Usually, it's because they haven't even read their own scriptures. And of course, you can call yourself anything you want and no one can refute your claims. The magic of prayer in which the meek can call on the laws of physics to be violated at any given time and at any whim.
What do religions base their behaviors on?
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Usually, it's because they haven't even read their own scriptures. And of course, you can call yourself anything you want and no one can refute your claims. The magic of prayer in which the meek can call on the laws of physics to be violated at any given time and at any whim.
imo, a lot of people who go to church fit those descriptions, which would be one reason i wouldn't fit in. and i'm not looking to fit in.
another reason would be that my testimony involves rock stars and aliens and genetic manipulation.
Well it doesn't appear that way.lightg said:
No your absolutely right, I've no idea what meaning you've assigned to it.lightg said:
No knowledge establishes itself within a factual base. If it were the other way round anybody could assert anything and prove it. by normative descriptions.lightg said:
Were is the this absolute, (there is no such animal) you speak of, Have you a way of establishing this evidence of these saintly persons, as the onus is on you, you have the burden, not I.lightg said:
As already said the onus is yours, your the one who claims your saintly persons can know god exists, it is your burden to prove such.lightg said:
Well Duh!lightg said:
However they would have evidence to back them up, there lies the difference.lightg said:
Usually via the evidence. whereas in you case it would be via nothing.lightg said:
However it has a myriad of normative descriptions.lightg said:
However it has a myriad of normative descriptions.lightg said:
No misunderstanding here, the word still applies.lightg said:
Most certainly when you prove your end.lightg said:
Sorry! The burden of proof is on you. There is not equal burden of proof on both sides. I simply do not believe your unsubstantiated claim. The only "claim" I make is not believing you, which is self-evident.lightg said:
You are yet to establish you have.lightg said:
But by espousing gibberish you just ain't going to do it.lightg said:
No! and no! We were originally discussing mythology and the ulterior motives of religious charities. As I said your off on a tangent.lightg said:
As you didn't like the IPU and Winnie the Pooh. Do you believe anything that Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough etc... might say, I would guess you would reject them in an instant.
Yet all of what they espouse is DISCUSSED extensively in science, not only that it has mountains of evidence to support it.
Are you suggesting that so-called saintly peoples views, as you describe them, hold more merit than these experts in their chosen fields.
A scientist earns his/her qualification's through hard work and diligence, a saintly person reads books only on supernatural unprovable notions, forms a opinion on that subject and then claims to know or have divine inspiration for the opinion he formed, this is something to be sceptical about, not something to believe without question.
If you're working with this ....
(That's just not) accepting a fact/truth with(out) experimentation and experience
.... as a definition of empiricism, it might pay to check out the link provided
I never said that it does. I think you have misread the quote
previously provided in bold italics
Actually the burden is on you since you maintain an aversion to the very way the evidence is established (otherwise a high school drop out could offer the same argument with their constant tirade of "yerfullashit" to professor of advanced physics)
and if you reject on face value the normative descriptions (ie, ways one has to be in order to validate the claim), what then?
lol
my thoughts exactly!
Basically you are arguing that because its not real, there is no evidence, and because there is no evidence it is not real.
Hopefully you don't need me to point out to you how stupid this sounds ...
It is only your assumption, born from a poor fund of knowledge that makes you think it is via nothing
I notice how you cop out a few lines down
Trying to call upon the normative descriptions of winnie the pooh illustrates clearly that you have misunderstood ... I am not asking about normative descriptions of the character (eg - what he is, who his friends are, what he looks like etc) .... I am asking for normative descriptions for persons who claim familiarity with the character (eg - exposure to mild levels of walt disney merchandising, etc) ...although I am not sure where you would go from here to try and establish normative descriptions for persons who claim that winnie the pooh is a fact ....
thanks for the cop out
Perhaps now that you've been deflated on the whole winnie the pooh thing, perhaps you can go back to the general issue of normative descriptions that surround persons making a claim of fact.
and, to take your ideas a bit further, the foundation for evidencing any claim you care to mention is qualification.
This is what the Napoleon quote illustrates so succinctly.
If you still haven't fathomed this important point, just try and evidence anything to me and I will play the role of a staunchly cynical uneducated person.
Rubbish
You are making numerous claims - namely that god is a myth, saintly persons have no means to evidence their claims, the various theistic disciplines amount to nil ... and are hinting at several more, namely that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims, all knowable claims must be capable of being brought down to reductionist models in order to be valid, etc etc
regardless of whatever knowledge base I may or may not have, if you can't comprehend or accept that evidence draws from a knowledge base you are a pedagogical flatliner.
Then just consider it a timely reminder ...claiming an idea can only be valid if it draws a majority support from resident posters on sci indicates a slack grasp of debate
to which I posted links of non-religious charities caving in to "ulterior motives", and even highlighted the ulterior motives of philanthropic dunderheads like Dawkins, .... and in response, you (for some reason) brought references of charities connected to third world economies vs charities connected to first world economies .....
As mentioned earlier, science is their field of expertise .. as opposed to philosophy and philanthropy (although admittedly Attenborough is decorated with a few cultural awards, albeit within the sphere of biological science).
All of it?
Not only do I doubt it, but other scientists too
How do the findings of these experts discredit the claim of saintly people?
