of value to you. Once again, dismissing things that don't matter to you, while holding up others that are functionally the same as being somehow bad."

John utters a theorem of mathematics after proving it.
Bill utters a theorem of mathematics after reading it on a sheet of paper, and has no idea what he said.

John and Bill are the same.

Quote :

"OK, why is that important?"

Because if I have certain goals (like supporting my computer and providing a surface upon which to do my work), the idea that there's a table in front of me is important. Even if there's not really a computer, not really a table, and not really any work that I'm doing, this doesn't change that they're facts of my experience. In order to achieve my goals, I have to act in a way such that the facts of my experience change. Knowing these facts helps me achieve these goals. If I didn't believe there was a table in front of me, I couldn't achieve these goals.

I could live my entire life believing I'm a brain in a vat and that everything around me is not REALLY real. However, it wouldn't change that I'd have to obey by the apparent laws of nature and apparent regularities in things I perceive. If I put my hand into "Matrix fire," it'd still hurt like a bitch. Thus knowledge of where the fire is becomes quite important, even if it's not real. It's important to me regardless, because I have very real consequences.

Quote :

"you scoffed at someone who feared retribution. I merely point out that you, too, fear repercussions for your own actions."

So avoiding jumping into fire because it would hurt is the same as not raping a woman solely because God told me so? How the fuck?

Quote :

"And I say that they are no different, because by following either, the two claim to give truth."

Except you're completely wrong because they share completely different methods and produce wildly different results.

11/9/2007 11:37:17 PM

Quote :

"Correction: Science's aim is to find truth relating to the functionality of the observable universe. Religion claims to have the truth relating to aspects of the universe that transcend the observable."

And why does that matter? Can different religions not seek truth about different things? In the end, they still seek the same thing: truth. The topic of that truth makes no difference. Just like seeking truth about the laws of motion is just as much in the realm of science as seeking truth about how animals reproduce.

Quote :

"John utters a theorem of mathematics after proving it. Bill utters a theorem of mathematics after reading it on a sheet of paper, and has no idea what he said. John and Bill are the same."

Yes, and you are Bill, for you have yet to prove that science can ever provide truth.

Quote :

"Because if I have certain goals (like supporting my computer and providing a surface upon which to do my work), the idea that there's a table in front of me is important."

And what if I have the goal of going to heaven? Why are your goals more important than mine?

Quote :

"Except you're completely wrong because they share completely different methods and produce wildly different results."

That they are different methods is irrelevant. They are both methods that aim to achieve the same goal. And yet you demand that they be classified as two totally separate classes of things.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:39:03 PM

Quote :

"John utters a theorem of mathematics after proving it. Bill utters a theorem of mathematics after reading it on a sheet of paper, and has no idea what he said. John and Bill are the same."

Incorrect.

John now has a reason to trust his theorem.
Bill is relying on his theorem out of faith.

Quote :

"And why does that matter? Can different religions not seek truth about different things? In the end, they still seek the same thing: truth. The topic of that truth makes no difference. Just like seeking truth about the laws of motion is just as much in the realm of science as seeking truth about how animals reproduce."

Am I to take this to mean that things transcending the observable universe are within the realm of science, simply because they are a form of truth? I was thinking that one of the fundamental ideas of science was that it relied heavily on observation.

Oh, and you left out of the quote my statement of just why, exactly, it matters.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 11:39:27 PM

Quote :

"Oh, you're one of those people... the ones who constantly affirm that Christianity contains logical contradictions but never actually state what these contradictions are... Please prove me wrong about you and actually say one of these contradictions. ...Because if you are operating under the assumption that Christianity has to be incorrect, then there's really little reason to continue debating. I'm not saying that it has to be correct here, but a debate is rather pointless when one begins it with the idea that there is no possible way for their opponent to be correct."

God cannot be one and three at the same time. God is either one, or God is either three. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a straight-forward logical contradiction.

God cannot be perfectly good and have created a world in which Adam and Eve sin. Due to transitivity and necessity (from God's point of view), he would have created the world to fail. He would have created evil in these cases, and thus he cannot be perfectly good given the state of our world.

Do we need to go on? Those are two huge problems already, and they sprung from the top of my head.

Quote :

"I feel the EXACT same way about your line of argument on this particular point. You appear to have no idea whatsoever of what I am trying to say, and seem to be making no attempt to understand it."

The argument was over whether blind faith in science and blind faith in religion are the same or different. I said they're different because science gets things done, and makes testable predictions about the observable world. You reply by defending religion, saying that it doesn't have to. That's fine and well, but it proves my point.

Quote :

"*applause* Congratulations, you've successfully dodged the question entirely! Do it again! Sin and consequence has nothing whatsoever to do with explaining an observable aspect of the world. Try once more."

Claim: The fall of Jerusalem was caused by the sins of the Israelites, via offending God.

This is a causal claim about the world. You are 100% wrong, yet again.

Quote :

"So, THAT'S how you've been defining religion this whole time... that it tries to define both morality and the world. Looking loosely at "religions" throughout human history, I can see how one would come to this conclusion. By my definition earlier, though, "religion" that branches into explaining the behavior of the physical world is not actually religion, it is an ignorant attempt at science. And as far as I know we had been operating under the latter definition in this particular debate."

Your religion means jack shit because nobody uses it. Religion is chock full of ignorant attempts at science. Only your retconned version of the term abstracts these attempts out -- but religion has operated in this way as long as we can remember. Even now religious leaders make CAUSAL CLAIMS about our reality ("tolerating gays caused 9/11").

Quote :

"Correction: Science's aim is to find truth relating to the functionality of the observable universe. Religion claims to have the truth relating to aspects of the universe that transcend the observable. Like I said before, without this specification, you're just saying that apples are competing with oranges to see which one is more of a fruit."

Again you misunderstand the scope and aim of the debate altogether -- this is part of my POINT about why blind trust in science is more justified than blind trust in religion. And by the way -- making moral claims IS making claims about the observable universe. It says that a specific observable action has the quality or property of being right or wrong (in a religious context, this is almost always a claim about objective right or wrong as well).

Giving you a basic education in critical reasoning, philosophy, religion, and science is becoming more work than it's worth.

EDIT:

Quote :

"Incorrect. John now has a reason to trust his theorem. Bill is relying on his theorem out of faith."

Jesus you're clueless - I was saying this ironically. This is a logical equivalent of burro's argument.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 11:45:37 PM

Quote :

"Am I to take this to mean that things transcending the observable universe are within the realm of science, simply because they are a form of truth? I was thinking that one of the fundamental ideas of science was that it relied heavily on observation. Oh, and you left out of the quote my statement of just why, exactly, it matters."

However, if one is actually a member of the other, then your statement of "why it matters" is wrong. It wouldn't be "apples to oranges," it would be "apples to fruits," which is absolutely something that we can compare.

Quote :

"Again you misunderstand the scope and aim of the debate altogether -- this is part of my POINT about why blind trust in science is more justified than blind trust in religion."

Ahhh, so you are saying science is "better" than Christianity. Science is "more right" than Christianity. Kind of like how the missionary thought that his religion was better than the savage's. That his religion was "more right" than the savage's.

Please, keep proving my point.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:48:49 PM

Quote :

"Nice. Self-righteous, too."

indeed i am. but if you need a tidy list action items to remind you that you're not supposed to lie, cheat, steal or murder or else you'll go to hell, that's not my problem.

11/9/2007 11:50:37 PM

and the best part is, you don't need that list because you have science, right? Well, others would say they don't need that list because they have Jesus.

Please. Keep proving my point.

11/9/2007 11:51:52 PM

Quote :

"Ahhh, so you are saying science is "better" than Christianity. Science is "more right" than Christianity. Kind of like how the missionary thought that his religion was better than the savage's. That his religion was "more right" than the savage's. Please, keep proving my point."

Claiming that one thing is better than another does not make me "no different" than a zealous missionary. If you can't see this, you're either trolling or you have no ability to reason at all.

Science is better than Christianity at predicting things about the world. Since it's better at this, and I can witness the products of these predictions without understanding how the predictions work, blind trust in science is more justifiable than blind trust in Christianity. At the very least, it's fundamentally different.

11/9/2007 11:53:09 PM

more justifiable for what? Are we making a claim of value now? You know, kind of like religion does? Or are you making a claim of truth again? Please, show me how that isn't indicative of a religion.

Quote :

"Claiming that one thing is better than another does not make me "no different" than a zealous missionary. If you can't see this, you're either trolling or you have no ability to reason at all."

Umm, that's exactly what it does. You are trying to differentiate between the two and I am pointing out how the two behave exactly the same way.

Quote :

"Science is better than Christianity at predicting things about the world. Since it's better at this ..."

Let me finish that quote for you: "... I'll believe the religion of science before I believe the religion of Christianity."

Case. Closed.

11/9/2007 11:58:00 PM

Quote :

"more justifiable for what? Are we making a claim of value now? You know, kind of like religion does? Or are you making a claim of truth again? Please, show me how that isn't indicative of a religion."

More rationally justifiable. The existence of rational justification is not a religious claim -- it's a normative claim (about how we should reason -- based on other factors such as success at getting things done in the world).

It's not a descriptive claim unless you consider maximal success to be an objective concept in some sense.

Quote :

"Umm, that's exactly what it does. You are trying to differentiate between the two and I am pointing out how the two behave exactly the same way."

If two things share one property this does not make them equivalent. How do you not see this? I'm making a claim that one thing accomplishes a task better than another. If I claim that a broom is better for sweeping floors than a blender, does that make me a zealous fanatic?

Quote :

"Let me finish that quote for you: "... I'll believe the religion of science before I believe the religion of Christianity." Case. Closed. "

Is it really possible that you think like this? Can I even classify this as thinking?

Science is not a religion just because it produces a set of beliefs. My point is that even somebody who puts stock in those beliefs devoid of any understanding is, to an extent, rationally justified due to the observable successes of science (that the lack of understanding is not an obstacle to realizing).

11/10/2007 12:01:54 AM

Quote :

" However, if one is actually a member of the other, then your statement of "why it matters" is wrong. It wouldn't be "apples to oranges," it would be "apples to fruits," which is absolutely something that we can compare."

Touche, good sir.
I haven't been reading many of your posts, so are you saying that science is a religion, or that religion is a science?

Quote :

"God cannot be one and three at the same time. God is either one, or God is either three. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a straight-forward logical contradiction."

You don't realize how much you just made me laugh right there. Since you apparently can't fathom the straightforward concept, I'll give you an analogy:
I currently live in an area known as the Research Triangle. This area contains three different regions, each known as Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill.

Granted, it's a slightly flawed analogy in that these three cities do not share the same "mind" and intent, but you get the idea, hopefully. Three things can exist within as a whole item.

Quote :

" God cannot be perfectly good and have created a world in which Adam and Eve sin. Due to transitivity and necessity (from God's point of view), he would have created the world to fail. He would have created evil in these cases, and thus he cannot be perfectly good given the state of our world."

You should visit http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500360 for an in-depth discussion of this concept.

If God were to create the world at all, he would have the option to include free will (and thus the potential for evil), or to disallow choice. From the standpoint of justifying Christianity, allowing free will would be a more "good" action than disallowing choice (or disallowing existence in the first place, which in turn would not give any choice, since no one would exist to be able to choose).

Quote :

"Do we need to go on?"

Yes.

Quote :

"The fall of Jerusalem was caused by the sins of the Israelites, via offending God. This is a causal claim about the world. You are 100% wrong, yet again. "

Yet again, what is the fall of Jerusalem telling us about predicting the behaviors of the observable world?

Note: Also, the arguement could be made that this is a "miraculous" event (read: something that involves direct intervention from God and cannot be expected to occur in the future).

Quote :

"Your religion means jack shit because nobody uses it."

It's my fault that their definition cannot hold up under scrutiny and is therefore wrong? I'm not arguing the case of ignorant masses, I'm arguing the case of my personal beliefs.

Quote :

" Religion is chock full of ignorant attempts at science. Only your retconned version of the term abstracts these attempts out -- but religion has operated in this way as long as we can remember."

Does this not simply make my retconned version of the term a superior definition to that classically used to define the "religion" that you cite here?

Quote :

"Even now religious leaders make CAUSAL CLAIMS about our reality ("tolerating gays caused 9/11")."

To some extent, this is actually true and scientific, if you consider social/political sciences to be a science. Islamic extremists hate gays and the tolerance of gays. America is [generally] tolerant of gays. Thus, Islamic extremists hate America.

