+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 211

Thread: Ethics of public education....vs religious belief

  1. #76
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    No. There are questions that can't be answered if one wishes to remain honest.
    Yet here you are saying that God does not exist and that 'science' can explain our existence, and then conclude there are questions that can't be answered. That, to me, is a dodge - a way out to avoid utilizing the scientific method to prove God is not needed to explain our existence.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  2. #77
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    While we today know that feelings of divine presence are mostly caused by a certain kind of epileptic fit.
    Ridiculous. While we are free to "suppose" this hypothesis, we "know" nothing of the kind.

    Lanius, this playing fast and loose with the truth--do you not care about being honest? Or do you save your skepticism for religion only, and believe with religious fervor and unquestioning faith any supposition that is vaguely labeled science--or clearly labeled anti-religion?

  3. #78
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-12-10
    Location
    Kodiak, Alaska
    Posts
    3,469
    Lanius, this playing fast and loose with the truth--do you not care about being honest?
    Oh, come one! He's trying to defend a position, as he sees it. I agree that he's wrong (mostly), but there's no reason to question his integrity on the matter.

    God is a different concept to every believer. The only reason I think of myself an agnostic (as opposed to a full-blown atheist) is that I consider the possibility of God being an undiscovered process rather than a self-aware entity. That's sort of Buddhist in concept, but Buddhism rejects self-determination so I could not ever be a Buddhist. I am what I make of myself and that equation is the sum of my actions. Am I a positive or negative force to those my life impinges on? Those are questions which must be answered by those whom my actions aQ

    Lanius' mistake is that he fails to grasp the broader concept of "God", outside of the traditional concept of Christian dogma. "God" may be an as yet undiscovered concept of particle physics. Who knows? I certainly don't.

  4. #79
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-17-09
    Location
    EEU
    Posts
    2,557
    Yet here you are saying that God does not exist and that 'science' can explain our existence, and then conclude there are questions that can't be answered.
    I should've made myself clear.

    Science cannot definitely answer the question. However, it's clear that while whatever was in the Bible was thought to reflect nature centuries ago, these days, it's obvious very little of it, except geography is factually true.

    Most of it is now taken to be 'metaphorical'. It is a retreat from previous positions.

    World makes more sense if you don't postulate(assume there is one for sake of a theory) a creator, or a God. The way believers claim God is these days, that he affects nothing... such a God is irrelevant to anything but human psychology.

    Since our brains are wired to find purpose in randomness, and to ascribe motives to random events,.. it's obvious that God is something people believe in because it's comfortable to their nature (they can see purpose where none is).



    Ridiculous. While we are free to "suppose" this hypothesis, we "know" nothing of the kind.
    Hmmm. Seems the God Helmet guy was a fraud.

    What stands is numerous reports of people with epilepsy that they have religous-like experiences while having fits.

    Also, Muhammad at least had something like epilepsy, Quran and other sources about him document his fits, visions he had while unconscious and all that.

    Anyway... it's a waste of time, arguing with believers.
    Lanius' mistake is that he fails to grasp the broader concept of "God", outside of the traditional concept of Christian dogma. "God" may be an as yet undiscovered concept of particle physics. Who knows? I certainly don't.
    1) I fail to grasp why there should be supernatural phenomena.
    Humans as witnesses to anything are notoriously unreliable. Cops know this, been proven empirically. False memories can be induced in people. Memory itself is unreliable.

    ....fin. (I hereby swear I won't bring up religion ever again. It's pointless, really, and I find a perverse satisfaction in knowing so many people are so credulous.)

  5. #80
    nplant
    Guest
    Boil it down:
    Lanius hates religion, and wants to convince others to hate religion.
    Pretty much everyone else either doesn't hate religion, or doesn't care about it, and aren't really interested in changing their opinions.

    So, two sides, neither willing to change opinions. Where will this end up? My guess is that it'll just keep spinning out like some ridiculous children's game.

    "This."
    "You said, 'This.'"
    "No I didn't."
    "Yes you did."
    "Okay, maybe I did, but I didn't mean to. I meant to say, 'This and that.'"
    "But you said, 'This.'"

    All I've learned is that Lanius is a troll either by choice or accident. Where's that ignore button now?

  6. #81
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-17-09
    Location
    EEU
    Posts
    2,557
    Lanius hates religion, and wants to convince others to hate religion.
    Have I said that? No, I consider it mostly good, but wrong.

    And I no longer want to talk about it, since to properly argue and write it so much like work it ceases being fun. More profitable ways of time usage have appeared for me.

  7. #82
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    So, two sides, neither willing to change opinions.
    nplant--that's one version. The other is that we have a member who seems to know very little about religion, and even less about science. We're not in "opinion" territory here. Lanius's version of what science "is" has not has a serious spokesman since Max Webber--and he died in 1920. Kuhn, Taylor, Feyerabend, (Philipp) Frank, Rudner, Hempel, Habermas, Hollander and many others have discussed that science brings with it an ideology, a value system, and boatloads of subjectivity. That is not seriously debated anymore.