Actually, to take Dawkins as an example, the only way he can discredit the claims of saintly persons is by leaving his field of expertise
Feel free to quote your sources in outlining the discipline of a saintly persons ... lest we become skeptical about the facts that prop your opinion
What link you have yet to provide a link or demonstrate why these saintly people are to be trusted.
You claimed that if something is discussed by so-called saintly people then it is true, this is asinine.
Please provide a real example of an absolute.
I have asked for evidence, if you provide evidence this conversation is over, but you have yet to do so, so the burden of proof is still on you and will always be on you until you prove your assertions.
My beliefs are born from evidence not assertions, if something can be proven through evidence and logical reasoning, I would believe it.
You only assert, all I can say is put up or shut up.
Strawman! This is a fallacy, I have said no such thing, if there is no evidence for a thing then there is no good reason to believe it, with this logic you would be believing in all sorts of nonsense ie, unicorns,fairies,FSM,IPU I could go on, and because of this your assertions are asinine.
No! it is born from the evidence or lack there of, all you have done is assert and assume, you are a hypocrite.
What cop out, I am still waiting for you to actually back up some of your claims, obviously it is to hard for you.
As opposed to what your doing now.
What I would say is germ theory, it is used in every hospital in the world, it has practical implications and cures diseases, we would not have the medical infrastructure we have today without this knowledge.http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/germtheory.aspx
As above, you have done nothing but assert and assume, an atheist does not say a god does not exist, he/her says I do not believe, these are very different, it is not an assertion it is a rejection of an assertion, you are showing your ignorance of atheism.
If that is the case then you should have no problem with providing me with the knowledge that leads to the evidence, furthermore how did you acquire the knowledge in the first place.
I find that amusing, considering the vast majority of scientist accept biological evolution and common ancestry, in fact the lead scientist of the human genome project francis colins, an evangelical christian, said that even if there were no fossil evidence for evolution, DNA would still prove common ancestry, once again you are showing your ignorance this time of evolution, so far you have not shown this so-called broad base of knowledge you claim to have.
Often because the claims they make contradict many things we know to be true, as for your rejection of Richard Dawkins, this shows how closed minded you are, Richard Dawkins is a decorated evolutionary biologist that works in one of the best universities in the world, Oxford university, to reject everything he says just because he is an atheist is asinine.
Once again please demonstrate a single instance were a saintly person has brought forth new knowledge that can be demonstrated to have furthered the human race.
actually I was talking about a wiki link for empiricism, which, to say the least, provides a more accurate run down on empiricism in the first sentence
I said absolutely nothing about saintly persons.
This is what I said.
once again, facts establish themselves within a knowledge base
what for?
Given your cynicism, I am guessing the only real absolute that you accept is "there are no real absolutes" (although even standing by this clause doesn't really stem the issues on the flood plains of one's value system)
Generally strong arguments work out of truth , which is why they avoid absolute negatives.
If you can't understand that evidence establishes itself within the realm of qualification or a knowledge base, there's no hope for any one providing you evidence of anything that is beyond your current fund of knowledge/value system (much like there is no hope for the high school drop out to be evidenced anything by the physics professor)
:shrug:
I don't understand how this is an answer to the question, "and what if one rejects the normative issues (ie ways one has to be in order to know something)?" since evidence and logical reasoning only bears fruit when rightly placed with the field of the way one has to be in order to know something.
actually I am talking about the logic of your own argument. Technically its called circular reasoning or begging the question
A poor fund of knowledge also grants the same conclusion (which of course doesn't necessarily mean that a lack of evidence in all things indicates a poor fund of knowledge ...it certainly does tend to be the case however when one insists on being situated outside the normative issues that surround the persons making the claim ... its the same plight as struggling school students the world over)
actually, the cop out was yours since you failed to provide normative descriptions for persons who are claiming winnie the pooh as factual.
Do you want to continue flogging this dead horse or do you want to move on to the real issue, namely that evidence is born out of particular knowledge bases?
Yerfullashit
or alternatively
Theirfullashit
(now what?)
You are doing far more than that.
You are contextualizing the claims of persons who are making the assertion
(BTW, for the record, so far the only assertion I have made at this point is that evidence is obedient to the knowledge base it appears in ....hence you find geologists putting forth evidence for geology, etc etc ...which of course is a bit of a no-brainer)
This is like saying that one simply does not believe in germs, while simultaneously advocating that there is not a straw of truth to the methodologies of science so there is no need for an opinion to be placed within the folds of scientific discipline in order to be considered valid
If your value system prohibits you from being rightly situated in the "ways of being", its not me who has to do the work
Oh c'mon
Dawkins does more than merely advertise the standard line for evolution and DNA
Once again, its only his forays into philosophy and philanthropy that make him look like an ass.
(BTW, still not clear on what he has exactly found that contradicts the ideas of saintly persons ... in fact on the topic of closed mindedness, I bet you haven't even read a scriptural commentary or have any sort of in depth knowledge of saintly people, so your whole rejection is simply founded in your bias)
If people don't kill each other on a regular basis to acquire goods in your neighborhood, you don't have to look too far.
Last edited:
I suggest you read more than just the first line this time, you may learn more about scientific empiricism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
This is one small example if you had read just one paragraph down.
"It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."
Wrong, you've got it arse about face, However you believe that a knowledge base comes from saintly people, so my assumption was bang on.
WOW, now this is a cop out, it is irrelevant whether or not I accept it, you should still be able to provide me with a absolute.
Yet again another cop out, it is irrelevant whether or not I accept it, you should still be able to provide me with the knowledge that leads to the evidence.
it is irrelevant what the norm or common views are, it is only what is demonstrable and has evidence to show that it is true, otherwise it is just opinion or hypothesis, we have no good reason to accept it without a reasonable basis.
My argument is simply no evidence, thus I don't believe it, Your argument seems to be a huge argument from ignorance.
Please give me an example of these normative issues you keep espousing.
Another example would be Zeus, there are scriptures claiming Zeus exists, there are still people who believe he exists, using the nonsense you espouse, you can reject Zeus, and yet believe in another unprovable god/gods.
This says it all, you reject the very basis of modern medicine, it has eradicated diseases such as smallpox, if you deny the very basis of modern medicine you have no right to partake in it.
First, geology came about through observations of the natural world, once again it has practical implications, someone didn't just have an idea then present it, in science a theory has to be testable and falsifiable, it is far more relevant than your nonsense.
With this you are either saying my definition of atheism equates to your response, which is laughably absurd, or you are saying science is nothing more than ideas, which is also laughably absurd, for obvious reason, but maybe not so obvious for you.
Another cop out, if you are a skilled debater you cannot frequent a debate forum, and not back up your assertions, otherwise that's all they will every be, this is obvious.
Irrelevant, David Attenborough is also an atheist who has been on debate shows in the UK arguing against religion, he is a fierce proponent of evolution, because evolution is demonstrably true.
I am seriously starting to question your mental faculties, it is not what Dawkins or Attenborough say, it is what is demonstrable, testable, and falsifiable. Please use your reasoning skills to figure out what I mean, its not hard.
This is not what I asked for.
What I see all over the world today is people killing each other because of religious differences, it's not the glimmer of hope you claim it to be.
Yet another cop out, you failed to answer this question, so I will ask again, put up or shut up.
Last edited:
quite a cut above your attempt to explain it don't you think ... especially when you start to dig into what significance the phrase "natural world" holds ...
wrong again
Feel free to indicate any fact that doesn't draw from a knowledge base
I'm not sure why you're asking me to provide you with an absolute (after all, I simply pointed out that a negative absolute is a fallacy) ..... and furthermore I don't know why you can't locate the absolute that I gave previously which I assume is compliant with your value system (IOW absolutes are drawn in accordance with value systems)
If you don't accept (or comprehend) that evidence is drawn from a knowledge base, how can anyone evidence anything to you?
meh
If you want to argue that there are no normative issues that surround the professionalism of a discipline of knowledge, becoming a janitor would be just as fruitful as a doing a PhD in physics
And lo and behold, the reason you say there is no evidence is because saintly people fabricate their experiences, god doesn't really exist, there are no practices to follow in regards to ascertaining the divine, empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims, any knowable claim must be reduced to the language of reductionism in order to be valid ... yada yada yada
IOW you are jam packed full of value assertions that frame your "simple" argument
as a crude example, I say that germs don't exist (and I also happen to be completely bereft of not only the skills and practices that evidence germs, but also the history of such skills and practices - ie the normative issues, or ways of being that you would hold as typical/necessary, for persons evidencing/upholding the existence of germs
Then the onus is on you to provide some sort of normative issues that surround persons who claim Zeus is factual - IOW what does a person have to be/do in order to understand the position/existence of Zeus .... although even the topic of Zeus is not such a good example since his existence can be contextualized by henological discussion
yerfullashit
now what?
testable by who exactly?
I mean janitors are also involved in making observations of the natural world too you know ....
Wrong in both cases
I am saying that if a claim of knowledge comes with some sort of method, an intelligent critique involves including that method .... and an unintelligent critique involves discrediting the method simply on the basis that the claim of knowledge is a crock.
huh?
What the hell do you think establishes evidence?
Debate?
Or getting one's hands dirty?
Then he is also doing more than towing the standard line of evolution/dna
:shrug:
and that's my point
Much of what they say, especially in regards to their critiques of religion, is not demonstrable, testable and falsifiable.
In fact its an inherent philosophical shortcoming of theirs if they think empiricism can be called upon to identify anything but the tacit.
And its an inherent philosophical shortcoming of yours to try and lodge some sort of expert criticism of saintly persons when you don't have a clue who they are ... much less what they advocate
Funny
When I read the newspapers I read mostly of people killing each other en masse due to reasons of resources vs the nations/communities/individuals who possess/covet them ... and besides that, if it wasn't for the moral framework established by religions, you wouldn't have the means to be hopeful for a more peaceful world (after all, other animals murder, rape and steal, so whats the big hang up with humans doing the same ....)
If you are not capable of getting off your laurels, "demonstrate" is probably a poor choice of word ... much like one can keep on ad infinitum with "yerfullashit" (ie simply bounce ideas off the fund of knowledge one's values permit)
LOL, demonstrate a unnatural world exist, other than in your mind.
I could say any fact that we know of, because evidence leads us to the the knowledge, germ theory is a perfect example.
If absolutes are compliant with your values, then they are arbitrary, you have just stated that there are no absolutes.
Your unwillingness or inability to defend this position demonstrates that you have no position to begin with.
The knowledge base that the physics PhD has chosen is derived from the observation and evidence gained from investigation.
LOL, I did not say fabricated I simply said his opinion.
