TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Seth MacFarlane is producing a follow-up to Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions FUCK. Too much stupid to handle.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Indeed. This is precisely why I hate postmodernism with a passion: It can make rather intelligent people with degrees in Philosophy say some very stupid things while they are under the impression that they are uttering some of the wisest things ever conceived. Why this argument that science is "the new religion" succeeds so much amongst intelligent people really baffles me.

It's not post modern, its an epistemological concern. How do we know anything? I can't see much difference in how lay scientists (who don't perform any scientific experimentation, and don't know how scientific processes work (this would be, what 95% of people using scientific truths?)) and theists create/use their beliefs...

I'm willing to admit I'm stupid, but they both receive information from a source they choose to trust, and believe the information is true without ever encountering the truths for themselves. Beliefs are therefore both based only on faith in the validity of sources, and neither are therefore based on any direct involvement with the 'truth'... right??

It's not about "trust." Of course atheists trust scientists -- just as the vast majority of religious believers do on most matters. Arguing about whether individual "believers" can ever have "knowledge by proxy" and using that as a metric to judge epistemic position is silly and rather pointless. If "not using trust" is your criterion, then nobody, not even "non-lay" scientists, has any knowledge outside the tiny domain of their own experiments, if that, because after all each individual scientist is just "trusting" the community of other scientists, not to mention the people who designed and made the instruments he uses. I guess you can go that way if you want to have a ball being a wacky ol' philosopher, but it strikes me as pretty asinine, at least.

If you want to talk epistemology, maybe we could discuss the relative merits of the methods by which the conclusions of science and religion are reached -- empirical testing versus...well, making shit up and writing it down.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions It's not about "trust." Of course atheists trust scientists -- just as the vast majority of religious believers do on most matters. Arguing about whether individual "believers" can ever have "knowledge by proxy" and using that as a metric to judge epistemic position is silly and rather pointless. If "not using trust" is your criterion, then nobody, not even "non-lay" scientists, has any knowledge outside the tiny domain of their own experiments, if that, because after all each individual scientist is just "trusting" the community of other scientists, not to mention the people who designed and made the instruments he uses. I guess you can go that way if you want to have a ball being a wacky ol' philosopher, but it strikes me as pretty asinine, at least. If you want to talk epistemology, maybe we could discuss the relative merits of the methods by which the conclusions of science and religion are reached -- empirical testing versus...well, making shit up and writing it down.

exactly! I'm happy to go to the logical conclusion It depends what you're talking about... the word knowledge gets thrown about far too casually IMO, especially when it used to justify a lot...

the point was that lay scientists, like theists never encounter any facts, taking all their beliefs solely from analogical evidence. I wasn't criticizing scientists, but I do have issue with ignorant 'atheists' who have no idea whatsoever why theism is dumb, or science so great, yet roll around bagging religion and alternative beliefs. I don't see any difference between that type of ignorance and theism... In some ways its worse since you HAVE to have faith for theism, and its meant to be removed in science.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII the point was that lay scientists, like theists never encounter any facts, taking all their beliefs solely from analogical evidence. I wasn't criticizing scientists, but I do have issue with ignorant 'atheists' who have no idea whatsoever why theism is dumb, or science so great, yet roll around bagging religion and alternative beliefs. I don't see any difference between that type of ignorance and theism... In some ways its worse since you HAVE to have faith for theism, and its meant to be removed in science.

"Lay scientists" don't need to be expert in every scientific field in order to understand the scientific method and why those who dedicate their life to using it are justified with the conclusions they reach. A method that bases conclusions on evidence and reason is worthy of respect. The entire enterprise of science is dedicated to finding the truth through the most rigorous process ever devised. Remember, the largest awards and highest prestige in science are reserved for those who DISPROVE existing ideas..who overturn false "doctrines" and incorrect assumptions. Religious dogma is by definition unchanging..It is meant to be immune from attack or scrutiny, and doubt is one of the highest crimes in many religions. This is the polar opposite of science. Doubt and investigation are not encouraged in faith, but they are at the core of science. The peer review process in science is a brutal gauntlet where ideas are exposed to rabid criticism by other experts in an attempt to weed out the crap and allow only the finest (closest to reality) ideas through the filter. If you can't see the difference between accepting the conclusions of those who practice this method and accepting the conclusions of a bunch of old people making shit up, creating myths based on their emotions, and pretending to offer "answers" with no justification behind them, that is your problem.

