Author
|
Topic: Virian thought issues: debate and questioning. (Read 2195 times) |
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
 |
Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« on: 2007-09-06 23:27:48 » |
 |
Sorry in advance for the cheesy title. I really couldn't think of anything else. May this thread serve posterity (and future virians) well.
Posts, and individual segments, have been edited into one coherent and final draft (I hope). I left my other post in because I thought it had some (minor) relevance, but I’d be happy to delete that too.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-09-05 00:22:40 | Cherries? Hardly. Your verse is clearly a more disgusting example than my preferred one. I find it completely unnecessary to turd nip from the cesspool of bigotry, violence and hate that is the Christians' holy book, even less needful to do so in the Jewish portions (which is where the Jewish Jesus prototype, wanted to go of course, as he was a Zealot for the Law, and the Law was, of course, the horrendous laws of Moses). |
Hmm. Good point Hermit; perhaps it would be better to refrain from biblical verses here.
So allow me to construct a more "down to earth" and logically formed argument here - since we're on the subject of religion and ethics.
I've been studying quite a lot recently, so I hope I've improved enough to engage your attention here. So I hope that my debating tactics have improved here… somewhat… 
First of all: "the cesspool of bigotry, violence and hate"?
I can say that about any belief system. Atheism is a belief system as well, and has been linked to just as much bigotry, violence, and hate as any other system of belief. Its an endless cycle of stupidity, because humans are inherently selfish, stubborn, violent creatures. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Buddist, Islamic, Atheist, or whatever... everything that you cherish is made possible through the violent acts of your predecessors. As much as I dislike negative emotions, the world would be stagnant without them. Nothing will change if everyone agrees. Europe would be stuck in a Feudal System if peasants hadn't fought back... The US wouldn't even exist if they hadn't fought against the European belief system. Censoring the past is simply ensuring that the stupidity of generations before us will indeed happen again.
China is a communist state, which bans anything and everything that doesn't fall into its very narrow view of what its citizens should know. They have people that watch all foreign TV channels that come into the country that spend their day censoring anything that might "hurt" their people, including democracy, anti-socialist views, pornography, sexual innuendo, the list goes on and on. So really, is it any surprise they want to ban the Bible? Christianity is not their major religion and those who practice it have to live lives in secrecy to avoid persecution. So yeah, they can easily say "oh its a porn book" and ban it. I have multiple Chinese professors who have lived there all their lives who can agree with everything I just said.
But really, the whole topic roles down to one single point: Parenting. It is not the government's place to ban material, its the parents. How lazy have people become that they need the government to do their own damn job? If you don't want your kids reading the Bible, then don't let them. If you want them to read Playboy at the age of three, that's your choice. That's what parents are for... I mean really, if someone’s not up for the task of ensuring his or her children grow up properly then don't sign up for the job. The only excuse viable is if a female was raped. I don't even like that excuse because they make birth control pills, which the majority of women can afford. For those who do not have the money, then I can sympathize with them. They were forced into a situation that they could not get out of.
I mean, really... For instance *ahem*... The Georgia Flag has a confederate symbol on it, should we take it down because it hurts our feelings? Or: Oh no! The government buildings have the Ten Commandments on them! Should we take it down because it hurts our feelings too? Its part of history and isn't hurting anyone. Who in their right mind is going to be scarred for life by seeing the Ten Commandments on a government building? If someone is, then seem to have some serious mental issues/problems and should see a doctor immediately – for their own sake. It’s a historical landmark. For emphasis: Do we go and deface the Pyramids in Egypt because we don't like their ancestor's beliefs in pagan gods? Do we remove the memorials because we don't support the Vietnam War? No, because it’s just silly.
In the end, banning material is nothing but someone forcing his or her own bigoted, self-centered views on the rest of us. For the betterment of humanity? Says who? By what law, philosophy, or system do they or you have the right to force me into accepting that their or your ways are correct? They don't.