Here is an analogy, I'm a saintly person and if I said to you that I have a dog in my garage, you know people keep dogs as pets you have seen dogs for yourself, so it does not take much to accept that statement.
But on the other hand if I said I have a dragon in my garage, you would require evidence for you to believe it, now if I was to take you to the dragon and before I open the garage I say "its an invisible dragon", you try to touch it and I say "its non-corporeal" now I say "the dragon wants you to keep Saturday vindaloo day" what reason do you have to believe anything I just said.
This is essentially what you believe.
That is the beauty of science, because you don't have to know, the evidence is there for all to see, you simply have to take the time to read scientific journals, if you are unwilling to do so that is your problem.
WOW! so can any god, very weak statement.
http://www.nationalfilmnetwork.com/store/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=182
unwillingness to accept it as fact is blatant foolishness.
It can be tested by anybody who wishes to test it, I mean how can you be so stupid.
From what you have said so far, you are obviously the latter.
Debate does not establish new evidence, it simply refines the evidence that has already be collected/observed.
LOL, So the act of disagreement with theology leads to incredulity in your opinion, this is so incredibly asinine.
Not at all, if the god/gods you believe in interacts with the world, answers prayers etc... Then it is natural and testable by very definition, if you believe god/gods doesn't interact with the world then it is irrelevant.
Because humans are social animals we have to live together, we answer to each other, animals do not have malicious intent, it is survival, were as humans do have malicious intent.
Were are these religious morals established, modern society is secular in nature.
Take Christianity for example, only about two commandments are actually part of modern society, and later it commands its followers to kill without discrimination, even to take sex slaves, when any religion is scrutinised it is found wanting.
Morals are an emergent property of our social nature, I would argue that you do not get your morals from your religious belief.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Once again you are avoiding answering the question, which is likely because you have no good reason to believe anything they say, but are unwilling to admit it.
Obviosly your position it incredably tentative.
Or more to the point, once one examines how the natural world is demonstrated, one can then fathom what such a world view is and isn't capable of approaching.
the facts of germs are well and truly lodged in a knowledge base (and interestingly enough, the earliest source being vedic).
try again
actually I am stating what I guess to be the absolute in your world view ... which clearly shows just because an individual's values are in accordance with an absolute, says absolutely nothing about whether it is arbitrary or not (after all, they might simply be in agreement with the right idea)
Your inability to accept the standard measure of how anything is evidenced clearly illustrates your position
actually pedagogically speaking, application and reflection occur after theory
err ... which radically changes the thrust of your argument in what way in particular?
actually the essence of what I believe is that any knowable claim has the potential to be credible when it is lodged in accordance with normative descriptions of how one has to be in order to validate it.
IOW an investigation of a claim of knowledge begins with an investigation of the ways one has to be in order to validate it.
I've said this about a thousand times already, but for some reason you find it more attractive to cut down two dimensional arguments that I haven't even lodged.
the reality of science is that the claims are lodged within normative issues of how one has to be in order to validate a claim (that's how peer reviewing works).
This is not a unique aspect of science.
It is a general principle that all knowable claims are obedient too
Not really
It depends on the corner stones one is laying down for henological discussion. For instance the entire greek pantheon is said to have emanated from the chos (or "void" ... which is where we get the word "chasm") so at the onset none of them can be ruled as the summum bonum, cause of all causes etc (Which, as it happens, is the foundation for Plato establishing a monistic world view with the theory of forms, etc) ... or even to take it a step further, practically the entire greek philosophy is established in the notion that the mind is the highest element of existence (which is problemitized by notions of individuality in the field of action, etc), so it can be further dissected from that view.
Of course, one can also discuss the issue from the vantage point of people who have no knowledge of these things and things can proceed like a coffee room full of janitors.
Right back at ya!
Golly
Since the hourly rate for a forensic scientist to appear in a court room to provide evidence from a crime scene is about ten times higher than a janitor, it kind of makes you wonder why people are so stupid to shell out the extra bucks when its a case of any joe being able to deliver the goods
Actually the only critique I have offered so far is a satirical parody of yours in regards to germ theory
hence debate is not going to help you gather anything
the disagreement is simply that - a disagreement. What is asinine however is poaching from the authority of science in order to lend credibility to one's weak attempts at philosophy
god also happens to work out of a grander position than a vending machine ... so any claims by dawkins et al about the actual nature of the divine and how it could/should be testable screw up at the onset since they have a faulty definition that they base their working model on
animals don't have to live together?
humans don't have malicious intent?
\chortle
This sentence needs some extra grammar to make sense.
If one can't discriminate between a principle and a detail of application its easy to get confused.
For instance if one is ignorant of the principles that govern international conflict, one could see the detail of the usa's dropping of nuclear warheads on japan as a big thumbs up for its ok to nuke the asians
then you have just left the secure barricade of hard science
There's no good reason to think that a person who insists on sitting on their laurels (and judging all claims of knowledge from their pre-existing knowledge base) can be evidenced or demonstrated anything.
What to speak of god, not even the president of the usa can be demonstrated to such a doofus.
:shrug:
Last edited:
LOL, So you can't demonstrate a unnatural world, so what good reason have you got to believe in it?
I think you are missing the point, germs were not proven until the evidence was observed, a scientist would not have state germs as a fact until he had a good reason ie. evidence.
I have already said I don't accept absolutes, If peoples absolutes are different then they are indeed arbitrary, also you have yet to give an example of an absolute, your previous attempt was a judgement not an absolute, also how do they clarify they have the right idea.