    Worse he seems to not use the words "know" and "prove" in standard fashion. See below.
    Hmmm. Seems the God Helmet guy was a fraud.
    If the god helmet guy claims that "feelings of divine presence are mostly caused by a certain kind of epileptic fit," then, yes, he is a fraud. If he has somehow proven that folks as diverse as Moses and Mary Magdalene (not to mention Joan of Arc and Joseph Smith!) "mostly" had this peculiar epilepsy, he has yet to present evidence for that claim.

    But, I don't think the god helmet guy claims any of that. Just you:
    we today know that feelings of divine presence are mostly caused by a certain kind of epileptic fit.
    If he does say that, please quote him. And if the general scientific community agrees with that "conclusion," then please give some evidence of that consensus. You are claiming that we "know" this; not only don't we know it, we can't.
    Oh, come one! He's trying to defend a position, as he sees it. I agree that he's wrong (mostly), but there's no reason to question his integrity
    Begging to differ, KB. Just as when someone injures someone else through "gross negligence", that may be treated as an intentional injury, so here: if Lanius has so little knowledge of the word "know" that he can say we know something that we clearly do not, I don't think I should assume he has come by such ignorance without diligent effort.

    His claim (to me) is equivalent to saying that mathematics has proven that chocolate is the best flavor--how does one consider that a reasonable opinion? But I understand and respect your perspective on his views, and especially your good intentions.

  8. #83
    nplant
    Guest
    LoosedHorse - Granted, I stopped reading for effect a long while back, skipped to the end, and decided that the upshot is basically the same. You're probably right about the details - I don't honestly know but my point remains the same: how much effort can reasonably be put to arguing with those who aren't going to see your side of the fence?

    The signal to noise ratio is pretty low, though, either way you slice it.

    Edited to add: Of course, you realize that mathematics HAS proven that chocolate is the best flavor, right? My dog told me that.

  9. #84
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanius
    Science cannot definitely answer the question.
    So, what you are saying is what we have as our world cannot be recreated to prove it's scientific in origin. The "experiment" cannot be repeated. That's a significant admission. That proves a higher and unique origin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanius
    However, it's clear that while whatever was in the Bible was thought to reflect nature centuries ago, these days, it's obvious very little of it, except geography is factually true.
    You're going to have to expound on this to tie in "nature" to what the Bible reflects. Otherwise, it's just a sagacious trope you grabbed out of thin air in an attempt to create a synesis you hope will render you an eristic desideratum.

    Back to the drawing board, my friend.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  10. #85
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Teays Valley
    Posts
    5,651
    So on one hand, you have science, which gives some answers, obtained by painstaking work of generations of scientists, but doesn't pretend to have all the answers.
    On the other hand, you have religions that claim to have all the answers(who created universe, why, etc) and promise eternal life too, and only ask that you have Faith in them and all that.
    I get the opposite impression from my reading and interactions -- science pretends to have most of the answers, in search of the rest. MOST of the religious people I know do not pretend to know all the answers -- they believe certain things but do not assert certainty. (The exception being evangelical pastors on Saturday morning TV, many of who are quite certain of lots of silly things.)

    I think you have observed a few religious peoples behaviors and impute those observations to many others, when that is not the case.

    we have a member who seems to know very little about religion, and even less about science. We're not in "opinion" territory here
    You know, I really don't mind posters floating their theories or opinions on things, even if they don't know very much. It's one way for them to learn. Just don't pretend to be a learned expert when you do it.
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  11. #86
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-17-09
    Location
    EEU
    Posts
    2,557
    You're going to have to expound on this to tie in "nature" to what the Bible reflects. Otherwise, it's just a sagacious trope you grabbed out of thin air in an attempt to create a synesis you hope will render you an eristic desideratum.
    I see that you have found a thesaurus somewhere.
    Congratulations.

    There is nothing in the new or old testament, or any other religious text, that was ahead of the knowledge of the times. Ancient Hebrews, supposedly God's chosen people thought the world was flat.

    Apparently, the Lord considered them his personal mushrooms: kept in the dark and crapped upon...

    Also, if homosexuality is a sin, and against nature, as christians also argue, then why do ducks engage in homosexual necrophilia?
    Is the evil one behind that?


  12. #87
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    There is nothing in the new or old testament, or any other religious text, that was ahead of the knowledge of the times
    Just as there is nothing in any science text, new or old, that was ahead of the understanding of the time. And in both old science texts and old religious texts, there is a lot that remains true today, and some that we look at and say, "Well, that might have been a reasonable belief at the time, but today..."

    You keep insisting that religion and science are fundamentally different, and yet you keep demonstrating how they are in fact similar.
    why do ducks engage in homosexual necrophilia?
    Is the evil one behind that?
    Let us suppose for a moment that your statement about ducks is true (one wonders which peer-reviewed science journals you subscribe to, Lanius, that keep you up-to-date on the latest developments in god helmets and duck homosexuality). Are you suggesting that humans should look to animal behavior to determine their own moral codes? Or that a duck has enough intent and forethought that its actions may be labeled either "good" or "evil"? If not, shall we just suppose you're talking gibberish again?

    Actually, I suspect that even a necrophiliac duck can be "good." Served medium with lingonberry sauce. Mathematics proves that, too.

  13. #88
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Come on guys, I'm seeing a lot of ad hom here. The proper response to logical, intelligent, well written post is thoughtful argument point by point. The proper response to unique drivel (please note the word unique is used in the 'legal' and 'logic argument' context.) is a simple *stick*. As in 'stick to the point.'

  14. #89
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanius
    I see that you have found a thesaurus somewhere.
    Congratulations.
    Half of those "big" words don't appear in my thesaurus. I like to use them for their lack of other meanings that can be construed from synonyms. I noticed you couldn't refute what I wrote and simply chose to belittle my choice of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanius
    There is nothing in the new or old testament, or any other religious text, that was ahead of the knowledge of the times. Ancient Hebrews, supposedly God's chosen people thought the world was flat.
    God reveals stuff in his own good time. Look how long he waited to reveal E= MC2 to Einstein.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  15. #90

  16. May 4th, 2012, 01:59 PM
    Reason
    personal attack

  17. #91
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Teays Valley
    Posts
    5,651
    Selena, I may have to buy one of those Flat Earth Society shirts -- to wear to church....
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  18. #92
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by pmeisel View Post
    Selena, I may have to buy one of those Flat Earth Society shirts -- to wear to church....
    First smart alec ain't got a chance around here.

  19. #93
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    I'm getting the impression that Lanius is a Technocrat. Technocrats want to replace our religion, economics, and politics - which for us is Judeo-Christian, capitalism, and constituted republicanism - with trans-humanism, technocracy, and scientific dictatorship, respectively. That's the goal of technocrats for their world view of how things ought to be. Hence, his attacks upon religion - all kinds - and those with faith in God.

    Agenda 21, the "Smart Grid", and the so-called "Sustainable Development" are all parts of this technocracy that need to be, and are being, implemented.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  20. #94
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-17-09
    Location
    EEU
    Posts
    2,557
    Eh, sorry.

    I'm just another member of the EAC

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]...91436[/ATTACH]
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eaclogo.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	14.3 KB 
ID:	91436  
    Last edited by Lanius; May 7th, 2012 at 07:00 AM.

  21. #95
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanius View Post
    Eh, sorry.

    I'm just another member of the EAC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eaclogo.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	14.3 KB 
ID:	91436
    I'll bite. What is the EAC?

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  22. #96
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    I'll bite. What is the EAC?

    Woody
    A bit of idiotic arrogance, I believe it's 'evil atheist conspirisy. Please note the 12 step program is working quite well.

  23. #97
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-21-10
    Location
    Middle of the MidWest
    Posts
    252
    I think most of us would agree Science is an extremely powerful tool for answering the many questions about the universe that are susceptible to its methodology - that is, observation of the material world producing testable hypotheses.

    The problem happens when you conclude that any question not solvable by that methodology is a question not worth asking, or not a real question.

    What is the logic of that? That is when science (method) becomes Scientism (ideology).

    PS. I do hope that by now everyone is aware that the Church never preached that the Earth was flat. I don't know about the cosmology of OT Hebrews, but the Apostle Paul, for instance, would certainly have known Greek cosmology, which had widely accepted a spherical earth by the 2nd C BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
    I'm a skinny, rather geeky, over-educated Englishman living in the small-town MidWest who believes in the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA... my existence messes with people's stereotypes :-)

  24. #98
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,646
    EAC?

    Could that be "Euro-American Caliphate?"

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  25. #99
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-09-09
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    2,228
    Caliphate is ONE goal.
    The players 'think' they have this/their outcome in the bag.

    Gonna suck for THEM if domestic attacks
    (that are inevitable and have been in the works for years)
    don't work out for them.

    pS: I know my Arabs. :-)
    I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

  26. #100
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-17-09
    Location
    EEU
    Posts
    2,557

    @Cowboy.

    ...you are projecting. And "Caliphate is ONE goal"


    Caliphate, from people who can't even carry out a proper truck bomb attack?

    Saudi Arabia oil production has peaked, and is headed towards a steep decline. Empires cost money, that's why US is so broke. All the power-projection, all the welfare to keep the voters happy.


    For the record, my political system of choice is a democratic republic with a severely limited franchise. A secular one.

    Anyone stupid, selfish, unhealthy (by choice) wouldn't get to vote.

    How dumb people are could be easily found out with automated systems that could be developed from commodity PC's. Wouldn't cost much.. that.

    The problem happens when you conclude that any question not solvable by that methodology is a question not worth asking, or not a real question.
    Except for ethics, what other methodology for determining answers is there?

    And even ethics can't give you an absolute answer, therefore, the answer is subjective.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •