|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief Versus The Scientific Method | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Phat's old friend writes: The only proof we have that the Battle of Waterlooever took place is that we have had reports to that effect. These reports are not given us bv people who saw it happen, but are based on other reports: reports of reports of reports, which go back ulti- mately to the first-hand reports given by people who did see it hap- pening. As someone who knows a bit of history I call bullshit. Obviously any battle of that magnitude leaves a huge amount of physical evidence. In the case of Waterloo the evidence is mainly bullets, cannon shell fragments, military knickknacks like coat buttons, and if lucky, discarded weapons and so on. In addition, there is no law that prevents a given individual from reading a primary source. Since they were there and the testimony is an eyewitness account, such testimony is considered gold-standard by historians, unless such an account conflicts with others. I know this because I have read several. Phat, your old friend is full of shit, period. . Edited by anglagard, : Clumsy sentence unworthy of a technical writer. Edited by anglagard, : Screwed up the edit, time to wind down and go to bed, The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing. If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do. Republican = death
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
LIT&A writes: So where did you get all your information on Waterloo? Through books. Through words. So how is Hayakawa wrong? All our knowledge of history, for example, comes to usonly in words. It puzzled me why an old liberal Librarian would chafe at a minor error that my "old friend", SI Hayakawa wrote in his book, Language In Thought & Action. Either you were a bit tired when snapping off such a comment or there was a sort of spiritual conflict behind your criticism. Then I saw it...in Hayakawas biography:
political affiliation: Republican Party Old hippie AZPaul3 also agreed with you. The Biography provided a clue to one of old Hayakawas flaws.
quote:Old Hippies never die. They simply continue dreaming of one day overthrowing the "establishment". Edited by Phat, : added sentence"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Lets say we go with your belief that there is no God. Living things die in this universe. Entire planets get wiped out on a regular basis. Some of them likely have life...perhaps even advanced life such as ourselves. So I guess its easy to give "Fate" a free pass.
So now lets imagine that the God of Genesis 7 does exist. Since when is little science monkey AZ justified at being angry with the Creator? Could it be that you simply chafe at His wanton authority and power, preferring the much more likely scenario that humans will rule each other through our own minds? You DO realize that in this century we are much more likely to wipe out every living thing than God is.(Should He exist) But of course without evidence how could we even imagine a God? Oh wait...that's right...the hippies and liberals are enamored over Spinozas polite god. I almost forgot! "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Phat, the party affiliation of the author is not the point. The quote about Waterloo is just wrong. Way wrong.
Not only is anglagard right about all the direct physical evidence at the site but there were news columns and direct reports with identified writers all contemporary with the events sent throughout the world by the dozens for months. The evidence of the event is legion. Your gospels weren't given any thought until a century after the supposed events then written by nobody knows who. If you want to compare efficacy of each claim then the number and conduct of stories of Waterloo leave no doubt that the battle actually occurred with the outcome that is now, this day, in our history books, while your gospels are considered historically suspect at best.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
So I guess its easy to give "Fate" a free pass. We don't really have much choice. This universe would just as soon kill us as stare at us for 4 billion years. Fate walks her own path and ignores god just like she ignores everyone and everything else.
Since when is little science monkey AZ justified at being angry with the Creator? Since about 10th grade. And not angry with but more of an ignoring of thing.
Could it be that you simply chafe at His wanton authority and power ... Naw, He doesn't have any so that's not an issue.
...hippies and liberals are enamored over Spinozas polite god. What's so enamoring about Spinoza's god is that he wasn't real. He didn't exist. In his place Brother Baruch put the majesty of the secular universe.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I'm not at all sure what this thread is about.
When you are driving your car, you could close your eyes, pray and allow Jesus to guide you. But you don't do that. You look around to see where you are going and to avoid accidents. You depend on perception, rather than on faith. Science works in pretty much the same way as perception, except that it is more organized and more systematic. If you reject science, you might as well reject perception.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: No. rather more like comparing the belief in science with the belief in God. I'll explain more fully as I develop my argument/assertion.
Belief vs the scientific method? As in compare and contrast for efficacy? Isn't that like comparing a Dick and Jane reader with the Feynman lectures? AZ writes: We are trying to nail down your assertions that "science rules" and that we could even define anything superior to an actual living objective. The difference in efficacy has been established and recognized for quite some time, now. I'm afraid it's well past time to think anyone here could effectively challenge the conclusion already reached that science is the superior ontology. Your objective appears to be to "use" (utilize) science on a daily basis and as a lifestyle to determine reality and the best course of action.My objective ts to know Christ(as living and active) and to know His will for my life and routine. jar would ask me how I would know. ringo would charge me with ignoring what He says to do in scripture. I challenge and deny ringos assertion unless it is taken word for word literal and I am failing simply because I refuse to give everything up. I dismiss ringos accusations due to the fact that he doesnt even believe in a character alive apart from the inked words and symbols within the book itself. He would argue that it doesnt matter whether the character of jesus is alive apart from the written word or not. He would say that i wont listen and do what Jesus says to do. I would argue that none are righteous and that no one does what Jesus said collectively to do. So, what is the purpose of this thread? Keep arguing. Its what we do here. Edited by Phat, : No reason given."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
AZ writes: Sounds like you are "worshiping" or acknowledging the creation (physical matter) more than you are the Creator(real or imagined) This universe would just as soon kill us as stare at us for 4 billion years. Fate walks her own path and ignores god just like she ignores everyone and everything else.AZ writes: Oedipus Complex writ large? And not angry with but more of an ignoring of thing.Could it be that you simply chafe at His wanton authority and power ... AZ writes: At least not in your mind. You wanna be the Boss there!
Naw, He doesn't have any so that's not an issue. What's so enamoring about Spinoza's god is that he wasn't real. He didn't exist. In his place Brother Baruch put the majesty of the secular universe. The majesty of the secular universe! The majesty of Creation over a Creator. Do I see a pattern here?"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
We are trying to nail down your assertions that "science rules" and that we could even define anything superior to an actual living objective. Science rules when there are options, splits in the path, where one path is determined by science and the other(s) contrary to science. The science path is, de facto, the only path actually realistically open. Science rules.
Your objective appears to be to "use" (utilize) science on a daily basis and as a lifestyle to determine reality and the best course of action. I am an acolyte, not a priest. My duties do not require I submit all emotion and action to deep scientific analysis. I still order in pizza when I want. When my brain gets that urge. Actually it's more of me following the executive decision to order in pizza emanating from my subconscious mind which went through a complex interplay of neuronic stimulation methodologies before issuing the decision to the consciousness for specific action. But just because I know this doesn't diminish my enjoyment (another set of complex neuronic stimulations) of eating the pizza and sipping a nice cabernet. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Sounds like you are "worshiping" or acknowledging the creation (physical matter) more than you are the Creator(real or imagined) On that level you might consider it's kinda hard not to believe in something that is physically, demonstrably, real. You may call it worship, I'll call it sanity. Your creator, on the other hand, not so much. Again, sanity.
Oedipus Complex writ large? Cute, but, no. Can't be angry at a god that isn't there and I was quite happy, as I recall I was ecstatic, that this whole god thing was fake and I could ignore it all.
AZ writes:
At least not in your mind. You wanna be the Boss there!Naw, He doesn't have any so that's not an issue. Ooo, if only it were real. It'd be a freakin disaster but still if there could be gods and I could be boss! Hallelujah!
The majesty of the secular universe! The majesty of Creation over a Creator. Do I see a pattern here? I sure hope so. Care to join us? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Not only do you refuse to do what He said but you dismiss the Bible as a "dusty old book".
ringo would charge me with ignoring what He says to do in scripture. Phat writes:
I wouldn't use the word "literal" but I do insist that it says what it says. You assert that it doesn't mean what it says but you can't back up that assertion.
I challenge and deny ringos assertion unless it is taken word for word literal... Phat writes:
You refuse to give ANYTHING up. You worship every word that cometh out of the mouths of the apologists even though you don't understand them.
...and I am failing simply because I refuse to give everything up. Phat writes:
How many times do we have to go through this? I don't have to believe Frodo existed to know what he said. Why don't you address that point instead of just repeating the same old foolish accusation? If I claimed that Frodo was communing with me and telling me that the "dusty old book" was wrong, you'd think I was stark, staring mad. So why is your claim any different?
I dismiss ringos accusations due to the fact that he doesnt even believe in a character alive apart from the inked words and symbols within the book itself. Phat writes:
And that's another argument that you never address.
He would argue that it doesnt matter whether the character of jesus is alive apart from the written word or not. Phat writes:
None are righteous BECAUSE they don't do what Jesus said. It's not an excuse (see the case of sheep v goats).
He would say that i wont listen and do what Jesus says to do. I would argue that none are righteous... Phat writes:
That's blatantly false. As I have pointed out many times, the early church did it (see Ananias and Sapphira). And throughout history, many religious communities have done it, Christian and otherwise. ...and that no one does what Jesus said collectively to do. Stop repeating the same old same old falsehoods and address the responses."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: I don't have to believe Frodo existed to know what he said. Why don't you address that point instead of just repeating the same old foolish accusation? OK. Using your analogy... If I claim that I have a "personal relationship" with Frodo, you may well respond that Frodo is simply a character in a book. That would be expected. But what you are essentially doing is acknowledging that I believe that Frodo exists and then attempting to hold me to the Frodo in the book...which you claim is the only Frodo who exists. And If I then claim that Frodo transcends the book and that a bit of Frodo exists in ALL of us, you will declare it all to be fantasy and then go back to Tolkien's "Bible" and insist that Frodo (of the book) clearly says to do A, B, and C and that I simply make up my Frodo and don't do the A,B, and C that Tolkien wrote HIS Frodo to do. Why accuse me? I channel my inner Frodo. All that you attempt to claim is that the dusty old book says what it says, period. Never mind that most Christians would not agree with you. And never mind that there are more Frodos out there than simply the one in the Lord of the Rings. (or the Hobbit)"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
And never you mind, Phat, that there are many thousands more Jesuses out there than the one you have in mind. Republican ones, blond Caucasian ones, misogynistic ones, very nice and pleasant ones...... Lots of ‘em.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If I claim that I have a "personal relationship" with Frodo, you may well respond that Frodo is simply a character in a book. That would be expected. But what you are essentially doing is acknowledging that I believe that Frodo exists and then attempting to hold me to the Frodo in the book...which you claim is the only Frodo who exists. And If I then claim that Frodo transcends the book and that a bit of Frodo exists in ALL of us, you will declare it all to be fantasy and then go back to Tolkien's "Bible" and insist that Frodo (of the book) clearly says to do A, B, and C and that I simply make up my Frodo and don't do the A,B, and C that Tolkien wrote HIS Frodo to do.
It seems to me that you have done a pretty good job of debunking your own view.
I channel my inner Frodo.
We all channel our internal values. But why personify them? What's important is to recognize that we might be mistaken, and that we might need adjust our values accordingly. The willingness to admit that you could be mistaken -- I've always taken that to be part of Christian humility. But I don't see much of that humility when I look at American conservative Christianity.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It has nothing to do with me acknowledging your belief. It's about YOU rejecting my argument BECAUSE I don't believe. The whole point of bringing up Frodo is to try to get you to understand that my lack of belief in the character has nothing to do with my understanding of the character.
But what you are essentially doing is acknowledging that I believe that Frodo exists and then attempting to hold me to the Frodo in the book... Phat writes:
Then you need to present something more than just a belief that Frodo is whispering in your ear (and telling you that Tolkien got it all wrong).
And If I then claim that Frodo transcends the book and that a bit of Frodo exists in ALL of us... Phat writes:
I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm pointing out that your inner Frodo IS just an inner Frodo with no basis in reality, not even any basis in the fantasy it's based on. Why do you call it Frodo at all? Why not call it Holden? Why accuse me? I channel my inner Frodo. All that you attempt to claim is that the dusty old book says what it says, period. And do you see how silly your position looks when we substitute "Frodo" for "Jesus"?
Phat writes:
There really aren't. And never mind that there are more Frodos out there than simply the one in the Lord of the Rings. (or the Hobbit)"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024