You have yet to give any example of how anything is evidenced, you have claimed discussion, but not backed it up, so your statement is moot.
I think you don't understand what the word theory even means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
As teachers work from a syllabus, they do not establish new evidence.
Because your statement was a strawman.
That makes no rational sense what so ever, so what your saying is that if you haven't walked a mile in someone shoes you don't know anything about them, and this proves what, it does not demonstrate what you truly mean.
Do you mean you must know Darwin or Newton in order to understand their theories, which is not hard to refute, that's the beauty of the written language.
You could say it another thousand times and no one would accept it because its nonsense, it cannot prove a thing.
LOL, clearly you don't understand science whatsoever, peer review works by and scientist in any field, brings a hypothesis that has evidence to support it then his/her peers then take that hypothesis and test it and falsify it, if it is demonstrated to be correct then it graduates as a theory, the pinnacle of any scientific idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Your first statement in this paragraph shows that this is also arbitrary in nature, the rest seems to be a variation of the first cause argument.
What I don't think you realise is that I can say any modern interpretation of god and you could not prove your god/gods to be true, therefore your argument is moot.
I don't see what you are trying to prove with this little exercise, because all you have shown so far is that a stubborn uneducated bigot will be a stubborn uneducated bigot, which does not further your argument whatsoever.
WOW, you seem to have a comprehension problem, you would have to know something about it, OBVIOUSLY, and are you saying that all janitors are stupid, little discriminatory don't you think.
You have just admitted that debate/discussion does not establish new evidence, so what have you been arguing all this time?
First, how do you determine that they are weak attempts, without being biased in nature.
Second, philosophy is a part of science, a very small part but a part nonetheless, Dawkins uses logical arguments and reason to discuss whether or not a god exist, theists have been doing this for centuries, why is it not ok for an atheist to do it, all I can say is you are a very biased, unfair and single minded individual.
Once again you have missed the point completely, science is the study of the natural world, if a god does anything and I mean anything within the natural world then it becomes natural, then it becomes testable by science, it does not matter what you say, this will always be the case.
Yes animals do have to live together, in apes such as chimpanzees we can see the beginnings of our altruistic behaviour, but this is not a surprise considering that hominids are apes.
Humans do have malicious intent because they can consider their actions, animals on the other hand work on instinct and survival, even we revert back to instinct and survival in some situations.
You are an absolute moron if you cannot understand this statement, it is perfectly coherent.
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Once again it seems to be a argument from ignorance, if you are saying that the commandments are just guidelines, then they do not matter, and theists cannot claim moral superiority.
There are scientific explanation for morals.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/asullivan.html
Plus if you were to ask people around the world both religious or non-religious, you will get hundreds of different answers, morals are just as arbitrary as absolutes.
Still unwilling to answer the question, I don't think you even know what you believe, you have made contradictory statements, most of which are vague and nebulous, you have yet the back up any of what you say, because of your stubbornness not to even answer a simple question, plus your fundamental lack of understanding of science, demonstrates your are a imbecile.
I'll try and say it more simply this time.
Actually I said nothing of an "unnatural" world, although I did make a point about how certain world views (or "demonstrations", if you like) are consequences of certain epistemological takes.
IOW to say that a "natural" world is the consequence of accepting an empirical world view is no more surprising than saying that accepting a thermometer provides a means to gauge temperature (and not, say, distance)
I think you miss the point - such establishment of evidence takes place within a field of knowledge - how else do you think an idea that takes the course of establishing itself as "proven" traverses the controversy eg
IOW why the controversy if the idea is self evident?
so I was right.
The absolute you accept is that there are no absolutes
Your absolute(s) (as given above for example) are different from mine. Does that mean that they are both arbitrary?
Or are you simply convinced that your absolute maxim is the true one and mine are false to the degree that they contradict yours?
It was a judgment about what I assumed what I assumed was your absolute.
It has proved correct.
As for having the right idea, lets see how you handle explaining how you are the one who is right.
Oh gimme a break.
I've stated 100 times that evidence is proven by working out of a specific knowledge base. As a further detail, I've also explained numerous times that the work of establishing it within the knowledge base is the duty of persons who meet certain professional qualifications (or ways of "being").
This explains why forensic scientists have one set of core skills in the pursuit of their duties and janitors another, even though both are technically involved in "observing the natural world".
OK?
Actually I was talking about something else.
I don't think you understand what pedagogy means.
Let me make it easy for you.
What do you suppose students spend at least 1 or 2 years doing before they are involved in any serious sort of lab work?
IOW why do you suppose there is a modicum of theory taught before moving into application?
That still doesn't explain how your claim that they are merely hosting an opinion as opposed to a frabrication makes any great change to your argument.
I mean are you suggesting that the opinions are lodged in fact or fiction?
It means Darwin and Newton lodged specific claims within a scientific language, and if one wants to gather the full gamut of their contributions, it behooves one to also be familiar with not only their language, but also the way that they went about establishing their findings (regardless whether one is setting out to accept or critique their claims.
For instance, in the case of Darwin, a critique or acceptance of his ideas doesn't look good if one doesn't understand the implication of terms like species and genus, and if one doesn't have an understanding of the unique position of Galapagos Islands, etc.