Who knows which is the "right way"? The Bible may be false, it may be right. No amount of science can prove either way. Science is a volatile system of measurements and rules which constantly change and evolve. What was "fact" 200 years ago is baloney nowadays. You can use any scientific "evidence" you want, but in the end, it will eventually be disproven by more advanced science in the future. Those who trust in the Bible do so by faith. That is all the reason they need.
Kind regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #1 on: 2007-09-07 05:48:41 » |
|
[Bass] Hmm. Good point Hermit; perhaps it would be better to refrain from biblical verses here.
[Hermit] I use them when needed to illustrate a point. I just make sure I understand the implications of what quote before I use it.
[Bass] So allow me to construct a more "down to earth" and logically formed argument here - since we're on the subject of religion and ethics.
[Hermit] I'd really enjoy seeing that.
[Bass] I've been studying quite alot recently, so I hope I've improved enough to engage your attention here.
[Hermit] I look forward to seeing the evidence of this :-)
[Bass] First of all: "the cesspool of bigotry, violence and hate"?
[Hermit] I used the terms advisedly having repeatedly demonstrated why these terms apply. The question mark is spurious.
[Bass] I can say that about any belief system.
[Hermit] No you cannot. A number of belief systems explicitly renounce violence and hate. A few work to overcome humanity's natural bigotry. Classical Christianity (and the related Judaism and Islam) fails on both scores.
[Bass] Even atheism is (technically) a belief system,
[Hermit] No, you have repeatedly had it explained that atheism, a = without; theism = belief in gods, is a (in every sense) disbelief system. It is one of those areas where you need to vest study to gain comprehension; or, the ability to develop persuasive counter arguments.
[Bass] and has been linked to just as much bigotry, violence, and hate as any other system of belief.
[Hermit] Repeating that atheism is a belief system does not add weight to your objection.
[Hermit] This is a misstatement of the proposition. Religion is not accused of having "been linked to" "bigotry, violence, and hate." It is accused of instigating and enabling "bigotry, violence, and hate" as a primary causative agent.
[Hermit] Please provide evidence that "atheism" (a - without, theism - the vesting of belief in god thingies) has caused "bigotry, violence, and hate." I think that just as you have failed to support this assertion before, before, that you are going to fail again.
[Bass] Its an endless cycle of stupidity, because humans are inherently selfish, stubborn, violent creatures.
[Hermit] What is "it"? Are you trying to convey something meaningful here?
[Bass] It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Buddist, Islamic, Atheist, or whatever... everything that we cherish is made possible through the violent acts of our predecessors.
[Hermit] Really? Please support this proposition. I cherish the works of Mozart, Vivaldi, Shakespeare, Vermeer, GBS, Einstein and many other brilliant scientists, doctors, engineers, authors, artists, musicians and others. Please demonstrate for us using the named examples how this is made possible through the violent acts of my or your predecessors. BTW atheism does not receive capitalization. Unlike the religions you mention, it is neither a religion nor a proper noun.
[Bass] As much as I dislike negative emotions, the world would be stagnant without them.
[Hermit] What negative emotions? Please support your propositions.
[Bass] Nothing will change if everyone agrees.
[Hermit] Please illustrate how disagreement influenced the establishment of the theory of evolution - which arguably destroyed belief in a creator in educated people. No little change would you agree?
[Bass] Europe would be stuck in a Feudal System if peasants hadn't fought back...
[Hermit] When European peasants "fought back" they died. Admittedly they died when they didn't "fight back" too, but they died faster, in greater numbers and more unpleasantly when thy fought back. The feudal system collapsed when the clutch of the church was lessened by the loss of 50% of the population (at all levels) during the plagues, and the church's patent inability to protect people including their own.
[Bass] The US wouldn't even exist if they hadn't fought against the European belief system.
[Hermit] "Scarce one in ten is a churchgoing Christian" was how the US was described in the revolutionary period. That one in ten of the colonists who was a Christian did not come here to fight "against the European belief system", they came to America in order to impose their own belief system upon others. Apparently some Americans still consider this acceptable.
[Bass] Censoring the past is simply ensuring that the stupidity of generations before us will indeed happen again.