Also, the "gays --> 9/11" statement really doesn't have anything to do with the spiritual aspect of religion... the only connection to religion at all is that religious leaders supposedly say it, and that it involves Islamic extremists.

Quote :

""Again you misunderstand the scope and aim of the debate altogether -- this is part of my POINT about why blind trust in science is more justified than blind trust in religion"

Apples. Oranges. How many times do I have to say that one is no more a fruit than the other. You cannot say that two entirely different subjects are more justified than one another.

Quote :

"making moral claims IS making claims about the observable universe. It says that a specific observable action has the quality or property of being right or wrong"

Morality is observable? Really?
Think about that statement for a bit. I mean, really think, don't just say that it's what they do in psychology. Think about just how psychologists "observe" it.

11/10/2007 12:15:42 AM

Quote :

"You don't realize how much you just made me laugh right there. Since you apparently can't fathom the straightforward concept, I'll give you an analogy: I currently live in an area known as the Research Triangle. This area contains three different regions, each known as Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill. Granted, it's a slightly flawed analogy in that these three cities do not share the same "mind" and intent, but you get the idea, hopefully. Three things can exist within as a whole item."

But that's not the claim of the Doctrine of the Trinity. The idea is that they're separate beings, but of the same substance. This is not a tenable view.

Quote :

"If God were to create the world at all, he would have the option to include free will (and thus the potential for evil), or to disallow choice. From the standpoint of justifying Christianity, allowing free will would be a more "good" action than disallowing choice (or disallowing existence in the first place, which in turn would not give any choice, since no one would exist to be able to choose). "

Seeing as how free will probably doesn't exist, this is a silly argument.

But still, assume free will does exist. If God knows the future, he still can stack things such that people choose differently. He could have created a world where everybody freely chooses good things. You're saying God is not powerful enough to have created a choice with free will that's perfectly good. I say a God that's actually perfect would have done so.

Quote :

"Yet again, what is the fall of Jerusalem telling us about predicting the behaviors of the observable world? Note: Also, the arguement could be made that this is a "miraculous" event (read: something that involves direct intervention from God and cannot be expected to occur in the future)."

It's a causal explanation. It says "this event occurred because of this cause."

Quote :

"It's my fault that their definition cannot hold up under scrutiny and is therefore wrong? I'm not arguing the case of ignorant masses, I'm arguing the case of my personal beliefs."

Yes an 18 year old freshman at NC State has the correct definition of religion. Everybody else is completely wrong. Oh and by the way, nothing that anybody normally calls a religion falls under this kid's definition. In reality nothing is a religion, because this kid got it right.

Quote :

" Does this not simply make my retconned version of the term a superior definition to that classically used to define the "religion" that you cite here?"

It makes your version a definition that describes nothing people actually consider religion. It describes nothing, basically. It could serve as a definition for a normative theory of religion, though -- that religions should never make claims about the observable, real world. This reduces it to near irrelevance.

Quote :

"To some extent, this is actually true and scientific, if you consider social/political sciences to be a science. Islamic extremists hate gays and the tolerance of gays. America is [generally] tolerant of gays. Thus, Islamic extremists hate America. Also, the "gays --> 9/11" statement really doesn't have anything to do with the spiritual aspect of religion... the only connection to religion at all is that religious leaders supposedly say it, and that it involves Islamic extremists."

... I'm going to pretend you didn't just offer that analysis.

Quote :

"Apples. Oranges. How many times do I have to say that one is no more a fruit than the other. You cannot say that two entirely different subjects are more justified than one another."

Sure you can, who the hell says you can't?

Quote :

"Morality is observable? Really?"

This is something an objectivist would agree to. We can observe actions and determine if they're right or wrong, and this is an objective (discoverable) property of the action.

Quote :

"Think about that statement for a bit. I mean, really think, don't just say that it's what they do in psychology. Think about just how psychologists "observe" it."

What are you talking about here? And don't ask me to "really think," it's actually my job description to think.

11/10/2007 12:23:30 AM

Quote :

"But that's not the claim of the Doctrine of the Trinity. The idea is that they're separate beings, but of the same substance. This is not a tenable view."

You might want to define what you mean by "substance" here. Without that, the Research Triangle analogy still seems to apply (at least to me, but then again I don't know what you mean by substance).

Quote :

"But still, assume free will does exist. If God knows the future, he still can stack things such that people choose differently. He could have created a world where everybody freely chooses good things. You're saying God is not powerful enough to have created a choice with free will that's perfectly good. I say a God that's actually perfect would have done so."

I choose to believe that God knows what will happen if you choose a particular response or action. This of course challenges the omniscience of God in that he does not know what you will choose. This is why I tend to believe the idea that for every possible outcome of anything, a different string of the universe is created depending upon the "choice" in that particular situation, and that God is knowledgeable of all of these. This allows both God's omniscience and free will in some form.

Off-topic: Being a philosophy major, you may have heard this idea of multiple universes stringing fro choice before... and I am just guessing that you think it's a silly, amateurish attempt at philosophy and has way too much grounding in sci-fi. Think what you will.
...I'm curious also as to what you actually think of this.

Quote :

" ... I'm going to pretend you didn't just offer that analysis."

k. I'm going to pretend that you're conceding that arguing point to me fully, then.

Quote :

"Sure you can, who the hell says you can't?"

Alright, I concede.

Science is better at being science than religion is... that's really what your point seems to be boiling down to right now.... That science is better at examining the observable universe than religion. I seem to remember agreeing to this statement a while back, but also saying that this was irrelevant because it was not the point of religion. Then we got into the whole "what is religion" debate... and now it's one big circle.

We agree that science is the best possible form of science, though. So there you go.

Quote :

"It's a causal explanation. It says "this event occurred because of this cause.""

So a causal relationship equates to being in conflict with science?
Forgive me if this wasn't what we were originally talking about with this string of talking points. Quite frankly, I've forgotten completely where this particular line of conversation began.

Quote :

"Yes an 18 year old freshman at NC State has the correct definition of religion. Everybody else is completely wrong. Oh and by the way, nothing that anybody normally calls a religion falls under this kid's definition. In reality nothing is a religion, because this kid got it right."

Heh. At least I can say I'm truly a non-conformist, then.

Ignoring the fact that you won't recognize the complete irrelevance that Christianity has to science and vice versa, I have to agree with you that what is called religion under your traditional definition is indeed in conflict with science.

Quote :

"It makes your version a definition that describes nothing people actually consider religion. It describes nothing, basically. It could serve as a definition for a normative theory of religion, though -- that religions should never make claims about the observable, real world. This reduces it to near irrelevance."

As this debate has progressed you've been expanding the definition of science from the traditional view of science (evolution, biology, and ect) to a much broader definition as science being anything that makes a statement. Essentially, this describes everything, thus reducing it to near irrelevance.

Quote :

"This is something an objectivist would agree to. We can observe actions and determine if they're right or wrong, and this is an objective (discoverable) property of the action."

This is actually what I was talking about with that "think" comment. A person's actions are observed, and perhaps also what they say about that action. But the actual morality of it is impossible to examine directly. It has to be examined through cause and effect relationships (a certain moral standard will cause a person to take a certain action), which may or may not be able to asses morality perfectly.

Quote :

"What are you talking about here? And don't ask me to "really think," it's actually my job description to think."

Oh, that's interesting, didn't realize I was debating an actual philosopher. Just to go off-topic for a bit, what's that major like? Enjoyable? Easy? Difficult?
And what sort of job does it get you, anyway? Just why is someone paying you to think, and what are you having to think about?

11/10/2007 12:56:45 AM

Quote :

"You might want to define what you mean by "substance" here. Without that, the Research Triangle analogy still seems to apply (at least to me, but then again I don't know what you mean by substance)."

It's not exactly my terminology -- it's ambiguous as to whether it means metaphysical substance, or of one body (I suppose).

Quote :

"I choose to believe that God knows what will happen if you choose a particular response or action. This of course challenges the omniscience of God in that he does not know what you will choose. This is why I tend to believe the idea that for every possible outcome of anything, a different string of the universe is created depending upon the "choice" in that particular situation, and that God is knowledgeable of all of these. This allows both God's omniscience and free will in some form."

Sure but he creates a world with evil in it, because if he knows everything before hand, he can't be absolved of the responsibility (having created a world in which evil would necessarily arise).

Quote :

"Off-topic: Being a philosophy major, you may have heard this idea of multiple universes stringing fro choice before... and I am just guessing that you think it's a silly, amateurish attempt at philosophy and has way too much grounding in sci-fi. Think what you will. ...I'm curious also as to what you actually think of this."

I mean, it ranks up there with all metaphysics -- we can't really know, due to the nature of the question.

Quote :

"k. I'm going to pretend that you're conceding that arguing point to me fully, then."

You can pretend, but I don't concede the point. You know exactly what's wrong with what you said. I don't have the time or energy to break down everything wrong with that little gem.

Quote :

"Alright, I concede. Science is better at being science than religion is... that's really what your point seems to be boiling down to right now.... That science is better at examining the observable universe than religion. I seem to remember agreeing to this statement a while back, but also saying that this was irrelevant because it was not the point of religion. Then we got into the whole "what is religion" debate... and now it's one big circle."

How the fuck do you not realize that only your own failure to see the point continues this argument? I realize they're different things. That exactly why I'm pushing the argument that blind trust in science is fundamentally different than blind trust in religion -- you can view the results and fruits of science without understanding it, while believing it in blindly (without proper rational justification). The justification in these cases stems from the fact that it gets shit right when it comes to the observable world and produces observable effects that have great utility for us. That is, it brings results -- and these results can serve as justification for believing in its potency as a truth-finding method.

Quote :

"So a causal relationship equates to being in conflict with science?"

Yes. If you make a causal claim about the relationship between two things (where one of the things is actually observable/real) then it conflicts with science, that gives an alternate claim for the causal relationship. The difference is that the scientific explanation will explain the causal structure with a general theory, whose logical entailments produce true predictions.

Quote :

"Forgive me if this wasn't what we were originally talking about with this string of talking points. Quite frankly, I've forgotten completely where this particular line of conversation began."

This has been pretty obvious almost the entire argument -- you need to stop being so fucking argumentative about everything, to the point of saying shit you don't even believe just to produce counter-points. In doing so, you basically lost focus of what the issue turned on, and we've been arguing irrelevant tangents for a page or so now.

Quote :

"Heh. At least I can say I'm truly a non-conformist, then. "

This is like being proud for receiving an award for shitting all over yourself.

Quote :

"Ignoring the fact that you won't recognize the complete irrelevance that Christianity has to science and vice versa, I have to agree with you that what is called religion under your traditional definition is indeed in conflict with science."

I wouldn't say they're completely irrelevant to each other -- do you have even a cursory knowledge of European history?

Quote :

"As this debate has progressed you've been expanding the definition of science from the traditional view of science (evolution, biology, and ect) to a much broader definition as science being anything that makes a statement. Essentially, this describes everything, thus reducing it to near irrelevance."

How the hell do you figure this? I mentioned way earlier in the thread what science is. It's not anything that "makes a statement." I have no clue how you arrived at this conclusion, but it wasn't through valid reasoning.

Quote :

"This is actually what I was talking about with that "think" comment. A person's actions are observed, and perhaps also what they say about that action. But the actual morality of it is impossible to examine directly. It has to be examined through cause and effect relationships (a certain moral standard will cause a person to take a certain action), which may or may not be able to asses morality perfectly."

Assuming the right/wrongness of the action exists "out there," we should be able to in some way observe or infer what the quality is given the situation. Unless there's some sort of uncertainty principle for viewing moral truths about situations, in which case God is a huge dick.

Quote :

"Oh, that's interesting, didn't realize I was debating an actual philosopher."

I wouldn't call it a debate -- I'm desperately trying to educate you because you have little to no clue about 1) what you're talking about or 2) how to address what's at issue.

Quote :

"Just to go off-topic for a bit, what's that major like? Enjoyable? Easy? Difficult?"

So the major, as far as undergrad goes, is not all that bad. It's enjoyable, which makes it easy if you're really into it. Certain aspects of it can be hard (understanding Kant for the first time -- really getting most of the Germans, or maybe hacking through some derivations in mathematical logic). But an undergrad is of sufficient breadth that you're not likely to get into the stickiest of issues in philosophy. You get exposed to a lot, though, that is really challenging if you press it beyond what's in the classes especially. Naturally, you can skate through the major as you can with many -- it depends on how much you want to get out of it.

As far as graduate school goes, it's fairly fucking brutal. It's a huge shift from what goes on in undergrad. It's extremely difficult, time-consuming, and soul-sucking to an extent -- especially when you're in a program like mine that's heavy on mathematical logic, probability theory, causal inference, belief revision, etc etc.

11/10/2007 2:30:35 AM

Quote :

"And what sort of job does it get you, anyway? Just why is someone paying you to think, and what are you having to think about?"

So it depends. Sometimes you can get a job at a research institute, depending on what your work is on. If you focus more on the cognitive sciences (or computational linguistics or something like that), this path is fairly open. Other than that you're set up for a faculty position at a university -- which carries the responsibility of teaching courses (obviously) and being active in your respective academic community. There are lots of different fields of philosophy - you're expected to keep up with what the latest stuff is and to publish your own books/articles/etc.

So I currently get paid to teach -- but why do we get paid to think? Because maintaining a speculative interest in the world is an important thing for our intellectual development as a species. Most fields of science, before they had rich ontologies and the right vocabulary to start firm study, started as subjects of inquiry in philosophy. Once they were developed sufficiently, they sprung out into fields of science. This happens all the time -- it happened recently with the field of linguistics which sprung out of the revived study of language as an object (revived by Frege and Russell around the turn of the 20th century).

But beyond that, there are plenty of applications of philosophy to what we consider practical fields. Beyond mathematics (which you could argue is not practical -- but proof theoretic techniques in philosophy are being applied to mathematics to provide some powerful insights) there's the case of causal inference and machine learning techniques. The majority of the theory behind causal inference and Bayes' nets (used in expert systems you might find in hospitals to help doctors diagnose illnesses, for instance) is developed by philosophers that sit down the hall from me. I think that shit is incredibly valuable. There are plenty of endeavors into formal epistemology that have straight-forward applications in computer science, which is then used in all sorts of real world, practical applications. So there's that too.

Beyond that, other fields of philosophy try to keep science in check by reflecting upon the methodology carefully and making sure that we're not overreaching in drawing certain inferences and conclusions. While not all scientists respond kindly to the idea of somebody else telling them how to do their job, some do -- and besides, the reflection on what we can and can't do with, say, statistical inference is an important thing to do. Realizing why the methods we use might or might not be justified rationally is equally as important. Knowing what we do, how it's justified (if at all), and how we might do it better is a great endeavor.

There's plenty of shit to do in philosophy. There's really no telling where it'll take inquiry next, because it's open-ended like that.

11/10/2007 2:31:04 AM

Wait wait wait wait wait


wait wait








wait.


There are people...in college...who think ID is science?

11/10/2007 11:45:09 AM

In grad school too, apparently, if you count mathman.

Or rather -- I think the argument is going like this: religion and science are no different, therefore ID should be taught in biology class.

[Edited on November 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2007 11:57:51 AM

If ID is being integrated as a science, then why aren't we actively working to reconcile physics and philosophy?

11/10/2007 12:03:37 PM

Yeah man, the world as Hegelian dialectic. It could happen.

11/10/2007 12:19:17 PM

^^^ I think the argument is more about the incessant need of some for God and science to be mutually exclusive. Many great scientists do not share this need.

'Science cannot provide all the answers'
Why do so many scientists believe in God?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

11/19/2007 1:26:35 AM

This just in: religion not an issue of intelligence, but perhaps a different issue altogether! Oh really?

What does that have to do with teaching non-science in a science classroom?

11/19/2007 2:07:11 AM

Quote :

"Science cannot provide all the answers"

11/19/2007 2:20:39 AM

^ If you want to believe that, then you must also believe that religion can't provide any answers.

11/19/2007 4:19:16 AM

In reference to the topic of the thread - ID is not science. It is an argument of negation, which is not and never will be considered science. ID relies on the absence of an explanation for the creation of the world, and life in general. We do not have a working theory explaining the steps of macroevolution, if it did in fact occur. Scientists are free to believe in ID for this reason. I have no problem with that.

But that does not constitute a reason to include ID in a scientific classroom. ID is a plausible theory, but it is not science. End of discussion.

Secondly,

Quote :

"I think the argument is more about the incessant need of some for God and science to be mutually exclusive. Many great scientists do not share this need."

Science and religion talk about the same subjects, but they address them in significantly different ways:

1) Science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

2) Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Science relies upon the scientific method. Religion is based on faith. For the purposes of this discussion, science comprises the facts and theories widely accepted as the most plausible explanation for any given phenomena observed in the universe. The strength and validity of these theories is based on how reliable/proveable each fact/theory is. A scientific fact is a law that is accepted as true because time and research shows that it is reliable enough to base other facts upon it. Theories are potential laws that have not been proven to the extent needed to be called facts. Believing in theories as though they are facts is in fact a leap of faith, which is the point at which science become a religion.

Quote :

"Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator? "No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer," he says. "

Science and religion inevitably find themselves intertwined in the discussion of the creation of the world. They are not however one in the same. One cannot trump the other, nor can they be artificially fused together.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : f]

11/19/2007 12:51:05 PM

If you want your kid learning ID take him to a jesus school. Intelligent Design is not based on any scientific fact and makes a mockery of our public education system here in the US to the rest of the world.

11/19/2007 12:55:32 PM

Hey guys science can't provide all the answers (especially to questions that we have no principled way of answering) so let's just make up stuff.

This sounds like a great reason to endorse religion.

11/19/2007 6:41:06 PM

^ Good thing nobody is.

Congratulations, you're a douchebag

11/19/2007 6:43:48 PM

The argument is that science cannot "provide all the answers."

My point is -- to which questions? Usually to ones we have no principled way of answering (involving the "world" we cannot observe at all). What makes statements about things outside of the realm of possible observation meaningful at all? How do we assign a referent to any of the terms we use in these discussions?

Furthermore, how do different religions come to decisions about the nature of these things in a principled fashion?

11/19/2007 6:45:22 PM

Oh wait you can't answer any of those questions because you're fucking retarded.

Nevermind, let's just move on.

11/19/2007 6:47:09 PM

Quote :

"Hey guys science can't provide all the answers"

Then go to fucking church for these mysterious spiritual questions. I have no problem with people practicing religion or using religion to give the purpose in life or to help answer questions they do not understand (usually out of ignorance). The science class room though is for cold hard science. If we are going to teach ID we might as well hit the time machine button back to 1400's and also teach about the Earth centered universe or how the Earth COULD be flat.

11/19/2007 9:43:05 PM

Quote :

"The argument is that science cannot "provide all the answers.""

Bullshit. At no point did I make this claim, nor to I believe this is true. Let's instead reference something that I actually said:

Quote :

"Believing in theories as though they are facts is in fact a leap of faith, which is the point at which science become a religion."

Science is perfectly capable of answering all the questions in the universe. However, beyond the facts we all can agree on, we have theories. Taking these theories as fact requires a leap of faith, one markedly similar to the faith others put in religious explanations regarding the universe... namely the part about God being its Creator.

And for the record, don't use this thread to start your own personal pissing contest on organized religion. Christianity is founded upon the Bible, a 1900+ year old document upon which the church has survived and thrived, even from the most cynical dipshits such as yourself. Accept it, believe it, put your faith in it, or just ignore it and do your own thing. But don't be a fuckwit and pull the high and mighty "I use a principled, logical approach to explaining this universe because I'm too good to believe in a religion based on blind faith."

Be sure not to trip while getting off your high horse pal

11/19/2007 10:59:36 PM

Sigh I see the problem -- you interpreted what I said originally as a response to you (which it wasn't), so I was interpreting your comments as addressing the last available context of the thread.

But now that you've annoyed me let's look at your argument (which is 100% shit).

Quote :

"Believing in theories as though they are facts is in fact a leap of faith, which is the point at which science become a religion."

This is pretty much post-modernist hippy-faggot bullshit. Believing in a theory as fact can be a working assumption rather than a "leap of faith" as you call it. Believing that relativity theory makes true predictions is not "religious" -- it's placing your money with the best bet until you have reason to believe otherwise.

Quote :

"And for the record, don't use this thread to start your own personal pissing contest on organized religion. Christianity is founded upon the Bible, a 1900+ year old document upon which the church has survived and thrived, even from the most cynical dipshits such as yourself. Accept it, believe it, put your faith in it, or just ignore it and do your own thing. But don't be a fuckwit and pull the high and mighty "I use a principled, logical approach to explaining this universe because I'm too good to believe in a religion based on blind faith.""

How does the Church thriving show anything about its truth-finding methods? It'd be easier to ignore churches if they weren't also political organizations. Oh, also -- considering the fact that your above argument is nothing but college-kid bong-inspired horseshit, you can't say belief in scientific theories is the same as religion. Whoops.

Quote :

"Be sure not to trip while getting off your high horse pal"

That's okay, I'll stay up here. Keep on walking -- the rest of us who have figured out a more efficient mode of travel will continue to get things done for you.

11/19/2007 11:26:50 PM

Quote :

"let's look at your argument (which is 100% shit)"

100% you say? Saying something that stupid really discredits any validity your post ever had.

What you're really trying to do is argue that it makes more sense to believe in "working assumptions" than it does to make the leap of faith inherent in religion. I don't have a problem with that. If you prefer your world based solely on observable, predictable, and reliable data, go right ahead.

Quote :

"How does the Church thriving show anything about its truth-finding methods?"

What... the fuck... did I EVER say about the Church and "truth-finding methods"? The Church was not founded to find truth. It was founded because, according to the Church, the truth came to us in the form of Jesus Christ, so we wrote it down in a book. This book contained the blueprint for the Christian faith. In it we figured out how best to deal with one another - that being through a mutual love of God, the Creator.

Now some fundamentalists, and in other cases outright loons, have tried to take parts of the Bible word-for-word in explaining the origins of Earth. That in my mind is an exercise in futility. I listened in on a lecture by a catholic priest that worked in the Vatican Science Laboratory for FORTY years. Five minutes into the presentation he stated that the universe was approximately 14.7 billion years old, and the Earth was about 4.5 billion years old (trust me, I believe Creationists are just kidding themselves).

Christianity provides us primarily with a moral code laid down by God, Jesus, and the prophets. It is held together by a blind faith in God. In other words, the Bible's primary function is NOT to throw mud in the face of evolution theories. It's not a history textbook. There is no science to be had in the Bible. It is my faith, and it is the faith of millions around the world.

Quote :

"Oh, also -- considering the fact that your above argument is nothing but college-kid bong-inspired horseshit, you can't say belief in scientific theories is the same as religion. Whoops."

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Belief in science can be taken to such incredible extremes that it requires blind faith. Need an example? We currently have no working theories on macroevolution, yet schools continue to teach it like it's accepted fact. Bit of a leap don't you think to assume it's correct?


Get over yourself dude. This is TWW. If you really wanna knock me down so you can be King of the Crap heap, go ahead. But don't call my argument "100% bullshit." You couldn't out-debate me even with TreeTwista10 screaming in my left ear and Chance screaming in my right

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ;]

11/20/2007 1:50:51 AM

Quote :

"What you're really trying to do is argue that it makes more sense to believe in "working assumptions" than it does to make the leap of faith inherent in religion. I don't have a problem with that. If you prefer your world based solely on observable, predictable, and reliable data, go right ahead."

Nothing you have said establishes belief in theories as fact as "religious." In fact, if you want to define it that way, then belief in ANY proposition about the external world is "religious," which is such a loose definition that it lacks any meaning whatsoever.

Quote :

"What... the fuck... did I EVER say about the Church and "truth-finding methods"? The Church was not founded to find truth. It was founded because, according to the Church, the truth came to us in the form of Jesus Christ, so we wrote it down in a book. This book contained the blueprint for the Christian faith. In it we figured out how best to deal with one another - that being through a mutual love of God, the Creator. Now some fundamentalists, and in other cases outright loons, have tried to take parts of the Bible word-for-word in explaining the origins of Earth. That in my mind is an exercise in futility. I listened in on a lecture by a catholic priest that worked in the Vatican Science Laboratory for FORTY years. Five minutes into the presentation he stated that the universe was approximately 14.7 billion years old, and the Earth was about 4.5 billion years old (trust me, I believe Creationists are just kidding themselves). Christianity provides us primarily with a moral code laid down by God, Jesus, and the prophets. It is held together by a blind faith in God. In other words, the Bible's primary function is NOT to throw mud in the face of evolution theories. It's not a history textbook. There is no science to be had in the Bible. It is my faith, and it is the faith of millions around the world."

You said the Church has survived all these years. Fine, but how does that prove the doctrine wasn't just made up (or at least was developed in an unprincipled fashion)?

Quote :

"Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Belief in science can be taken to such incredible extremes that it requires blind faith."

It can, and usually it's still better than blind faith in religion (refer to this entire thread where I argued it up one wall and down another).

Quote :

"Need an example? We currently have no working theories on macroevolution, yet schools continue to teach it like it's accepted fact. Bit of a leap don't you think to assume it's correct?"

We have no working theory of gravity either -- would you rather we teach mysticism instead of the most straight-forward physicalist theory available?

What do you mean no working theory anyway? There's an overwhelming amount of empirical data to back up the idea of common ancestry.

Quote :

"Get over yourself dude. This is TWW. If you really wanna knock me down so you can be King of the Crap heap, go ahead. But don't call my argument "100% bullshit." You couldn't out-debate me even with TreeTwista10 screaming in on left ear and Chance screaming in my right"

look at how stupid you are

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 2:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2007 1:56:50 AM

Ah this is fun. Sorry to keep flaming this thread guys but I'm enjoying pissing McDanger off far too much to stop now

Quote :

"Nothing you have said establishes belief in theories as fact as "religious." "

Ah so this is what has your panties in a wad. You assume incorrectly that I'm trying to equate blind faith in science to blind faith in religion. I'm not. What I am saying is that you can't make the claim that belief in science is somehow better than belief in God. To you, science has a leg up since it is at least founded upon working assumptions, if not cold hard facts. You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to look down upon religion since it lacks a logical, principled foundation.

Quote :

"You said the Church has survived all these years. Fine, but how does that prove the doctrine wasn't just made up (or at least was developed in an unprincipled fashion)?"

It doesn't. We don't believe in Christianity b/c we've deduced logically that it is in fact the way to salvation. We didn't choose religion because we could prove Jesus is our Savior, or that God exists, or that following God will grant us eternal life.

Instead, we believe because we have faith. That's what makes Christianity a different animal than science. We do not and likely will not ever truly know if God is out there looking down upon us. Some people choose to make the leap of faith that he is. Others don't. I don't think any less of people who choose not to serve God. It's a hard path to take.

However, that priest who discussed the origins of the Earth (the one who stately bluntly that life on Earth is 45 billion years old) also talked about his faith. I asked him point blank - why do you choose to believe in God in the face of all this science? Why bother serving when you have just stated that macroevolution likely took place? He had just laid out an argument more convincing than any I've ever heard on the subject.

His answer - "Because it enriches my life"

Yeah, living as a true, principled Christian is tough. Sometimes, it really sucks. But I'll tell you, having recommitted myself to God over the past year, that I'm a helluva lot happier now than I've ever been. All the logic and science in the world can't tell you how to be happy. Some things simply can't be converted into quantifiable data, no matter how hard we try to do so.


So, just so we're clear, the ONLY thing I have an issue with is your insinuation that religion, due to it's requirement of blind faith with no logical/principled foundation, is somehow less than science. You're comparing apples to oranges. Religion and science are not even distant cousins of one another. Science is based on the scientific method. Religion is based on a faith in God and the Bible.

And you're trying to compare them like they're textbooks on the same subject. Honestly, take you're own advice:

Quote :

"look at how stupid you are"

And yes I noobed all over myself with that "outdebate" comment. That's right, I can admit it

11/20/2007 12:30:27 PM

Erios, don't feel bad. McDanger is no different than any other religious zealot. He thinks his shit doesn't stink and that's all that matters to him. That he refuses to accept that he, too, believes in a religion is comical at best and tragic at worst.

11/20/2007 6:50:47 PM

burro I don't think I'll ever get used to the idea of us agreeing on anything, but yeah, Micky-D's shit does in fact stink

11/20/2007 7:41:41 PM

Mmmm, smell that cognitive dissonance- smells like sizzling gray matter.

11/20/2007 8:26:58 PM

Quote :

"What I am saying is that you can't make the claim that belief in science is somehow better than belief in God. To you, science has a leg up since it is at least founded upon working assumptions, if not cold hard facts. You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to look down upon religion since it lacks a logical, principled foundation."

The reason why I look down on religion as a method of belief-fixation is because it can only operate in a realm where principled distinctions cannot be made and nothing can be confirmed. Basing your moral foundation in such stuff is beyond insane, in my opinion -- basing public policy on such concerns is even worse. At the very least, only make decisions based on this nonsense that impact yourself and yourself only (but this is never what actually happens).

Belief in science IS better than belief in God. Science gets things done and makes testable, correct predictions and calculations about the world. Science has a leg up because even if we can never scratch absolute truth (due to the fact we have to represent things in our symbols -- creating a level of abstraction that's above objection truth), we're at least converging upon it in a way that gives us concrete results about observable (read: real) affairs.

Quote :

"However, that priest who discussed the origins of the Earth (the one who stately bluntly that life on Earth is 45 billion years old) also talked about his faith. I asked him point blank - why do you choose to believe in God in the face of all this science? Why bother serving when you have just stated that macroevolution likely took place? He had just laid out an argument more convincing than any I've ever heard on the subject. His answer - "Because it enriches my life""

Some people can stomach this and some can't. I can't stomach believing something because it enriches my life if I can't justify believing it. I don't know whether this is good or not --- it might be maladaptive in an evolutionary sense, funny enough.

Quote :

"Yeah, living as a true, principled Christian is tough. Sometimes, it really sucks. But I'll tell you, having recommitted myself to God over the past year, that I'm a helluva lot happier now than I've ever been. All the logic and science in the world can't tell you how to be happy. Some things simply can't be converted into quantifiable data, no matter how hard we try to do so."

Believing a bunch of fairy-tale bullshit makes some people happy. The rest of us have to suffice with the beauty that's actually there. For quite a few of us, the real world is intriguing and beautiful enough to keep our studious attention.

Quote :

" So, just so we're clear, the ONLY thing I have an issue with is your insinuation that religion, due to it's requirement of blind faith with no logical/principled foundation, is somehow less than science. You're comparing apples to oranges. Religion and science are not even distant cousins of one another. Science is based on the scientific method. Religion is based on a faith in God and the Bible."

Both are methods of belief-fixation. In many cases information from either will influence how you'll act. I'd much rather somebody reason about how to act than pick up McMorals from a trite, ancient book.

Quote :

"Erios, don't feel bad. McDanger is no different than any other religious zealot. He thinks his shit doesn't stink and that's all that matters to him. That he refuses to accept that he, too, believes in a religion is comical at best and tragic at worst."

Hurf durf if my belief in tried and true scientific theories is the same as religion, then at least my fucking god delivers.

11/21/2007 1:32:23 AM

^ You just reconfirmed what I've known about you for a long time.

Quote :

"Many of you that cling to science so desperately have done nothing but accept science as your religion and the scientists as your clergy. Zealotry is zealotry, whether one's god lives 'in the clouds,' in a beaker, or in cyberspace."

hooksaw

/message_topic.aspx?topic=442995&page=2

And here's a trinket of yours from that thread:

Quote :

"Science has nothing to say about the concept of God itself. The concept of God is a concept lacking any empirical content in and of itself. There's no way to test for the existence of God (in practice or in theory). No amount of evidence can stack up to prove his existence, or disprove his existence. It's outside of the bounds of scientific inquiry. This is what happens when you take a bunch of scientists and let them run around without a leash. They forget the boundaries of their sandbox, and think they can use their method to make judgments about all sorts of things. The really embarassing [sic] thing for them is when they forget what science can and cannot achieve. It sucks to see so many brilliant minds make such silly conclusions."

McDanger

/message_topic.aspx?topic=442995&page=1

Quote :

"Russell Stannard is now emeritus professor of physics at the Open University. He is one of the atom-smashers, picking apart the properties of matter, energy, space and time, and the author of a delightful series of children's books about tough concepts such as relativity theory. He believes in the power of science. He not only believes in God, he believes in the Church of England. He, like Tom McLeish, is a lay reader. He has contributed Thoughts for the Day to Radio 4, those morning homilies on the mysteries of existence. Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator? "No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer," he says [emphasis added]."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

And don't even try to pretend that the quotation directly above proves your point. You're an antitheist, which is clear from most of your past antireligious propaganda. Here's just one example:

Christianity -- man's immortal blunder

Quote :

"Everything from the Tree of Knowledge to the fall of Satan illustrates the mortal fear Christianity has for intellectualism, science, greatness, and power. Adam and Eve’s original sin was to gain knowledge, which was an act God did not permit. Already it is established that the first moral God has laid down is that man should remain ignorant. Linking this image together with the image of the fallen Satan, an angel who wanted to achieve the heights of power, Christianity rounds out its image of sinfulness. The two greatest examples of sin: original sin and the war in Heaven fully illustrate the kind of man Christianity abhors, the kind of man Christianity wishes to reform. This man is the intellectual who respects the natural order, who wishes to grow full in his potential. This kind of man, free of the chains of the priest, is characterized as demonic, as in need of taming and reform. It is through this grave crime against humanity that the knowledge of antiquity has been lost, and antiquity mocked and derided in modern society. It is the reason why science has been held back harshly over the years, and why progress is still stifled. Though today religion and Christianity in general is becoming more irrelevant in public policy (and rightly so), it still holds a disturbing amount of sway over what should be an enlightened and rational public. The death throes of religious extremism are violent, and who knows whether the developed world will ever truly fall into its clutches again. We can only hope against it, and continue to fight this vile viral meme that has plunged mankind into a dark nightmare for too long."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=412249&page=1

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 2:43:46 AM

Quote :

". What I am saying is that you can't make the claim that belief in science is somehow better than belief in God. To you, science has a leg up since it is at least founded upon working assumptions, if not cold hard facts. You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to look down upon religion since it lacks a logical, principled foundation."

If you understand this, why do you continue to argue with McDanger?

It's pretty clear you 2 are using different metrics to determine "better." If you acknowledge that science is more principled and logical, then you must also acknowledge that it's a better basis for policy and interactions.

Quote :

"Believing a bunch of fairy-tale bullshit makes some people happy. The rest of us have to suffice with the beauty that's actually there. For quite a few of us, the real world is intriguing and beautiful enough to keep our studious attention. "

Strip out the vitriol here, and you basically have Erios' argument. Religion definitely can make certain people's lives better and happier. But what religious people MUST realize is that this is not true for all people, and that the ambiguous nature of religious experiences is not suitable to base policy decisions that affect large groups of people. It's something better kept to yourself, to make yourself happier. Unfortunately, religious dogma often is interpreted to be making the opposite statement, which is where the problems come from.

11/21/2007 2:49:51 AM

hooksaw -- demonstrating the worth of liberal studies at NCSU on a daily basis.

Look dude -- I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible: you don't understand anything in this discussion. You really don't. You have no basis for understanding. You have no foundation of knowledge, no critical thinking skills to expand such a base if you had it, and no desire to actually understand the way things are. You're the saddest case I've seen yet. Look at how stupid you are.

Just because some scientists think that philosophical questions are best answered by theology -- what does that have to say about anything? We should be examining why these people think what they do, not just who they are. Who cares if they're scientists? Let's examine the arguments (because when we do, we see that they're obviously crap).

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is an interesting question -- one that might be outside of the scope of science, sure. But what about this simple fact suggests that picking any particular religious dogma is a good idea? This is another example of "Science can't address everything therefore Jesus QED" argumentation.

You're beyond dense. A stubborn old man with no desire to learn, no capacity to learn, and no talent to apply the learning if you could obtain it. God damn.

11/21/2007 2:58:47 AM

^ I'm not a Christian, you self-absorbed, stereotyping idiot.

Quote :

"McDouche: 'anything that I think is good and that other countries already have is a right....IT JUST HAS TO BE!!' :retard: common sense: 'um, no it's not. rights are universal, come from "god" or nature, and don't contradict other rights.' :truth: McDouche: 'That's not how you argue!! Therefore I win. Debate over.' :smug:"

BTW, philosophy is a liberal arts curriculum. People who live in glass houses. . . .



[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 3:05 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 3:01:24 AM

Ahahahaha what did I say that suggested you were?

What the fuck is your master's degree in, internet trolling???

You're just making the way for these arguments. I know you're not a Christian -- but seeing how you just love swinging off of GOP cock (yes, I know you're "not a Republican" either), you have to tow the party line. This means defending Christians and their ability to make these dumb ass arguments at every pass.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 3:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 3:02:50 AM