In the same way, your critique of theism doesn't look good because not only are you ignorant of the specific terms, ideas, text critical issues and historical contexts of the claims, but also the persons who have made the claims (granted that you have heard of jesus)
:shrug:
Perhaps only in your ears ... but that's because you reject the standard measure that anything, even anything in science, is evidenced
clearly you don't read the links you post
Its not "any scientist in any field"
Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs.
Ever wondered why there aren't many astronomers that peer review the claims of biologists and vice versa (assuming that they don't have a double portfolio of both biology and astronomy)?
The first statement in the paragraph establishes that a certain value must be held as intrinsic to an object/article in order for discussion to progress. Doesn't really matter whether the topic of discussion is god or water, since the same general principle applies (feel free to explain how a discussion of water could progress if it is not established that it is liquid, H2O, or whatever).
In the case of god, it begins by establishing that a primary characteristic is being the summum bonum etc ... as opposed to some potent personality (if you want to discuss demigods, that's a different category).
Not sure what is causing you to think that what I offered are modern (or even any modern) interpretation of ancient greece.
Perhaps its all new to you.
However if you do want to talk of playing in an arena where any modern interpretation can be thrown in to the ante, then what better place to be than the janitor coffee room
I think you miss the point of the exercise.
I was parodying you.
You have practically no knowledge of the terms, practices, historical contexts, personalities or central themes and ideas that surround theism, yet you insist that your opinion carries weight.
This is remarkably similar to an uneducated buffoon who denies scientific claims while remaining grossly ignorant of the personalities, practices and historical contexts that surround them.
And also equally obvious, is that if they know something about it, they have come some distance on meeting the professional demands of the duty
Actually I said that janitors aren't decked out with the necessary skills to be a forensic scientist (and to think you accused me of having a comprehension problem).
If you can't figure this, go hire a forensic scientist to clean your work place and call upon the skills of a janitor to investigate a crime scene.
Afterwards do a cost/proficiency analysis and get back to us with the results ....
that your argument is critically flawed of course
(I don't have to provide new evidence since it comes straight from your keyboard)
If its possible to be a great scientists and a lousy philosopher, one cannot lodge the claim That "X is a great scientist therefore he must be a great philosopher" without sounding weak,.
IOW if one wants to be heralded as both a great scientist and philosopher, one has to meet the critical demands of both positions
sure
but as previously mentioned, that small part has tacit explanations as the playing field
There are also lousy theist philosophers (wiki Fideism for example).
I am not aware of any logical arguments forthcoming from Dawkins. To think that one can determine the non/existence of god with tacit language is, philosophically speaking, like trying to jump over one's knees.
A little bit of familiarity with philosophy would make this apparent.
In a world where the senses and their objects of perception are the highest element, yes that would be true.
In this world however, such a world view results in a mere metonymic slice.
Why talk of god, you can't even properly analyze a cup of flour with such means.
they also rape, steal and murder, so there's still no reason to get hung up over humans doing the same
hehe
just try and put this sound bite out to your atheist buddies and the will probably think you have become a theist
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi (I can't help but notice lots of typos and grammar mistakes in your posts ... maybe english isn't your first language ... no probs though), but when you typed this ...
... did you mean to use something else other than "were are"
eg Wherever there are religious morals established, modern society is secular in nature ???
"Were" designates a state of being (eg - "If I were a carpenter ...") and it doesn't make sense in your sentence. Often it gets mixed up with "where" "we're" "wear" etc.
Just sayin'
Well for a start, you are talking about christianity as opposed to some over arching principle of theism.
But even to take Christianity as a category, it has gone through several stages of development, ranging from being a minority, made up by reformed jews at the early period, getting a big shake up by a huge influx of pagans a few hundred years later (reaches the high point with constantine), and even later getting absorbed into a nationalistic sense of identity (which is where aquinas et al come on the scene with their political theory , or ideas of "indiscriminate" killing, as you put it ... although I think its the nature of political theory that one has a very clear discriminatory image of who one is killing ).
I could go on, but there are loads of historical issues that surround the movement of Judaic ideals into the christian narrative or even modern life in general (I mean you also might be aghast that practically all modern day jews in NYC live in blatant disregard to the scriptural injunctions regarding camel maintenance).
Even Christians will commonly cite this as the general principle to guide all details of application surrounding the ten commandments
In the New Testament, Jesus repeated some of the commandments in Matthew 19:16–19[43] and condensed them into two general commands in another:
‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
So, just like there are a host of details surrounding the international conflict between japan and the USA during WW2, a proper understanding of the general principle enables one to understand that there is not any substantial long lasting animosity between the two nations (unlike say the length and degree of animosity that existed - and arguable still lingers to some small degree - between russia and USA - even though both were allies during WW2 and neither of them have detonated nuclear warheads at each other). IOW if you took the detail of detonating nuclear warheads/being an ally as being sufficient to indicate the principles of international conflict, you would have a totally warped view of the events post WW2.
Such is the folly of confusing a detail for a general principle.
sure
and such ideas run on different models than hard science
kind of like if you ask different medical practitioners about courses of treatment you will get hundreds of different answers from massage, to injections, to surgery .... or if you go around the world and look at traditionally painted trees, you will get hundreds of different representations, from Navajo icons to renaissance oils ... nevertheless its easy enough to categorize such things into holistic terms of "beneficial health practices" or "tree paintings" or "practices of spiritual emancipation"
If you are still unwilling to accept the general standard of how (and to who) evidence is revealed you can't even approach such simple questions of the presidency of the usa, what to speak of anything to do with science and religion.
:shrug:
Last edited:
I'll try and say it more simply this time.
An assertion that a god exists is an assertion that a unnatural/supernatural realm exists.
Its quite simple, it traverses the controversy through gaining evidence to support itself.
Its called honesty you should try it some time.
no idea is self evident, it needs evidence to support.
Unless you can demonstrate one, your statement is once again a judgement and not an absolute.
Not at all, I would never be so arrogant and closed minded, but the person I am talking to right now has been closed minded, intellectually dishonest and arrogant, because you have asked me question and I have answered them to the best of my ability, but when I ask you questions, you don't even have the decency to answer them, very dishonest of you.
I used the wrong word when I said accept, I should have used the word believe, and I apologise for that.
As I have stated before, if evidence is brought forth my views will change, I am open to the possibility, if it is demonstrable.
Plus, even if absolutes exist, it does not prove god, because you cannot get from "there are absolutes" to "there are absolutes because"
ROFL, yes you have stated, but not demonstrated, evidence is evidence it does not need to be proven, because it is demonstrable.
Please grasp this simple premise.
This I partially agree with, apart from the "ways of being" which sounds suspect to me, you are adding something that doesn't need to be there.
Because it is necessary for understanding, it is a form of work experience.
Because it doesn't imply dishonesty on their part, only that they are mistaken.
The difference is that one can travel to the Galapagos, grab a hand full of soil, see the wildlife etc, the claims of ancient authors are all subjective in nature.
I have already demonstrated that you are the one that rejects the standard measure that anything, even anything in science, is evidenced, by the links I provided about scientific theory and peer review, it is you sir that have it arse backwards.
Not at all, I never stated that, you asked who tests it, and I gave a true response, that anybody can find the information and test it for themselves if they wish to.
That's your fault for being so vague, but to confirm it, it needs to be certified scientist.
So your arguing a god of the gaps mentality, I shouldn't need to point out the fallacy, but I will.
First, your are answering an unknown with an unknown, this is obviously flawed.
Second, why does the universe need a beginning.
This is a huge strawman, I think it was more a self portrait, you are incredibly hypocritical.
I think you should lay off the acid, it warps your grasp on reality, remember, just say no!
You do have a comprehension problem, I have given you links to refute what you have said, but you have provided no link to refute what I say, only stated your opinion, and you claim to have a better grasp of science than I do, arrogant much! ignorant a lot.
As I stated before I have provided links to refute your argument, you have not reciprocated, only stated your opinion, so once again you've got this arse backwards as well.
From your statement, you do not say a scientist cannot be a good philosopher, so I don't see what your objection is.
So I'll ask again, "how do you determine that there arguments are weak from a philosophical stand point.
So you are making the assumption that I am not at one with my subjective mind.
You have yet to demonstrate that the world is more than our sense, so your arguing the god of the gaps again.
You have a comprehension problem again, as I stated before humans have to live together in communities, if we went around raping stealing and murdering that community would not survive, wake up man.
Not at all, it is a statement of fact.
Once again you seem to not understand atheism, atheist don't have a doctrine or scripture to look to for what we believe, the only thing atheist have to agree on is lack of belief in a god, everything else is subject to their own interpretation/opinion.
English is my first language, of course you meant to be a grammar Nazi, otherwise you would have never have said anything, you are trying to belittle me, because your arguments are failing, to criticise someone's grammar and spelling is the dirtiest tactic there is in debate.
You are also hypocritical in this assessment, when I post my comments I see many red lines under your writing.
Now you resort to quote mining, your argument must really be falling apart.
So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one.
Stubborn aren't you, its almost like talking to a stubborn little five year old, you have failed yet again to answer one of the most important questions I have asked you, you just don't grasp the importance of this question do you.
Its clear why you don't because the moment you do your argument will fall apart.
I am going to give you an ultimatum now, if you do not answer this question in your next post, then I will not reply to you.
Or, to bring the discussion to bear on your statements, the assertion that god exists is an assertion that empiricism is not sufficient to reveal the full extent of reality (although the same aspect can also be drawn from a cup of flour, since the definitions of empiricism are forever relegated to the metonymic) ... IOW the "natural" world has broader implications than the glass ceiling promulgated by empiricism
and hence the knowledge base grows ....
actually its called a knowledge base, and since it has been seen to fall on it's ass from time to time (like heliocentricism for example) or even be host to a hidden agenda (like when eurocentricism was in its hey day), "honesty" is probably not the right word for it
ha
Its the nature of values that they provide the ground work for demonstrations as opposed to being demonstrable per see
For instance, just try and demonstrate that there are no absolutes (hint - it would also require that it demonstrate your omniscience)
Geez
If you spent as much time actually answering questions as you did staging on your soap box, this discussion might actually go somewhere
The problem is that you believe empiricism has the monopoly on all demonstrable claims, hence you reduce the aperture of evidence that can be brought before you ... much like if one exclusively accepts a thermometer for all issues of measurement all that they will really be able to deal with is temperature and not much more.
As for myself ... I don't have any problems with empiricism ... works fine for crossing the street or reformatting one's hard drive .. perfectly lousy for offering ontological boundaries for the universe, consciousness, etc
At the moment I am just trying to bring you to the table of absolutes and help you recognize why absolute negatives are philosophically useless
well I must admit, "evidence is evidence" is quite simple .. generally however it is padded out through an examination of the epistemological issues that surround it ...
originally I tied it in with "normative descriptions" but you went off on a tangent with winnie the pooh
so there you have it
theory => application => conclusion
The general outline for all pedagogical models
So you are relegating their claims to fiction, yes?
How many people who claim a broad understanding of Darwin have ever been to the Galapagos islands ... or for that matter even examined a handful of soil?
Or even if for arguments sake one went there, what would be the use in examining anything there unless one had some degree of theory and training in biological science?
A lack of training also renders a visit to the Galapagos Islands similarly futile and fruitless
strangely enough, the peer reviewing link doesn't suggest its open to "anyone who wants to"
you said "anyone who wants to" can test it.
The link clearly says otherwise
:shrug:
(snip)
just to cut you short, no I am not arguing that.
I am arguing that discussion of any said object requires that some quality or characteristic be attributed to it.
If you don't believe me, just try and lodge a discussion about water or anything as simple or complex as you like and I will point it out to you immediately.
Relax.
Its just satire that utilizes the same general principles of your arguments
Actually I was just clarifying my position on janitors.
Al I said was that they don't have the core skills of forensic scientists.
It wasn't so much a criticism of your grasp of science but a criticism of your views of to whom evidence is validated by.
the problem is that the links devalue your argument ... so you are kind of getting philosophically falcon punched at the moment
the objection is your rallying to the philosophical cause of Dawkins et al at the expense of all others on the strength of his scientific merit ... I am just painfully reminding you that philosophical merit remains distinct from scientific merit
so far all you have offered is that he/they are (a) great scientist(s), so how can they possibly be philosophically wrong.
If you want to try and lay some of their arguments, be my guest, but at the moment what you are laying on the table at the moment sinks like a stone
No
I am reminding you that empiricism does not have scope to anything but tacit language (or to put it another way, it is forever relegated a metonymic view of the world)
If you can't even get a full sensual grasp of a cup of flour, it should be clear
why?
Its the standard ordeal of many species and they seem to be doing just fine
then I challenge you to post a thread on what you think characterizes humans as distinct from animals and watch from which camp the criticism piles up on
I simply stated that a sentence didn't make sense.
You responded that I was a moron.
So I took you to task and went in to detail why it doesn't make sense.
The sentence still doesn't make sense.
It was probably just a typo I guess ....
:shrug:
probably because you are using a US spell checker and don't have an elaborate dictionary that recognizes words like metonymic, henology or heliocentricism.
I also make the odd typo too.
But if I type anything that seems to defy basic issues of sentence structure, just ask and I will clarify it for you
I am just trying to understand why you called me a moron for asking what the hell this sentence means
Were are these religious morals established, modern society is secular in nature.
:shrug:
by comprehending issues of the general principle, as opposed to getting waylaid by details of course ... so for instance once one has a clear understanding of what constitutes a beneficial medical practice, one can then sift through the myriad of medical practices to sort the good, the bad and the ugly ... or what constitutes a detail according to time, place and circumstance
I think its obvious you were being pwd from the beginning.
g'night pavlos
Last edited:
Are you serious, a belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, while truth is an objective state independent of the individual. I.E. a fact.
For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.
Knowledge is a belief that is true and justified, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant proposition is true, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. The justification of the belief MUST necessitate its truth. In other words, the justification for the belief must be infallible.
Given the first statement (bolded) of yours, I don't think you can claim victory. The above statement was written by an imbecile, there is no doubt.
so what do you rate the claim "there are no absolutes" as?
a fact?
a belief?
a value?
a subjective personal bias?
ha!
Just try and explain how one can arrive at a fact while bypassing value and lets see whether you fall in a ditch
This will be the one and only comment I will make to you, as I will not have a battle of wits with someone as evasive and dishonest as you.
But I know you will reply, because like a teenager, you always have to have the last word.
You don't follow your own rules.
It is impossible to debate someone who ignores important questions that could make the difference within the debate, so I understand pavlos's frustration.
Goodbye, have a nice day.
But I know you will reply, because like a teenager, you always have to have the last word.
"If your value system prohibits you from being rightly situated in the "ways of being", then you cannot make these determinations.
You don't follow your own rules.
So in order to evidence a rock, one has to be a rock.
You ignored perfectly relevant questions that were impossible for you to give a rational reply to, so I am afraid it was you that derailed the discussion my friend.
It is impossible to debate someone who ignores important questions that could make the difference within the debate, so I understand pavlos's frustration.
Goodbye, have a nice day.
Last edited:
Given your last post I dont think it would be fair of me to debate you as It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped.lightgigantic said:
Seriously, it seem you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.
however I wil humour you this one time.
Nothing exists in absolutes, philosophy and science have so far been unable to establish any. Because of this problem, we find nothing they are able to call an objective, absolute truth or even an absolute moral value.
So a fact is all it can be. A value is only as good as the evidence base it has, without it it is worthless, has no usefulness, and is unimportant. A belief, as said earlier MUST have infallible evidence, and therefore the latter two are merely subjective personal bias's.
You would only bypass a value if the said value is baseless, evidenceless and as such valueless.lightgogantic said:
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him are trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other than ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia".
Last edited:
With 82 posts in over 5 years, I wouldn't expect you to.
(BTW where have you been all this time? In the sock drawer?)
Well I guess I will just leave it at this then
adios
Last edited: