^^ Umm... the point of his post wasn't to accuse you or being Christian, and it wouldn't really matter if you were even religious.

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

11/21/2007 3:04:37 AM

^^

Quote :

"This is another example of 'Science can't address everything therefore Jesus QED' argumentation."

NB:

Quote :

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

11/21/2007 3:09:24 AM

An MS in "liberal studies" is a far cry from other things that would be classified as liberal arts.

For instance -- I mostly do math, logic, cognitive science, and a hefty amount of linguistics. What the fuck do you do with your time, exactly, other than misunderstand arguments on the internet and make a complete ass out of yourself? I haven't seen a single post of yours that isn't riddled with some sort of deep misunderstanding or logical fallacy.

11/21/2007 3:11:49 AM

^ So, you'll be teaching soon, yes?

11/21/2007 3:16:38 AM

Soon as I'm done with the schooling, man. This shit doesn't happen overnight.

11/21/2007 3:21:50 AM

Quote :

"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"

Then you are an athiest. Once again, that's your perogative. The only difference between the two of us is I'm not openly mocking your decision. You for some reason feel the need to deride religion as some kind of foolish non-sensical fantasy. Instead you're lauding the truth of your own beliefs, as if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong, and your way is the only way.

Funny that I believe in religion, yet you're the one doing the preaching.

Quote :

" -- basing public policy on such concerns is even worse. "

Ah but this is another issue altogether. I'm defending the legitimacy of religion in our daily lives. I am NOT advocating that religious views be the sole basis of government policy. You forget, I'm one of those dirty liberals. I'm a big fan of that whole "separation of church and state" concept. You've got no grounds to say shit like this.

Quote :

"Belief in science IS better than belief in God. "

Yeah, but I believe in both. So do a lot of people. For me they serve different purposes. You're trying to create a false dichotomy between the two, as if one can ultimately trump the other. You can't, so stop trying.

Science can teach us a lot of things. It can show us why gravity works. It shows us the world of chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, astrology, and oh so much more. Everything is empirical, proveable, and logical. Like a clock, everything works on principle, and which such pristine accuracy. But it doesn't tell you what do with the douchebag that steals your paper in the morning. It doesn't tell you how to tell your friend he has a drug addiction. It doesn't tell you what to do about the homeless man on the street. It doesn't tell you why anything truly matters, or why you should bother getting up in the morning, or what will actually make you happy.


Nobody here is awed by your incredible discovery that religion isn't logical. In fact, it's an obvious fucking fact the rest of us realized a while ago. Get over your personal dislike of religion, which is the only reason you've bothered to post in this thread.

11/22/2007 12:32:05 AM

Quote :

"You're trying to create a false dichotomy between the two, as if one can ultimately trump the other. You can't, so stop trying."

If you are merely a theist, then you are right. But if you subscribe to any one particular *religion, one MUST trump the other, unless you choose to pick-and-choose which parts of your religion to follow (which kind of defeats the purpose of religion doesn't it?).

[Edited on November 22, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason : * i mostly mean the main ones like christianity or islam or hinduism]

11/22/2007 12:46:19 AM

Quote :

"Then you are an athiest. Once again, that's your perogative. The only difference between the two of us is I'm not openly mocking your decision. You for some reason feel the need to deride religion as some kind of foolish non-sensical fantasy. Instead you're lauding the truth of your own beliefs, as if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong, and your way is the only way."

When somebody wants to deny somebody else equal rights based on a religious belief, is this problematic to you?

Quote :

"Funny that I believe in religion, yet you're the one doing the preaching."

Because argumentation is like preaching no matter what, right guys?

Quote :

"Ah but this is another issue altogether. I'm defending the legitimacy of religion in our daily lives. I am NOT advocating that religious views be the sole basis of government policy. You forget, I'm one of those dirty liberals. I'm a big fan of that whole "separation of church and state" concept. You've got no grounds to say shit like this."

If your religiously based beliefs affect nobody negatively but you, then sure -- that's fine. If you're treating other people negatively based on a belief it had better be a necessary evil or in some way a rational trade-off.

Quote :

"Yeah, but I believe in both. So do a lot of people. For me they serve different purposes. You're trying to create a false dichotomy between the two, as if one can ultimately trump the other. You can't, so stop trying."

No I'm not. You can believe in god all you want -- my point is that when religion makes claims about observable reality that fly in the face of systematic, verified scientific discoveries, it should be discarded (or that portion should be).

Quote :

"Science can teach us a lot of things. It can show us why gravity works."