But are billions the same without carl sagan??



Cant wait to see the result and get my answer

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt "Lay scientists" don't need to be expert in every scientific field in order to understand the scientific method and why those who dedicate their life to using it are justified with the conclusions they reach. A method that bases conclusions on evidence and reason is worthy of respect. The entire enterprise of science is dedicated to finding the truth through the most rigorous process ever devised. Remember, the largest awards and highest prestige in science are reserved for those who DISPROVE existing ideas..who overturn false "doctrines" and incorrect assumptions.

I have to agree with you on the premis; however, the concern I think whoever the other guy in this conversation is was expressing is that most people only pay attention to the conclusions and never actually read the whole study to examine whether or not the methodology was sound.

quote:

Religious dogma is by definition unchanging..It is meant to be immune from attack or scrutiny, and doubt is one of the highest crimes in many religions.

I have to take issue with this one. You know full well that the major faiths have evolved over time with beliefs/doctrines/dogma being changed over time. Religion does change; however, the pace of change is undoubtedly slow... of course this does help to ensure stability, which is one of the principle benefits religion provides to it's adherents.

quote:

This is the polar opposite of science. Doubt and investigation are not encouraged in faith, but they are at the core of science. The peer review process in science is a brutal gauntlet where ideas are exposed to rabid criticism by other experts in an attempt to weed out the crap and allow only the finest (closest to reality) ideas through the filter.

Hold on, let's compare apples to apples here. Doubt and investigation are encouraged in faith... hell, the vatican employes a sizable group of people who are tasked exclusively with the job of disproving reported mircals (both contemporary and historically). Seminaries are awash with researchers trying to locate and expose errors in scripture and critiqueing doctrines accordingly. Granted, a lot of adherents discourage other adherents from questioning things but those people cannot be said to be representative of their respective faiths as a whole. When you talk of science advocating investigation and faith you're talking the research fields, not the entire scientific community. Your statement that religions do not encourage doubt and investigation ignores a whole lot of work being done by theologians and scholars and is akin to someone entirely disregarding the research fields of science and focusing only on the practical application of existing knowlege. Is the level of activity in this regard on par between the two disaplines... absolutely not; however, saying it is absent or even not encouraged is simply a mischaracterization, no?

quote:

If you can't see the difference between accepting the conclusions of those who practice this method and accepting the conclusions of a bunch of old people making shit up, creating myths based on their emotions, and pretending to offer "answers" with no justification behind them, that is your problem.

While I cannot agree with the whole "making shit up..." part I do have to agree that any reasonable person has to see that the conclusions reached through the scientific process are more credible then those reached by theological inquiry or other forms of non-testable deduction/reason. I don't think; however, that this changes Nietzche's point; that most people accept science on faith rather then from a position of actual knowledge.

now that I got my defender of theism shit out of the way (we all have roles to play, no?)... I'm looking forward to this series!

edit... sorry for the unintentional rhyming... my daughter's really loving Dr. Seuss right now and that shit just seems to take over from time to time.

/fag

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I have to agree with you on the premis; however, the concern I think whoever the other guy in this conversation is was expressing is that most people only pay attention to the conclusions and never actually read the whole study to examine whether or not the methodology was sound.

Generally, by the time scientific information trickles down to the layman, its been reviewed, dumbed down and condensed so much that theres really no need for everybody to check the metodology. Thats left for those of us who are actually really interested in the subject at hand that we read the whole study, check out the related articles which have links to more related artickles and before you know it, youve wasted two weeks studying some mildly interesting yet quite unimportant fenomenon in science when what you were supposed to be doing was focusing on work or studying the finer points of economics for your exam next tuesday or both usually in my case.

The other side doesnt go trough anything near as a rigorous process before it spreads its taless to the masses.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I have to take issue with this one. You know full well that the major faiths have evolved over time with beliefs/doctrines/dogma being changed over time. Religion does change; however, the pace of change is undoubtedly slow...

They have, but kicking and screaming and trying their very hardest to resist having to change in the slightest until they had to just because they were getting embarrassaed by how retarted they look to the otside.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard ... of course this does help to ensure stability, which is one of the principle benefits religion provides to it's adherents.

Which is one of the things that infuriates everyone else. Some might be perfectly fine with the "stability" the few thousand year old world and scientific view provides, personally id rather have penicilin, or the next big thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Hold on, let's compare apples to apples here. Doubt and investigation are encouraged in faith... hell, the vatican employes a sizable group of people who are tasked exclusively with the job of disproving reported mircals (both contemporary and historically).

Then they are clearly doing a poor job at it, since they rocognise some things as miracles. Something that would fail completerly under any scientific scrutiny.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Seminaries are awash with researchers trying to locate and expose errors in scripture and critiqueing doctrines accordingly.

Thats a fancy way of saying that they are picking and choosing what they want to believe, so they are editing the texts to conform to their desires.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Granted, a lot of adherents discourage other adherents from questioning things but those people cannot be said to be representative of their respective faiths as a whole.

No true scotsman

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard When you talk of science advocating investigation and faith you're talking the research fields, not the entire scientific community. Your statement that religions do not encourage doubt and investigation ignores a whole lot of work being done by theologians and scholars and is akin to someone entirely disregarding the research fields of science and focusing only on the practical application of existing knowlege. Is the level of activity in this regard on par between the two disaplines... absolutely not; however, saying it is absent or even not encouraged is simply a mischaracterization, no?

Ill grant you the point that there might be some research, but i have to question the quality of that research. You can spend your whole life doing "serious" research into pink unicors, and can come to many conclusion based on many texts you find, but at the end of the day you were researching pink unicorns. No matter how hard you tried, your research is worthless.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I cannot agree with the whole "making shit up..." part I do have to agree that any reasonable person has to see that the conclusions reached through the scientific process are more credible then those reached by theological inquiry or other forms of non-testable deduction/reason. I don't think; however, that this changes Nietzche's point; that most people accept science on faith rather then from a position of actual knowledge.

There is no gray areas of credibility here. Black and white, credible and not credible, and i dont have to say which one is which do i.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard now that I got my defender of theism shit out of the way (we all have roles to play, no?)... I'm looking forward to this series!

Now that my usual shit is out of the way, while youre waiting for this you might want to check out the shows by Brian Cox.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I have to take issue with this one. You know full well that the major faiths have evolved over time with beliefs/doctrines/dogma being changed over time. Religion does change; however, the pace of change is undoubtedly slow... of course this does help to ensure stability, which is one of the principle benefits religion provides to it's adherents.

I would say they have evolved, but out of necessity and not by choice. Religion on a whole has resisted change over the centuries and tried to suppress discoveries that contradicted church dogma. This is inevitable when you have something called "dogma" in the first place.. It is dragged into new eras, but only when the evidence becomes overwhelming to the point of being an embarrassment. The same has happened on social issues like slavery, equal rights for women, gays, etc. Churches are becoming more liberal on the whole, but they are not the vanguard of this movement. They are the caboose.

quote:

Hold on, let's compare apples to apples here. Doubt and investigation are encouraged in faith... hell, the vatican employes a sizable group of people who are tasked exclusively with the job of disproving reported mircals (both contemporary and historically).

I would highly suggest they contact the professionals at the JREF. The church's method seem to be sorely lacking.

quote:

Seminaries are awash with researchers trying to locate and expose errors in scripture and critiqueing doctrines accordingly. Granted, a lot of adherents discourage other adherents from questioning things but those people cannot be said to be representative of their respective faiths as a whole.

Faiths "as a whole" are made up of adherents..so I think it is fair to use a broad brush when talking about the vast majority of the church body who have no interest in learning about all the errors and authorship problems with the bible.

quote:

While I cannot agree with the whole "making shit up..." part I do have to agree that any reasonable person has to see that the conclusions reached through the scientific process are more credible then those reached by theological inquiry or other forms of non-testable deduction/reason. I don't think; however, that this changes Nietzche's point; that most people accept science on faith rather then from a position of actual knowledge.