[Hermit] Demonstrating that you recognize that accepting propaganda for history amounts to censorship is required to transform mouthing this platitude into a meaningful statement on your part.
[Bass] Its part of history and isn't hurting anyone.
[Hermit] What is "it"? Disagreement? Religion? Atheism?
[Bass] Who in their right mind is going to be scarred for life by seeing the Ten Commandments on a government building?
[Hermit] This is a strawman. The question is not "who is going to be scarred for life." The question is, is it constitutional? Should I, an atheist, have to submit to a legal system that is currently implemented by Christians who don't like or trust any atheist and whose prejudice and bigotry is supported by the irrelevant babbling of monstrous regulations inscribed in the very walls of the justice system when this is contrary to the constitution that is supposedly the foundation of the justice system. That is not justice.
[Bass] Its a historical landmark. Do we go and deface the Pyramids in Egypt because we don't like their ancestor's beliefs in pagan gods? Do we remove the memorials because we don't support the Vietnam War?
[Hermit] Doubly a strawman. Nobody is suggesting destroying these things and nobody is attempting to transact US government business in the "Pyramids in Egypt" or the "memorials" to the "Vietnam war."
[Bass] For the betterment of humanity? Says who? By what law, philosophy, or system do we have the right to force others into accepting that our ways are correct?
[Hermit] Is the preceding a non sequitur? Your not writing complete sentences makes it very difficult to determine what you are trying to communicate.
[Hermit] If you mean not allowing the pollution of the public space with religious mantra, that is constitutionally defined. If you mean attempting to educate children to be saner than their parents then that is the duty of society. If you acknowledge that belief is pernicious then if you have a duty to prevent harm your question is answered.
[Bass] I mean in the end who knows which is really the "right way"?
[Hermit] Again I don't know what you mean by this. As a general rule, anybody with the ability to evaluate available evidence dispassionately and make a decision.
[Bass] The Bible (and when I say Bible I mean its belief system) may be false, it may be right.
[Hermit] The babble is a turgid mass of internal and external contradictions and mythical stories which have historically caused harm, and are currently causing harm, to people. Its falsity in many areas and lack of meaning in most of it pales into insignificance in the face of these harms.
[Bass] No amount of science can prove either way.
[Hermit] What nonsense. Attempt to address how the Jewish gods supposedly stopped the sun in its journey in the sky in order to have enough time to perform acts of genocide against the inhabitants of the area, except presumably for those who had chariots with wheels of iron and who were thus immunized from the displeasure of the Jewish gods without reference to science. Or tackle the even simpler issue of dealing with the problem of declaring pi equal to 3. Now try to reconcile these examples with what we know through exercise of the scientific method.
[Bass] Science is a volatile system of measurements and rules which constantly change and evolve. What was "fact" 200 years ago is baloney nowadays. We can use any scientific "evidence" we want, but in the end, it will eventually be disproven by more advanced science in the future.
[Hermit] I see this as more Bass speak. Science doesn't often throw out the past, it builds on it. When we do throw it out it is with good reason and because it provides huge benefits in our understanding of nature. We suspect that we are approaching a very fundamental level of comprehension of the Universe but would be overjoyed to be "proved wrong" because that would mean we had taken a big leap forward in comprehension. An additional advantage of the scientific method, which has, itself, evolved is that it assists in filtering "baloney." For example, I look for evidence to support assertions whether or not they originate from somebody's Bass. Only, as usual, I don't find them here.
[Bass] Those who trust in the Bible do so by 'faith'.
[Hermit] I've said this for years. At last something upon which we can agree.
[Bass] That is all the reason they need.
[Hermit] I suggest that for all the reasons above that "reason" is out of place in this sentence fragment. "All the reason they need" for what? To commit genocide? To support Israel's genocide? To nuke Iran? To destroy Iraq and kill Iraqis? To poison children's' minds?
[Bass] Sorry, I went on for a bit to long there... I tend to get a bit carried away sometimes.
[Hermit] Indeed. Try to write complete sentences. This would be helpful to those ignoring you as well as those responding.
Thank-you in advance
Hermit
PS I really look forward to the evidence of your study and new found comprehension.
PPS Banning anything is silly. Including banning 3 year olds from looking at Playboy. Then again, showing that an authoritarian (for good reason) government doesn't like Christianity, doesn't mean that it is showing that "the stupidity of generations before us will indeed happen again." China has to deal with a 3,000 year history right into the 1970s showing that both laissez-faire and internal unrest cause far more death and destruction than absolute rule. Unfortunately, the USA has done the same for constitutional republics - not - despite your apparently deepset beliefs - for democracy, seeing as despite all posturing to the contrary, the US is not and never has been a democracy. For one significant difference, consider that in a democracy, GW Bush would never have been appointed president and the USA would not be the most irrational, feared and hated nation on the planet (again with good reason).
PPPS So I'm still confused as to what you meant by "It." You seem to have provided two contradictory examples. First you gave an example of a part of US history on the Georgia flag apparently upsetting some people (If it is controversial, why not simply ask the people of Georgia for their opinion?). You then provided a second example of an unconstitutional intermingling of church and state, but in an historical context. Clearly that doesn't change its lack of constitutionality. Equally clearly it does not mean that the building has to be demolished. Perhaps the government could move to a new building and give the old one to the FFRF as a museum reflecting the effect and consequences of the discovery and exploitation of North America on the slave trade with special emphasis on the role played by religions in this process. One area that could not be avoided would be an examination of the many biblical injunctions to be good slaves, and its not one single line condemning or even hinting that slavery is not a good idea. Which might thoroughly contextualize the display of Moses' version of the 10 commandments. A special section examining why American Christians are partial to this version (most of which is not part of US law, and those parts that are, are common to far more ancient codices), while ignoring the replacement version allegedly personally written by one of the Jewish gods would perhaps also prove enlightening.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #2 on: 2007-09-08 00:46:24 » |
|
Dear Hermit, I wonder if you actually gave a damn with what I had to say, because you did exactly as I thought you would. So I wonder why I should bother…
First: some brief (respectful) criticism.
You talk in circles, to make yourself feel superior(?), dissecting a passage, paragraph, or sentence into fragments and psychoanalyzing each individual piece as a separate entity in an attempt to prove your case or disprove others. That often changes the underlying meaning of the whole and inherently proves nothing.
Responding to what someone writes does not require you to even read a single word of what was posted. I have seen this for myself where someone responds to a topic without even having analyzed the Bible in any detail or read/listened to the responses of the topic. A person can take on sentence out of the above post and write a 50-page essay on it, but does that mean he actually read the post as a whole? Nope. All he did was pick a sentence that he didn't like an psychoanalyze it, much like you do. You can do that with anything written or said and twist it to what you want. Sure there are lots of people who are gullible enough to fall for such tactics, but I am not one 
Example?
[Bass] Those who trust in the Bible do so by 'faith'.
[Hermit] I've said this for years. At last something upon which we can agree.
[Bass] That is all the reason they need.
[Hermit] I suggest that for all the reasons above that "reason" is out of place in this sentence fragment. "All the reason they need" for what? To commit genocide? To support Israel's genocide? To nuke Iran? To destroy Iran and kill Iranians? To poison children's' minds?
It isn't a sentence fragment... you separated a whole statement into its individual parts and analyzed it separately. Your responses are like a computer, reading something phrase by phrase and acting upon it. Oh wait, you missed a semi-colon so the next line is wrong, and the next one, etc. You have 500 errors yet in reality there is only one. You are a human being and have the capability of analyzing something as a whole. Could I be so bold as to suggest try using that ability?
The paragraph reads as follows:
Quote:| Who knows which is the "right way"? The Bible may be false, it may be right. No amount of science can prove either way. Science is a volatile system of measurements and rules which constantly change and evolve. What was "fact" 200 years ago is baloney nowadays. You can use any scientific "evidence" you want, but in the end, it will eventually be disproven by more advanced science in the future. Those who trust in the Bible do so by faith. That is all the reason they need. |
Now let us read together as a whole: Science and Religion are both incomplete and therefore cannot be 100% proven or disproven by today's standards. That is the summary of that paragraph. Notice how different it is from your psychoanalysis? Amazing isn't it?
If you want to separate it in two ideas, it would be as such:
A. Science is constantly evolving and what we hold as "fact" today may or may not hold up in the future. It is therefore volatile in nature. Those who support science believe every unknown factor can be explained through its methods at some point.
B. Religions are set in stone or can evolve over time. People who support a given religion do not require explaination for unknowns. They have faith in it anyway.
Even when I separate it into two parts, the sumarization of the whole is the same. There are plenty of unknowns in the world. Whether you think that science can solve them or simply believe that it is by a higher power is completely up to you. Claiming one is superior or correct over the other is pointless. Hence, religious topics are inherently pointless. You can argue all you want, but in the end, you cannot 100% prove anything you say for certain, because research is inherently flawed by unknowns. Any grade school Science book will tell you that much. So why bother arguing over who is right?
On a slightly unrelated matter:
References to things like Liberal Avenger would not hold up in a scholarly paper or journal. If you linked to actual journals such as The Journal of the American Academy of Religion then your points would actually hold more weight. Pointing to individual's personal opinions is far from accurate "proof". Also, Wikipedia is not a scholarly Encyclopedia, as it can be edited by pretty much anyone. It is fine for simple personal references, but for use in proving a point, it really isn't appropriate.
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-12-09 02:29:45 Perhaps you are confused about the difference between strong and weak atheism which seems closer to what I understood you to have been attempting to articulate. Perhaps you should do some research. The link above might be helpful.
|
Perhaps you should invest in actual proof yourself before expecting others to do so? Google and intellectual discussion do not go hand-in-hand.
Kind regards,
Bass
PS I honestly mean no disrespect to you Hermit, but the way in which some of your responses are formulated are quite disheartening, at lest to me. Of course I may be wrong, and I welcome any corrections on my part – along with my apologies. But, for the moment at lest, I don’t think I am…
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #3 on: 2007-09-08 09:08:56 » |
|
[Bass] Dear Hermit, I wonder if you actually gave a damn with what I had to say, because you did exactly as I thought you would. So I wonder why I should bother…
[Hermit] Not particularly. I'm still waiting for the evidence of study and thought... and the ability to write a sentence that does not require projection to attempt to figure out what on earth you might have been attempting to communicate.
[Hermit] Perhaps the reason my response seems predictable to you, is that you clearly haven't "gotten" it yet, or if you have, you cannot communicate this effectively, even if you display momentary flashes of improvement - for example, your attempted argument here was a huge improvement on your usual bluster. It fails because your sentences need to be able to stand alone, and because you cannot make assertions about your opponents dialectic without supporting them. For example, "You talk in circles" might well make sense if it were used to propose that your opponent was "arguing from the conclusion." Such an assertion does not make sense (no matter what the speculated reasons might be) if you cannot sustain the charge itself. Which, given that you didn't bother to explain what you were trying to communicate by this charge, left it meaningless.
[Bass] Responding to what someone writes does not require you to even read a single word of what was posted.
[Hermit] You confuse reading what you say (which I do), with analyzing the bible (which I have, but wtf this has to do with my dialectic methods is beyond me) and apparently with your gullibility (or possible lack of same) without once sustaining what you are saying with an example or even attempting to tie these three unrelated things into a coherent whole. Until you can repair deficiencies like this, please don't expect me to give much of a damn about what you have to say.
<snip of Bass missing the point about a lesson in grammar>
[Hermit] Sentences have a subject, predicate and object. Sentence fragments do not contain all of these necessary components. When "this", "that" and possessive pronouns are used it should be evident to what they refer. When somebody says "Those who trust in the Bible do so by 'faith'. That is all the reason they need." a reasonable construction of the sentence and sentence fragment would be, "Those who trust in the Bible do so by 'faith' is all the reason they need." and the missing object is "all the reason they need for something." You omitted the "something." You may have meant, "Faith is all the reason that those who trust in the Bible need to trust in the Bible." but aside from the fact that this is a mere tautology (and arguing in circles in that that conclusion is assumed), it is not what you said! I do not need to respond to what I infer that you may have meant, but only to what you say.
[Bass] Now let us read together as a whole: Science and Religion are both incomplete and therefore cannot be 100% proven or disproven by today's standards. That is the summary of that paragraph. Notice how different it is from your psychoanalysis? Amazing isn't it?
[Hermit] But it isn't what you said before, isn't true, and the response is thus not relevant. It is a new putative argument.
[Hermit] The putative argument is easily refuted by noting that while science is a method requiring falsifiability but with no requirement for completeness except in so far as any putative explanation must explain all the related observed facts, "Religion" is a portmanteau with no requirement to be or do anything. As such attempting to draw comparisons between the two is a category error. You follow this up with yet a third putative approach to the same issue, but instead introduce yet another entirely different statement.
[Bass] If you want to separate it in two ideas, it would be as such:
[Bass] A. Science is constantly evolving and what we hold as "fact" today may or may not hold up in the future.
[Hermit] This is an appropriate articulation.
[Bass] It is therefore volatile in nature.
[Hermit] I could but won't cavil that this is again a fragment missing a conclusion. I will object to the unstated implication that the conclusions of science are arbitrary; which is not the case. Scientific comprehension generally progresses as a sequence of refinements, rather than the drunkards walk you appear to be assuming.
[Bass] Those who support science believe every unknown factor can be explained through its methods at some point.
[Hermit] Not at all. Aside from the question of "belief" which not only is not required but is regarded as harmful (refer the FAQ on precisely this topic), science makes no assertions about the unknown. For example I have been at some pains to make it clear that as what came "before" space-time appears to have been a singularity, the question is outside of the boundaries of the scientific method.
[Bass] B. Religions are set in stone or can evolve over time.
[Hermit] You should recognize that evolution and change are not necessarily the same thing, that while evolution means change, change does not mean evolution; and evolution does not imply improvement. I suspect that you meant change, or possibly change for the better, but have no obligation to translate your assertions. That said, a claim of change necessarily prevents claims of perfection; and as you may be aware, claims to perfection form a significant aspect of many religions. As such, while an external evaluation of a religion and its adherents may indicate change, the adherents may well attempt to deny it.
[Bass] People who support a given religion do not require explanation for unknowns. They have faith in it anyway.
[Hermit] And this is good? Bad? Indifferent? Do you mean for me to infer something from your unsupported statement about your comprehension of the nature of religious support or its adherents? What is its relevance to the discussion? To the preceding unsupported and erroneous assertions about science?
[Bass] Even when I separate it into two parts, the sumarization of the whole is the same.
[Hermit] As I have shown, even when you make erroneous assertions about science and leave unstated inferences about religion, this is not necessarily true.
[Bass] There are plenty of unknowns in the world.
[Hermit] Perhaps Rumsfeld would be proud of you.
[Bass] Whether you think that science can solve them or simply believe that it is by a higher power is completely up to you. Claiming one is superior or correct over the other is pointless. Hence, religious topics are inherently pointless. You can argue all you want, but in the end, you cannot 100% prove anything you say for certain, because research is inherently flawed by unknowns. Any grade school Science book will tell you that much. So why bother arguing over who is right?
[Hermit] Did I miss a point? Your assertions about science have been shown to be incorrect.
[Hermit] If you regard "religious topics" as "inherently pointless" why are you wasting so much of everyone's time apparently attempting to defend religion?
[Bass] On a slightly unrelated matter:
[Hermit] I'm used to it by now.
[Bass] References to things like Liberal Avenger would not hold up in a scholarly paper or journal.
[Hermit] What on earth does this mean? Where does it arise?
[Bass] If you linked to actual journals such as The Journal of the American Academy of Religion then your points would actually hold more weight. Pointing to individual's personal opinions is far from accurate "proof". Also, Wikipedia is not a scholarly Encyclopedia, as it can be edited by pretty much anyone. It is fine for simple personal references, but for use in proving a point, it really isn't appropriate.
<snip>
[Bass] Perhaps you should invest in actual proof yourself before expecting others to do so? Google and intellectual discussion do not go hand-in-hand.
[Hermit] Peer reviewed metaresearch published in Nature [ refer e.g. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 ] reflects that Wikipedia holds its own against Brittanica, long regarded as the most authoritative secondary source. While primary sources are preferred in scholarly articles, my analysis is that you are not yet in a position to engage in scholarly discussion and won't be so long as you attempt to impugn material on the basis of source rather than content. A few minutes research would have caused you to discover that Wikipedia and Brittanica are aligned on Atheism and both cite considerable primary material on this subject. You could Google for it! It should be noted that the self descriptions of groups have to be regarded when evaluating the nature of groups.
[Hermit] As for your assertion that "Google and intellectual discussion do not go hand-in-hand," it not only seems to be a a non sequitur, it is just plain wrong. The more widely research is performed on substantial matters without discovering persuasive invalidation, the more probable that the researched assertions are likely to be valid. Today Google is one of the best ways of performing such filtering.
[Hermit] Perhaps you would like to try to explain what you thought you were attempting to say.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
teh
Adept
Posts: 65
Reputation: 7.15
Rate teh
I'm still still learning
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #4 on: 2007-09-08 23:05:37 » |
|
Quote:
[Bass]You talk in circles, to make yourself feel superior(?), dissecting a passage, paragraph, or sentence into fragments and psychoanalyzing each individual piece as a separate entity in an attempt to prove your case or disprove others. That often changes the underlying meaning of the whole and inherently proves nothing.
[Bass]Responding to what someone writes does not require you to even read a single word of what was posted. I have seen this for myself where someone responds to a topic without even having analyzed the Bible in any detail or read/listened to the responses of the topic. A person can take on sentence out of the above post and write a 50-page essay on it, but does that mean he actually read the post as a whole? Nope. All he did was pick a sentence that he didn't like an psychoanalyze it, much like you do. You can do that with anything written or said and twist it to what you want. Sure there are lots of people who are gullible enough to fall for such tactics, but I am not one
|
*from Teh's reply to Religion: Perhaps not so false after all, just interpreted wrong. dated 2007-07-04
Quote:
[teh]I've seen that scenario many times when students whom have not properly prepared for their presentations waffle and create circular arguments, misleading and misrepresenting the information, the bolder con-artists even stating pure gibberish as if it were absolute fact.
|
not sure what you're trying to do here. The contexts of both your point and mine are very different. It's becoming ever more clear to me with every one of your posts that you seem oblivious of the subtleties of anything you read that does not fit in with the image you have ingrained in your mind.
An example of how google can help give depth to 2 simple words.
The first four links provided by google for the search words: circular argument
From wikipedia All circular arguments have this characteristic: the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. Please read the entire page not just the overview.
Fallacy: Circular Reasoning, I suggest you read it. Infact I suggest you read the entirety of Mission: Critical, I'm sure it will be of immense help to you.
The "The UVic Writer's Guide: Circular Argument" says:
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument:
"The study of literature is worthwhile because great literature repays close reading."
The argument sounds convincing until you realise that it could be phrased thus:
"The study of literature is worthwhile because literature is a worthwhile subject."
The statement does not raise an issue or allow for argument. A better argument would be this:
"The study of literature is worthwhile because it develops analytical and critical faculties."
Begging the Question at Fallacy Files also offers some thoughtfull reading.
*The irony lies in that what I am describing in the quote above is precisely what you are displaying in your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #5 on: 2007-09-12 11:38:42 » |
|
Ah, well thanks for the links teh. And yes, I admit sometimes that I do have trouble understanding certain things. Sorry about that. But at lest I do try and understand other things, or at lest am willing too.
Quote:Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up(Wired News)
Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three. |
Quote:Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up(Wired News)
Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa. |
Forty-seven articles is such a small sample size that they could have easily came up with any result. One test by one group of 'experts' hardly validates the accuracy of Wikipedia. It is a guesstimate. Further research may prove that it is indeed a credible source, but currently there simply is not enough evidence.
I applaud your knowledge in the English vocabulary and grammar Hermit, but the method in which you use it is rather inappropriate. While such a skill is good for grading papers in college, it hinders your ability to have an intelligible conversation with people who do not pepper their sentences with colour words and catch-phrases.
To make matters worse, you layer insults into such statements, many of which are trolling and borderline flaming. Whether you agree with someone or not does not give you the right to attack them on a personal level.
[Hermit] If you regard "religious topics" as "inherently pointless" why are you wasting so much of everyone's time apparently attempting to defend religion?
[Bass] When religious topics are taken so far that they become completely ridiculous then, yes, they are inherently pointless - in the face of evidence of instance. And also that nothing is ever 100% certain and thus knowable - including religion. But when concerning society and anthropology then yes, religious topics serve a good point because they are very important to most people. And I'm not necessarily "defending" any religion here. Investigation would be a more accurate word. Thats just how I do it. So sorry for the confusion.
You also mentioned that the bible/babble is a turgid mass of internal and external contradictions, and this may be true (I've never actually read all of it nor can I remember most of what I've read from it). And I'm not sure which parts of it you were referring to but (putting that aside for the moment) couldn't that said be said for science in some respects?
For example: one of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. But evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted everywhere and by everyone. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. Contradiction? Unless there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it, wouldn’t they?
I’m just trying to be fair here. I’m not necessarily “defending” religion, but rather bringing up, and investigating equal points of interest. I mean if anything it will save people (who decide to join here in future) the trouble of asking/investigating the same questions themselves.
I greatly respect your vast perspective and knowledge on things Hermit, but sometimes you could be a little nicer about it. This isn’t the first time after all.
Regards,
Bass
PS Sorry if I wasted any of your time. I kept this post as short and sweet as I could.
PPS All thoughts, words and opinions in this post are subject to Bass’ own personal perspective and interpretation – both of which are subject to flaw like everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #6 on: 2007-09-12 12:48:36 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-09-12 11:38:42
<snip>
For example: one of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. But evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted everywhere and by everyone. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. Contradiction? Unless there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it, wouldn’t they?
<snip>
|
Scientists most certainly know about "a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy".
It's called the sun.
Walter
PS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Does Not Prohibit a Decrease of Entropy in a Closed System.
for further clarification on this point, see the following:
http://www.1729.com/blog/SecondLawDoesntProhibitEntropyDecrease.html
PS2
Keep on following that trail. You'll get there.
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #7 on: 2007-09-12 13:24:30 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-09-12 11:38:42 For example: one of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. But evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted everywhere and by everyone. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. Contradiction? Unless there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it, wouldn’t they?
|
Damn! Walter beat me to it. With that new hole in his head, his thought processes have clearly sped up
I would like to add to Walter's thought a little bit. Complexity theory, as presented by Stuart Kauffman in "The Origins of Order", suggests that in thermodynamically open systems spontaneous order, or "order for free" are a natural and even inevitable occurance. So in such an open system as the Earth more complexity over time is inevitable.
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/GS102/EVOLPROCweb.PDF
http://home.comcast.net/~reillyjones/order.html
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Virian thought issues: debate and questioning.
« Reply #8 on: 2007-09-12 14:05:01 » |
|
Quote from: Walter Watts on 2007-09-12 12:48:36
Quote from: Bass on 2007-09-12 11:38:42 <snip>
For example: one of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. But evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted everywhere and by everyone. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. Contradiction? Unless there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it, wouldn’t they?
<snip>
|
Scientists most certainly know about "a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy".
It's called the sun.
|
Oh shit! No, no thats not what I meant *curses self*.
Sorry, when I said "outside" I meant outside of the universe, which could supply the earth (as well as the universe itself) with such huge amounts of energy.
Damn it all!
Regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