This is a bit off topic but "why" gravity works is one of the things science hasn't cracked yet.

Quote :

"But it doesn't tell you what do with the douchebag that steals your paper in the morning. It doesn't tell you how to tell your friend he has a drug addiction. It doesn't tell you what to do about the homeless man on the street. It doesn't tell you why anything truly matters, or why you should bother getting up in the morning, or what will actually make you happy."

I believe those things are in the realm of "thinking things through." Critical thinking skills help answer those questions.

Quote :

"Nobody here is awed by your incredible discovery that religion isn't logical. In fact, it's an obvious fucking fact the rest of us realized a while ago. Get over your personal dislike of religion, which is the only reason you've bothered to post in this thread."

I think rereading the thread would be helpful for you at this point because you have no fucking idea what you're arguing anymore.

11/22/2007 1:44:26 AM

I'm late to the party, but I can see that this dead horse can still take a few more kicks.

All I really have to say about the matter is that it's not okay to try to package religion in scientific-sounding language and then try to peddle it to the public education system. I have no problem with religion being in the schools, but only as long as it's taught in a separate class. Creationist predictions are NOT falsifiable, they are not verifiable, and in fact they aren't even predictions at all. Predictions don't just tell you what will happen, they also tell you what will NOT happen. But creationist theories are so vague that you can say just about anything you want. This is an extremely piss-poor way to conduct proper science, and it therefore should not be taught as a science. Anyone who argues otherwise either needs to be re-educated on scientific methodology and philosophy, or is being intellectually dishonest.

Quote :

"Science can teach us a lot of things...But it doesn't tell you what do with the douchebag that steals your paper in the morning. It doesn't tell you how to tell your friend he has a drug addiction. It doesn't tell you what to do about the homeless man on the street. It doesn't tell you why anything truly matters, or why you should bother getting up in the morning, or what will actually make you happy."

In other words, you think that without religion, there would be no objective moral principles. Answer me this: are some random scribblings in a book (that was written LONG AFTER the events that it reports, and has been translated and re-translated several times) the only thing keeping you from raping your mother before making her choke on a rusted knife? Because if you say yes, then I think we know to shove you in a mental institution. But if you say no, then you admit that morality can come from other sources besides religion. And if you want to go the "but God gave us reasoning" route, then you're basically saying that it's possible for humans to rationally work out morality for themselves.

11/22/2007 2:55:51 AM

I find myself baffled at people's ability to put words in my mouth. From the top:

Quote :

"When somebody wants to deny somebody else equal rights based on a religious belief, is this problematic to you? "

And where precisely did I say this was ok? I'm for separation of church ans state. If a policy position is backed solely on the basis of religion, then you're trying to infuse religion INTO the state. I am against this and always have been.

Quote :

"Because argumentation is like preaching no matter what, right guys?"

If you honestly think you're the one can argue religion into submission, go ahead, but that's illusions of grandeur an level that just makes my head hurt. You can't evebn argue ME into submission on this issue. That fact that you think you can, or have, only proves you're only kidding yourself.

Quote :

"If your religiously based beliefs affect nobody negatively but you, then sure -- that's fine. If you're treating other people negatively based on a belief it had better be a necessary evil or in some way a rational trade-off."

Something tells me you've never actually READ the Bible, Quran/Koran, Torah, or any other religious document of that type. There are always going to be those that take religion to unhealthy extremes, like infusing religion into politics, taking the Book of Genesis literally to "prove" the world is less than 10,000 years old, discriminating against gays, etc. The gay issue is one in particular I have issues with. There is an ongoing debate on the passages of the Bible that refer to homosexuality, particularly in the New Testament. I for one don't consider homosexuality sinful, at least for those that honestly (and hormonally) are in fact gay.

I'm guessing that is whta you're driving at with the "religion affecting others negatively" comment. Seriously, if you want to make a point, come out with it. If you hate how religious folk treat gays then say so. If you're pissed about abortion clinic protesters then just say it.

Quote :

"You can believe in god all you want -- my point is that when religion makes claims about observable reality that fly in the face of systematic, verified scientific discoveries, it should be discarded (or that portion should be)."

Ah, the real source of the sand in your vagina. Yes the Vatican has a long and distinguished history of backpeddling in the face of scientific fact. Then again, it accepted that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. I also had a priest explain why macroevolution probably did happen. I'm praying that somewhere down the line homosexuality is also revisited, given that it occurs in nature with other species and that pyschologists have thoroughly debunked the notion that homosexuality is a product of "immoral behavior."

Like I said, science AND religion, not just one or the other...

Quote :

"This is a bit off topic but "why" gravity works is one of the things science hasn't cracked yet."

Ok, bad example

Quote :

"I believe those things are in the realm of "thinking things through." Critical thinking skills help answer those questions."

That's not science. That's philosophy.

Quote :

"In other words, you think that without religion, there would be no objective moral principles. Answer me this: are some random scribblings in a book (that was written LONG AFTER the events that it reports, and has been translated and re-translated several times) the only thing keeping you from raping your mother before making her choke on a rusted knife? Because if you say yes, then I think we know to shove you in a mental institution. But if you say no, then you admit that morality can come from other sources besides religion. And if you want to go the "but God gave us reasoning" route, then you're basically saying that it's possible for humans to rationally work out morality for themselves."

I'm not arguing morality is a gift from religion, but there is a very interesting (and ongoing) debate on that very topic. Go YouTubing for stuff on Christopher Hitchens, there's plenty out there.

11/22/2007 9:29:45 AM

Quote :

"Science can teach us a lot of things...But it doesn't tell you what do with the douchebag that steals your paper in the morning. It doesn't tell you how to tell your friend he has a drug addiction. It doesn't tell you what to do about the homeless man on the street."

all of these questions can be answered, in general, with how societies function as a whole. Civilizations and societies have emerged and give us basic sets of rules for what is and what is not acceptable to survive in the society. And yes, there are entire branches of science dedicated to studying how humans and societies emerge and interact.

besides all that.... can you not think and make decisions for yourself? your line of reasoning is similar to those people who defend the 10 Commandments and the risk of going to hell by saying "what's to stop you from cheating on your wife, if you have no eternal consequences?" For men who have to have the threat of eternal damnation dangled over their head all the time to prevent them from screwing other women, i just say I feel sorry for their wives....

Quote :

"It doesn't tell you why anything truly matters, or why you should bother getting up in the morning, or what will actually make you happy."

i'm not sure religion does that either. In the end, all religion does is use sticks and carrots to help people make inherently selfish decisions. Christians making morality decisions are, in the end, making those decisions because they want to go to Heaven, or want to stay out of Hell - an ultimately selfish proposition. If you have no threat of heaven or hell to base your life's decisions on, you can proceed to make decisions that are beneficial to society at large, and not those that necessarily ultimately benefit yourself.

11/22/2007 9:30:12 AM

Quote :

"And where precisely did I say this was ok? I'm for separation of church ans state. If a policy position is backed solely on the basis of religion, then you're trying to infuse religion INTO the state. I am against this and always have been."

You didn't, I was merely asking you a question so I could fix your position better (seeing as how I don't know you). It's good you say no -- and that's why I think religiously motivated belief fixation is bad (or worse than a rational method). In some cases, when we reason things through, we must deny certain people rights, or make otherwise hard decisions that impact people negatively. In these cases, we have a straight-forward justification that the religious cases don't have. That's why I don't think religious belief-fixation is a good method --- its justification is not public in nature, and as such, should never be the justification for actions that influence people negatively.

Quote :

"If you honestly think you're the one can argue religion into submission, go ahead, but that's illusions of grandeur an level that just makes my head hurt. You can't evebn argue ME into submission on this issue. That fact that you think you can, or have, only proves you're only kidding yourself."

You know, we probably agree on a lot more than you think, and if you dropped the internet tough-guy act we could probably have a better conversation. But the fact of the matter is, as long as you remain so argumentative and stubborn, we're going to get nowhere.

That said, if you don't think you would ever change your mind in an argument with me, why are you arguing? I'm free and open to changing my opinion in the fact of an argument with greater force. People who refuse to revise their beliefs in the face of better evidence or argumentation are flat-out irrational.

Quote :

"Something tells me you've never actually READ the Bible, Quran/Koran, Torah, or any other religious document of that type. There are always going to be those that take religion to unhealthy extremes, like infusing religion into politics, taking the Book of Genesis literally to "prove" the world is less than 10,000 years old, discriminating against gays, etc. The gay issue is one in particular I have issues with. There is an ongoing debate on the passages of the Bible that refer to homosexuality, particularly in the New Testament. I for one don't consider homosexuality sinful, at least for those that honestly (and hormonally) are in fact gay."

I haven't read the Koran, but I've read the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Just because you continually conflate religious core-doctrines with their current practice doesn't mean I'm doing the same thing.

When dealing with religious issues there could be three things at stake: (1) the plain reading of the doctrines in the original cultural contexts (which are hard to really access), (2) the plain reading of the doctrines in the cultural context of the reader (likely to arrive at an incorrect interpretation of the words, but still, a straight-forward interpretation), or (3) the traditional interpretation (the most common of all, which cherry-picks and uses the words on the page to support anything at all).

Sometimes the 3 line up, sometimes there's a lot of overlap, and other times there's not much overlap at all. There are times where a critique of any one of these categories can strike all three, or all three to a limited extent, or simply one or two.

Regardless of that -- beliefs that are not rationally justified should not be used to negatively affect others.

Quote :

"I'm guessing that is whta you're driving at with the "religion affecting others negatively" comment. Seriously, if you want to make a point, come out with it. If you hate how religious folk treat gays then say so. If you're pissed about abortion clinic protesters then just say it."

Getting into those points would constitute a derail of the thread to an even greater degree, but yes --- the gay rights issue pisses me off, along with a whole plethora of other issues. Pretty much whenever somebody is trying to influence public policy based on irrationally motivated concerns as opposed to a rationally justified opinion, I'm going to be irritated. I don't see why that's a problem, seeing as how rationality is our best rule-of-thumb for running a society of people with all sorts of disjunct irrational beliefs.

Quote :

"Ah, the real source of the sand in your vagina. Yes the Vatican has a long and distinguished history of backpeddling in the face of scientific fact. Then again, it accepted that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. I also had a priest explain why macroevolution probably did happen. I'm praying that somewhere down the line homosexuality is also revisited, given that it occurs in nature with other species and that pyschologists have thoroughly debunked the notion that homosexuality is a product of "immoral behavior.""

How is it sand in my vagina exactly? Of course I'm going to be peeved when people would rather drive our public policy on a set of propositions that contradict well-established, systematic observations.

Quote :

"That's not science. That's philosophy."

Two of the best cases studies of philosophy's success in establishing a successful, normative rationality are scientific method and proof theory (used to ground all of mathematics in a rational foundation).

Got beef with philosophy? That's fine, but that means you've got beef with science too. Philosophy has a lot of dead ends and quacks in its history, but I think that's essential -- we need people to show that certain positions are false so we can constrain the search-space.

[Edited on November 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2007 2:25:18 PM

Quote :

"You know, we probably agree on a lot more than you think, and if you dropped the internet tough-guy act we could probably have a better conversation. But the fact of the matter is, as long as you remain so argumentative and stubborn, we're going to get nowhere."

Oh I know we agree on a lot. If I'm coming off as stubborn, it's unintentional. As I said, I'm just annoyed at your attitude on religion. Belief in religion is not at all comparable to belief in science, so it's absolutely pointless to argue one is better than the other. You might as well compare believing in angels to believing in black holes.

But yes I concede you're a rational individual that's at least trying put forth honest arguments. As I commonly tell my beloved cohorts, twista and hooksaw, try not be a dick about it

Quote :

"That said, if you don't think you would ever change your mind in an argument with me, why are you arguing?"

\

The whole "science is better than religion" thing kinda put me in a foul mood. Sorry man, you asked for it

Quote :

"Regardless of that -- beliefs that are not rationally justified should not be used to negatively affect others. Pretty much whenever somebody is trying to influence public policy based on irrationally motivated concerns as opposed to a rationally justified opinion, I'm going to be irritated. Of course I'm going to be peeved when people would rather drive our public policy on a set of propositions that contradict well-established, systematic observations. "

Signed.

Quote :

"Got beef with philosophy? "

Nope, in fact I'm a big fan of it. I enjoyed my philosophy classes immensely in college. I wrote a few extensive papers on animal rights, gay rights, and healthcare. All broad knowledge papers of course, but I liked the challenge of determing what is right. Honestly, I have a few select beefs with Church positions because of my philosophy, primarily in regards to gay rights.

See, we're agreeing already. Happy Thanksgiving everybody

11/23/2007 6:00:38 PM

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

11/23/2007 6:18:43 PM

Quote :

"An MS in 'liberal studies' is a far cry from other things that would be classified as liberal arts."

Captain Logic

Did you really think that one through? It's an MA--and the degree does not have a major printed on it. A separate certificate is presented with the interdisciplinary concentration listed on it.

11/23/2007 7:59:55 PM

^ Ahahahah so I see I was giving you too much credit, my bad.

Why don't you lay out for us what you study, what courses you take, and what kind of actual rigor your program imposes on you? You're a pretty sorry product.

11/24/2007 3:49:28 AM