Sorry, I think you (and Nietzche) are really equivocating here on the term "faith" here. People can either believe things for good reasons or bad reasons. "Faith" as I see theists using it seems to be a copout..a placeholder they throw out when they don't want to examine or relay the *reasons* they have for believing the magical stuff they believe (usually because those reasons are very very bad). For those who appreciate the scientific method, there is no need to invoke the word faith at all..because the justifications for scientific beliefs are readily available and can be demonstrated. Faith is not based on any rational method of evidence-based inquiry. To the extent that you have evidence for your beliefs, you don't need faith. And to the extent that beliefs are not based on evidence and reason, we see no predictive power, no reliable results, and no conceivable means to prove that one faith-based assertion is more valid than any other.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Generally, by the time scientific information trickles down to the layman, its been reviewed, dumbed down and condensed so much that theres really no need for everybody to check the metodology.

I have to disagree... scientific discoveries make headlines before being peer reviewed and/or duplicated all the time. For most people (going beyond those of us for whom education is a priority) this is how they consume their "scientific knowledge" through news reports and magazine articles. By the time the peer reviews are done or the initial study has been replicated the layperson has generally moved on and the general media doesn't bother much with follow up.

quote:

The other side doesnt go trough anything near as a rigorous process before it spreads its taless to the masses.

I'll agree in that theological positions/arguments cannot be tested with measurable results; by the nature of these inquiries that is simply fact. That said, because there is no definitive tests does not mean that there is any less scrutiny paid; rather, it only means that the results are always arguable.

quote:

They have, but kicking and screaming and trying their very hardest to resist having to change in the slightest until they had to just because they were getting embarrassaed by how retarted they look to the otside.

I think that your above statement exhibits a lack of knowledge of the history of the major faiths. Hinduism for one evolved it's chief beliefs over more then a thousand years. Christianity had not settled on some of the most important doctrines for several hundred years and even now is in a state of change and divergent opinon on many tennents. Furthermore, in many ways Christianity and Islam represent evolutions of Judiasm (especially if one concludes that neither the new testiment writers nor Mohammed were inspired by god). Additionally, very rarely have the major faiths changed anything through any process other then internal examination... if they did then that whole stability thing would have gone by the wayside.

quote:

Which is one of the things that infuriates everyone else. Some might be perfectly fine with the "stability" the few thousand year old world and scientific view provides, personally id rather have penicilin, or the next big thing.

I'm not sure how stability in the theological positions of the major faiths negatively impacts scientific advancement, at least presently. Certainly, despite stability in theology science continues to advance.

quote:

Then they are clearly doing a poor job at it, since they rocognise some things as miracles. Something that would fail completerly under any scientific scrutiny.

in fairness it is rather difficult to investigate things that happened hundreds to thousands of years ago, no? Of contemporary miracles the vatican only recognizes those that cannot be otherwise explained through scientific testing. To my knowledge only a handful have been accepted in the past hundred years.

quote:

Thats a fancy way of saying that they are picking and choosing what they want to believe, so they are editing the texts to conform to their desires.

Not at all... most seminaries practice historical critical study of the bible and essentially rip the shit out of it without any regard for established doctrine.

quote:

I'll grant you the point that there might be some research, but i have to question the quality of that research. You can spend your whole life doing "serious" research into pink unicors, and can come to many conclusion based on many texts you find, but at the end of the day you were researching pink unicorns. No matter how hard you tried, your research is worthless.

you're exibiting bias and ignorance as to what research is being done here.

quote:

There is no gray areas of credibility here. Black and white, credible and not credible, and i dont have to say which one is which do i.

Credibility is always subjective. I agree with you as to which is more credible, as scientific inquiry is more verifiable and yeilds testable conclusions (for the most part); however, to say there is zero credibility to the work of legitimate scholars doing legitimate research and historical criticism is, IMO, folly. You can feel free to disagree with them all you like but to write it off as being entirely without merit is a little short sited, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Faiths "as a whole" are made up of adherents..so I think it is fair to use a broad brush when talking about the vast majority of the church body who have no interest and no knowledge at all of the historical criticism done by scholars. Given that the seminarians who learn about the myriad errors and authorship problems with scripture tend not to pass this information on to their flocks, I think it's fair. I suppose they can't be blamed because the whole basis of the faith relies on certain documents being in some way the product of a perfect omnipotent/omniscient being. Try as they might to avoid it, that little preconception makes it impossible for most believers to be truly objective when investigating these things.

I don't have enough time to really continue the discussion; however, I think it's an overstatement to say that the faith of most adherents would be shaken by knowing Paul didn't write Timothy or Matthew did not write Matthew... simillarly, I doubt many would truely be shaken to realize that at least one of the Gospels fucked up on which day Jesus was executed (assuming he existed and was executed). It is probably more likely that pastors and priests tend to focus on what they view the meaning of the scriptures to be so they devote their time to that rather then breaking down the artistic licence John was taking in changing the day of the passion to draw parallels between Jesus' death and the salvation of the Jews during the exodus (or alternatively Matthew Mark and Luke changing the day to the day the passover lambs are slaughtered to link Jesus with the sacraficial offering).

quote:

Sorry, I think you (and Nietzche) are really equivocating here on the term "faith" here. People can either believe things for good reasons or bad reasons. "Faith" as I see theists using it seems to be a copout..a placeholder they throw out when they don't want to examine or relay the *reasons* they have for believing the magical stuff they believe (usually because those reasons are very very bad). For those who appreciate the scientific method, there is no need to invoke the word faith at all..because the justifications for scientific beliefs are readily available and can be demonstrated. Faith is not based on any rational method of evidence-based inquiry. To the extent that you have evidence for your beliefs, you don't need faith. And to the extent that beliefs are not based on evidence and reason, we see no predictive power, no reliable results, and no conceivable means to prove that one faith-based assertion is more valid than any other.

You're making too much of my verbiage... Nietzche and I are both making the point that most people accept what they are told about scientific discovery rather then what they have first hand knowledge of.

Sorry for the topic drift on this one, guys.... your friendly neighbourhood religion apologist is leaving now.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't have enough time to really continue the discussion; however, I think it's an overstatement to say that the faith of most adherents would be shaken by knowing Paul didn't write Timothy or Matthew did not write Matthew...

Probably not, but a huge chunk of Christianity places a big emphasis on the writings/teachings of Paul..and if these people discovered that half of the letters supposedly written by him are actually forgeries written by unknown authors, that would have a pretty huge impact on their faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably not, but a huge chunk of Christianity places a big emphasis on the writings/teachings of Paul..and if these people discovered that half of the letters supposedly written by him are actually forgeries written by unknown authors, that would have a pretty huge impact on their faith.

I have to take the opposing view. I know full well that a number of the books included in the Cannon are forged and it doesn't shake my faith at all. In fact, with some it actually helps... 1 Timothy is a great example; it expressly states women should have no positions of authority in the church; however, Paul set up churches with women in positions of authority within the community (even as preachers). Knowing that this book is a forgery certainly helps to rectify an inconsitancy between "Paul's" words and his actions. Granted, anyone who believes in bible inerrency would have some problems with this but I think we can all agree that forgeries in the Cannon are really the least of the problems with that belief.

Anyway, again, sorry for the topic drift.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Hold on, let's compare apples to apples here. Doubt and investigation are encouraged in faith... hell, the vatican employes a sizable group of people who are tasked exclusively with the job of disproving reported mircals (both contemporary and historically). Seminaries are awash with researchers trying to locate and expose errors in scripture and critiqueing doctrines accordingly. Granted, a lot of adherents discourage other adherents from questioning things but those people cannot be said to be representative of their respective faiths as a whole. When you talk of science advocating investigation and faith you're talking the research fields, not the entire scientific community. Your statement that religions do not encourage doubt and investigation ignores a whole lot of work being done by theologians and scholars and is akin to someone entirely disregarding the research fields of science and focusing only on the practical application of existing knowlege. Is the level of activity in this regard on par between the two disaplines... absolutely not; however, saying it is absent or even not encouraged is simply a mischaracterization, no?

This is all very nice, however based on your claim, overall you're saying the catholic church is quite secular and doesn't employ any censorship or cover ups at all? Or at the very least less than the average government.

No I don't give a shit how many people are employed to disprove miracles, no doubt there's someone at the executive branch who decides whether a miracle is real or not based on politics more than anything. Some token effort doesn't discredit the fact of what really goes on and the rest of the things they do. I mean newton was only made not a heretic in the 1980s, and he didn't even have any anti church stuff apart from thinking of a few different ideas in physics.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I would say they have evolved, but out of necessity and not by choice. Religion on a whole has resisted change over the centuries and tried to suppress discoveries that contradicted church dogma. This is inevitable when you have something called "dogma" in the first place..

For once a section by capitalizt I have no problem with.

I don't think moral hazard understands what conservatism (or more extreme conservatism) is. It doesn't mean 100% no change, it just means they'll dig their heels in and deliberately ignore evidence (due to reading into things in a way that means you see what you want to see) for a long time and then only change once they start to look excessively stupid.

Faith means deliberate discrediting of evidence (as the usually more bad side) or trust in a certain authority (for the generally positive side). Although the two are linked. The only reason to descredit evidence is if you know that whoever it is knows a lot more about it than you (e.g. having faith that global warming scientists are right when today is cold)... and the other side is trusting the authority of the catholic church. Which you know, is one of the least corrupt instutions in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I have to disagree... scientific discoveries make headlines before being peer reviewed and/or duplicated all the time. For most people (going beyond those of us for whom education is a priority) this is how they consume their "scientific knowledge" through news reports and magazine articles. By the time the peer reviews are done or the initial study has been replicated the layperson has generally moved on and the general media doesn't bother much with follow up.

That is indeed one bad aspect of life. One really bad example being the study that showed ecstacy destroys the brain, which oprey winfrey was quick to get on her show. When it turns out that the lab accidentally gave rats the jar labelled meth and not ecstacy no one gives a shit. "New discoveries" are way more interesting to the public than slightly new ones being descredited. However concidering how slow the catholic church has been to take up science, I think you'll find getting science through tabloids is a hell of a lot more accurate. So yes there's something wrong with the way less scientificly minded papers show science, however that doesn't make the catholic church any better.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You're making too much of my verbiage... Nietzche and I are both making the point that most people accept what they are told about scientific discovery rather then what they have first hand knowledge of.

There's no real reason not to trust experts, so long as there's a reasonable number of them in the given field, they give a realistic idea of certainty on a subject (and people in that field have a history of doing so) and sources of bias are investigated.

Not to say they always have the right idea, but when whatever field of science has shown to have made few catastrophic errors in their field once 90% of them gives the thumbs up to a theory I don't see the issue with trusting them. I wouldn't trust either a millionare economist or an unemployed economist for instance though.

When I'm talking about the purity of the field, the example of the fact that relativity disproves certain ideas newton thought up doesn't mean we should feel embarassed about believing his theories for 100s of years. Compared to for instance half the reason for invading a country being nuclear weapons then not finding any we should certainly feel very embarrassed about. Since in that field the possibility for bias is giant and then surprise surprise the experts just happen to be wrong.

To sum it up: I feel a lot happier trusting climate change scientists who have little to gain from their theories being right (at most keeping a job at at most twice their salary) compared to a pharmaceutical company that could potentially increase profit 10 fold if they market the miracle drug.

I think being overly trusting of experts makes corruption easier (especially if you don't account for bias), however relying 100% on anecdotal evidence is really going to hold science back. I'd need to know more about the quote in context to judge nietchze for that quote though. While he has a point, just because you don't understand field x doesn't mean you should rely on your personal knowledge of it. Imagine if everyone relied very heavily on anecdotal evidence? Oh I don't know anyone who's gotten aids, therefore I won't get it. That can go really wrong. You need a balance.

On the one side there's being easily corrupted by power without accountability and on the other there's basically being stupid. It's possible to both gain knowledge and allow society to function exponentially better through the use of experts and have accountability.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Additionally, very rarely have the major faiths changed anything through any process other then internal examination... if they did then that whole stability thing would have gone by the wayside.

Doesn't the counter reformation triggered by a few fringe priests on the outskirts of catholicism that went into a mass movement count as not "internal examination". The catholic church made some medium to major changes just because the people demanded them, not because of any new insight gained from studying scripture.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sorry, I think you (and Nietzche) are really equivocating here on the term "faith" here. People can either believe things for good reasons or bad reasons. "Faith" as I see theists using it seems to be a copout..a placeholder they throw out when they don't want to examine or relay the *reasons* they have for believing the magical stuff they believe (usually because those reasons are very very bad). For those who appreciate the scientific method, there is no need to invoke the word faith at all..because the justifications for scientific beliefs are readily available and can be demonstrated. Faith is not based on any rational method of evidence-based inquiry. To the extent that you have evidence for your beliefs, you don't need faith. And to the extent that beliefs are not based on evidence and reason, we see no predictive power, no reliable results, and no conceivable means to prove that one faith-based assertion is more valid than any other.

I agree, there are two things aspects that are sometimes called faith or a part of faith that do every job needed in society way better.
1. Appeal to tradition
IMO should be used very sparingly nowadays
e.g. "We've eaten this food for thousands of years, therefore it is unlikely that we will get significant health problems from eating it in 10 years time"
2. Appeal to authority/expertise
"97% of climate change scientists agree that humans cause global warming"

Both of which are legitimate. However a lot of the time faith is just used as an excuse for not backing up your claims/opinions with good reasons. Which is just a "cop out". There isn't a nicer way to put it.


The real enemy of scientific inquiry is for lack of a better term (there probably is one but I don't know it) excessive optimism. The idea that believing something is a good idea just because it makes you happy.

There's a reason a few fundamentalists believe that knowledge is the enemy of faith, and hence why the more you value scientific reasoning the more likely you are to become an atheist. While faith and reason can co exist, they are at least somewhat ideologically opposed and hence why when people end up being heavily into both end up removing one from their life.

You're responding to arguments I haven't made.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter This is all very nice, however based on your claim, overall you're saying the catholic church is quite secular and doesn't employ any censorship or cover ups at all? Or at the very least less than the average government.

I am in no way saying the church is secular; quite the opposite, all the work to disprove miracles is entirely based on the belief that the more "miracles" that are disproven the ones that cannot be disproven are made stronger. I don't necessarally agree with this; howevver, that is the motivation. Irrespective, my comments were a respons to the position that the church does not encourage doubt and investigation, which is simply incorrect.

quote:

No I don't give a shit how many people are employed to disprove miracles, no doubt there's someone at the executive branch who decides whether a miracle is real or not based on politics more than anything.

that's really just conjecture on your part.

quote:

Some token effort doesn't discredit the fact of what really goes on and the rest of the things they do. I mean newton was only made not a heretic in the 1980s, and he didn't even have any anti church stuff apart from thinking of a few different ideas in physics.

I wouldn't call it a token effort; however, I never suggested that their efforts have any impact on other positions they have taken. Again, I was simply pointing out that the claim the church does not encourage investigation is simply false.

quote:

That is indeed one bad aspect of life. One really bad example being the study that showed ecstacy destroys the brain, which oprey winfrey was quick to get on her show. When it turns out that the lab accidentally gave rats the jar labelled meth and not ecstacy no one gives a shit. "New discoveries" are way more interesting to the public than slightly new ones being descredited. However concidering how slow the catholic church has been to take up science, I think you'll find getting science through tabloids is a hell of a lot more accurate. So yes there's something wrong with the way less scientificly minded papers show science, however that doesn't make the catholic church any better.

Again, you're responding to a non-existant argument... I did not advocate aquiring knowledge through the church rather then anything else... in fact, if you read my posts you will see that I am quite clear in stating that established fact arrived at through the scientific process is more credible and should be accepted as such over theological positions. The quote you are responding to was simply me objecting to Moongoose's statement that by the time sciencetific information reaches the public it has been tested and peer reviewed (essentially that it has been established as fact), which is not the case and which you have explicitly agreed with.

To be sure, there are a great deal of things I have said that are arguable; why would you choose to argue with positions I didn't actually take?

teach these filthy atheists a lesson, craig! especially that darkarbiter homo.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Completely agree, that description sounds god-aweful And all atheists know lots about science, and are always right, right? Seth mcfarlen seems like an idiot, I can't imagine this being good...

You seem like an idiot when you can't even write his name when it's on the top of the page+your tab.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN teach these filthy atheists a lesson, craig! especially that darkarbiter homo.

Meh, I'm getting tired of it all. Normally I pop in to respond to something specific and then I get all sorts of positions foisted upon me because someone thinks they have a clever or insightful argument to make. It get's tiresome responding to objections against statements I never made. If it wasn't for the knowledge that at least some people appreciate my posts in these threads I wouldn't bother.

Note to all... I don't agree with the "filthy" characterization. Granted you're all insufferable heathens that will burn in the eternal fires of hell; that goes without saying, but I would never suggest you have poor hygiene...

I watched a documentary (History Channel, I think) on the purged gospels of the bible, it mostly covered the Judas Gospel, but they also mentioned the ones regarding Jesus' adolescense that had bits where he put a spell on a billygoat so it charged a priest's butt.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Again, you're responding to a non-existant argument... I did not advocate aquiring knowledge through the church rather then anything else... in fact, if you read my posts you will see that I am quite clear in stating that established fact arrived at through the scientific process is more credible and should be accepted as such over theological positions. The quote you are responding to was simply me objecting to Moongoose's statement that by the time sciencetific information reaches the public it has been tested and peer reviewed (essentially that it has been established as fact), which is not the case and which you have explicitly agreed with. To be sure, there are a great deal of things I have said that are arguable; why would you choose to argue with positions I didn't actually take?

Possibly, well I don't disagree with anything you just said so parts of my post may have been redundant because I didn't read what you said in context. I should pay more attention when I'm posting. I'm much better at debating in real life, I can get a bit off track on forums.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Note to all... I don't agree with the "filthy" characterization. Granted you're all insufferable heathens that will burn in the eternal fires of hell; that goes without saying, but I would never suggest you have poor hygiene...

I'm filthier than fingering your sister (approximately the same filthyness as a dubstep track that was described to me)

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN teach these filthy atheists a lesson, craig! especially that darkarbiter homo.

I object to my sexuality being used pejoratively, besides I'm only half gay.

Did you get it from your fathers or your mothers side?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi Did you get it from your fathers or your mothers side?

Well my mother claims my father is gay for some reason, and my mother's brother is actually gay.
So both

Although it was PKC who introduced me to a forum that made me far more open about my sexuality, so it's actually his fault more than anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Well my mother claims my father is gay for some reason, and my mother's brother is actually gay. So both Although it was PKC who introduced me to a forum that made me far more open about my sexuality, so it's actually his fault more than anyone.

Oh, so you're actually 3/4 gay then. Nice!

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi Oh, so you're actually 3/4 gay then. Nice!

Well I'm mostly into girls, so I guess that's kind've like not being true to your race by being into the wrong kind've race, only with sexuality?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Meh, I'm getting tired of it all. Normally I pop in to respond to something specific and then I get all sorts of positions foisted upon me because someone thinks they have a clever or insightful argument to make. It get's tiresome responding to objections against statements I never made. If it wasn't for the knowledge that at least some people appreciate my posts in these threads I wouldn't bother. Note to all... I don't agree with the "filthy" characterization. Granted you're all insufferable heathens that will burn in the eternal fires of hell; that goes without saying, but I would never suggest you have poor hygiene...

well, as always, i appreciate your responses of course, im still a cunt, but if i were ever less of a cunt atheist, you'd be the reason. ill be slipping your name at the pearly gates and seeing if st peter lets me in without cover.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.