DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> ?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask
Pages:   ... ... [69]
Showing posts 501 - 525 of 1721, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/30/2009 04:30:10 PM · #501
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


Then you misunderstood me. I was asking YOU why you considered Taoism a religion and wanted to know if your reasoning was powerful enough to differentiate between Taoism and say a cultural identity (or baseball as a decent example). In other words, does your answer for why Taoism is a religion also allow a bunch of other things into the definition that are rarely considered "religion" in most conversations?


My theological definition - no.
My secular definition - yes.

I am flexible that way. You should see me do the splits. :)
01/30/2009 04:32:57 PM · #502
Originally posted by dahkota:

You start from a belief point - that of the existence of God. Scalvert doesn't have that - it doesn't exist. As I stated before, his dis-belief is a by-product, not a view or a philosophy. A completely different way to look at it. I'm trying to think of an apt example - maybe on my drive home it will come to me.

Comic book superheroes. As a class of beings, they simply do not exist (even if there are ample literary references, historical names and many young people who believe they do). There are plenty of reasons to dismiss their existence (logical, philosophical and so on) even without bringing up the lack of physical evidence, yet only faith itself to support a belief in them. Your own arguments are along the lines of, "I don't believe in Marvel superheroes because I believe in DC Comics versions." Whatever. Either way, you still assume the existence of superheroes as a given and frame your questions within that construct. You cannot seem to grasp any alternate possibility.
01/30/2009 04:34:56 PM · #503
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:

You start from a belief point - that of the existence of God. Scalvert doesn't have that - it doesn't exist. As I stated before, his dis-belief is a by-product, not a view or a philosophy. A completely different way to look at it. I'm trying to think of an apt example - maybe on my drive home it will come to me.

Comic book superheroes. As a class of beings, they simply do not exist (even if there are ample literary references, historical names and many young people who believe they do). There are plenty of reasons to dismiss their existence (logical, philosophical and so on) even without bringing up the lack of physical evidence, yet only faith itself to support a belief in them. Your own arguments are along the lines of, "I don't believe in Marvel superheroes because I believe in DC Comics versions." Whatever. Either way, you still assume the existence of superheroes as a given and frame your questions within that construct. You cannot seem to grasp any alternate possibility.


Does it matter that I likely never believed in Marvel superheroes but you did believe in God at one point? SOMETHING must have caused you to go from belief to disbelief. What was it? and is it part of a larger worldview or philosophy?
01/30/2009 04:42:46 PM · #504
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


Then you misunderstood me. I was asking YOU why you considered Taoism a religion and wanted to know if your reasoning was powerful enough to differentiate between Taoism and say a cultural identity (or baseball as a decent example). In other words, does your answer for why Taoism is a religion also allow a bunch of other things into the definition that are rarely considered "religion" in most conversations?


My theological definition - no.
My secular definition - yes.

I am flexible that way. You should see me do the splits. :)


:) Don't make me conjure up that image. So just to be clear, when you and I are typically talking about religion, is baseball included? If the answer is "it depends" then do me the favor and let me know which one you are using when we talk. It'll likely avoid confusion.
01/30/2009 05:07:28 PM · #505
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Does it matter that I likely never believed in Marvel superheroes but you did believe in God at one point? SOMETHING must have caused you to go from belief to disbelief. What was it?

You probably DID believe in the tooth fairy at one point, likely from the influence of authority figures and peers. Fairies and gods are not really mutually exclusive, so if those peers and authority figures continued to reinforce your belief and the figure was defined as unknowable and untestable, then you'd probably continue to believe and rationalize fairies to this day regardless of any logical or scientific contradictions. At least with tooth fairies there was the possibility of disproof- catching a parent in the act, for example. In lieu of disproof, could it not suffice for some that the whole premise makes no rational sense at all and requires way too many suspensions of physics and logic?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why do you require evidence to support something's existence?

The same reason you gave for the Loch Ness Monster, except that you botched the ending:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why do I require evidence for them?
The scientific method requires evidence to support an assertion.
Why do I believe in the scientific method?
Because I do.

Oooh, so close. You don't "believe" in the scientific method. It doesn't require belief. That's its whole purpose- that results can be independently tested and demonstrated to be true or false. Equating scientific method with mere belief is disingenuous at best. Note also that I don't necessarily require evidence to support something's existence. Sometimes I can settle for likelihood.
01/30/2009 05:14:50 PM · #506
Originally posted by scalvert:

Oooh, so close. You don't "believe" in the scientific method. It doesn't require belief. That's its whole purpose- that results can be independently tested and demonstrated to be true or false. Equating scientific method with mere belief is disingenuous at best. Note also that I don't necessarily require evidence to support something's existence. Sometimes I can settle for likelihood.


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 17:22:09.
01/30/2009 05:31:24 PM · #507
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


:) Don't make me conjure up that image. So just to be clear, when you and I are typically talking about religion, is baseball included? If the answer is "it depends" then do me the favor and let me know which one you are using when we talk. It'll likely avoid confusion.


No. My definition of religion is based on context. Here, with you, it is a religious context. Talking to my husband, baseball would be a religion and the conversation would go very differently. And, for the record, no one can be robbed of a homerun. you either have it or you don't. You can't have a homerun and have the outfielder steal it from you by catching it. In that case, it was never a homerun, it was a potential homerun and an actual out. So there.

Back to your 'question.' Capitalism can be a religion (one I feel is strongly followed and worshiped in this country). But it is a secular religion, akin to the religion of shopping some women profess to follow. Is it the same as Christianity, Judaism, or Taoism? Not in my theologically based definition, but in the secular world, it could be. Same for your national cultures.
01/30/2009 05:37:59 PM · #508
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?


Nope. Not giving this to you. Its not a logical error, its a syntactical one.

Using God, prove God is valid.
01/30/2009 05:38:25 PM · #509
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


:) Don't make me conjure up that image. So just to be clear, when you and I are typically talking about religion, is baseball included? If the answer is "it depends" then do me the favor and let me know which one you are using when we talk. It'll likely avoid confusion.


No. My definition of religion is based on context. Here, with you, it is a religious context. Talking to my husband, baseball would be a religion and the conversation would go very differently. And, for the record, no one can be robbed of a homerun. you either have it or you don't. You can't have a homerun and have the outfielder steal it from you by catching it. In that case, it was never a homerun, it was a potential homerun and an actual out. So there.

Back to your 'question.' Capitalism can be a religion (one I feel is strongly followed and worshiped in this country). But it is a secular religion, akin to the religion of shopping some women profess to follow. Is it the same as Christianity, Judaism, or Taoism? Not in my theologically based definition, but in the secular world, it could be. Same for your national cultures.


Ok, I'll tuck this away because it can make a big difference. For the record I would never believe baseball, capitalism, or other such things would qualify as "religion" although I may concede one could have a "religious" affinity for them. Just stating where I'm coming from.
01/30/2009 05:39:37 PM · #510
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?


Nope. Not giving this to you. Its not a logical error, its a syntactical one.

Using God, prove God is valid.


Pisha. "God" is not a system of validation. That sentence is pure nonsense. My sentence is not. Come on. Don't get in the way though, this is the longest I've ever had Shannon be quiet. I'm going for the record! ;)
01/30/2009 05:41:45 PM · #511
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?

No, its validity vs. alternatives has been amply demonstrated throughout history, but it certainly made me ponder how you ever made it through med school! :-O
01/30/2009 05:45:07 PM · #512
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?

No, its validity vs. alternatives has been amply demonstrated throughout history, but it certainly made me ponder how you ever made it through med school! :-O


That's no answer. It's validity has been demonstrated, but not through itself. That's obviously true. So let's go back to your original statement:

You don't "believe" in the scientific method. It doesn't require belief. That's its whole purpose- that results can be independently tested and demonstrated to be true or false. Equating scientific method with mere belief is disingenuous at best."

So you require another system of validation to assert the validity of the Scientific Method. Don't you?

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 17:45:43.
01/30/2009 05:47:36 PM · #513
Welcome to Epistemology 101.
01/30/2009 06:05:26 PM · #514
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


OK. Using the Scientific method, prove the scientific method is valid.

EDIT: Did your brain explode in a self-referencing logic error?


Nope. Not giving this to you. Its not a logical error, its a syntactical one.

Using God, prove God is valid.


Pisha. "God" is not a system of validation. That sentence is pure nonsense. My sentence is not. Come on. Don't get in the way though, this is the longest I've ever had Shannon be quiet. I'm going for the record! ;)


And my point is that you are using the words as things in themselves in this sense. the scientific method isn't one 'thing' you can point to, to use to validate another 'thing.'

Again, this is not a logic error, its a syntactical one. On your part.
01/30/2009 06:11:32 PM · #515
Originally posted by dahkota:

And my point is that you are using the words as things in themselves in this sense. the scientific method isn't one 'thing' you can point to, to use to validate another 'thing.'

Again, this is not a logic error, its a syntactical one. On your part.


Naw. I disagree. Shannon was saying the Scientific Method "doesn't require belief" which makes it sound like it is a self-validated or self-evident truth. In other words it sounds to me like the Scientific Method is supposed to stand on its own. I'm pointing out this is obviously not true.

The only possibility I can see is I misunderstood what Shannon's belief was referring to. Maybe he meant the results of a Scientific Method investiation don't require "belief" because they have either been proven or disproven by the Scientific Method. But that would miss the original question of "why do I believe in the scientific method?" (ie. why do I consider the results of the Scientific method to be valid truth).
01/30/2009 06:14:56 PM · #516
Why do you consider the bible to be valid truth?
01/30/2009 06:15:40 PM · #517
Originally posted by dahkota:

Why do you consider the bible to be valid truth?


Faith
01/30/2009 06:16:19 PM · #518
and what is that faith based on?
01/30/2009 06:21:31 PM · #519
Originally posted by dahkota:

and what is that faith based on?


Faith is ultimately based on nothing. It is foundational. That's why it's faith. I'm simplifying this, but I don't know where you are going. Do you think Shannon is going to answer that he thinks the results of the Scientific Method are valid truth because of faith?

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 18:21:49.
01/30/2009 06:44:27 PM · #520
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Faith is ultimately based on nothing. It is foundational.

So why do you believe in faith if it is based on nothing?
01/30/2009 06:57:45 PM · #521
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Faith is ultimately based on nothing. It is foundational.

So why do you believe in faith if it is based on nothing?


Because I choose to.

Now, I should also say that all knowledge is ultimately based on something similar.

But I don't want the conversation to get on me. Shannon is being quiet again.
01/30/2009 07:14:27 PM · #522
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(ie. why do I consider the results of the Scientific method to be valid truth).


Now I will answer you. The results of scientific method are considered valid truth because they have been tested and retested, to the point that the hypothesis holds over time and place. you must take it on faith that the results will not change (you like that, don't you?). For example, I have no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I have woken up thousands of mornings and the sun rose. So, I am assuming, based on scientific method, that it will rise again. There may come a day when the sun doesn't rise. And in that case, my hypothesis will be proved erroneous. However, until that day comes, I am safe in assuming that, due to previously experienced sun rises, the sun will indeed rise as normally predicted.

Now, is this stronger evidence than proof of God's existence? Well, in a nutshell, yes. The results can be duplicated by anyone willing to assemble the necessary materials and carry out the experiment. With God's existence, we have no test that can be utilized by anyone anywhere. Why? Because there is no test so far constructed that can be replicated, only testimony put forth by differing groups that don't necessarily agree on the meaning of the results.
01/30/2009 07:32:13 PM · #523
Now don't go making arguments I'm not making. Remember, the whole origin of this is trying to get Shannon to place his disbelief in God within the context of a larger worldview. He, for some reason, refuses to do so and for the longest time I just don't get this. Personally I think his disbelief falls within his rationalism/scientific/materialistic worldview and I really don't know why he doesn't agree on this. (it's not like I'm suddenly going to burst in with an, "AHA! YOU, SIR, ARE NOW PROVEN WRONG!") I just want to understand him.

When I ask Shannon why he doesn't believe in gods he sometimes points to the apparent logical fallacies and problems in the Bible. This, however, would at best disprove the existence of the Christian God (or perhaps disprove our understanding of this god). When I push further and ask him why he doesn't believe in any gods, he will point to a lack of evidence, but for some reason he always refuses to put this lack of evidence within a larger framework. Why does a lack of evidence prevent his belief? What is the underlying axiom that defends this?

Like I said, I'm mainly just trying to understand him.

EDIT: I'll nitpick a minor point with you. The validity of the Scientific Method is not as reliable as the rising of the sun. Certainly false conclusions have been reached through the honest application of the Scientific Method through problems like random chance or a misinterpretation of the results. Just pointing that out.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 19:34:06.
01/30/2009 07:48:47 PM · #524
About your nitpik - duh! I was just using a quick and easy example - no need to point out anything - I'm quite versed in scientific method.

Also, you brought up the question I answered, not I. If you don't want a question answered, why ask it?

Additionally, if something doesn't really come under consideration in your world view, how can another demand you explain it? For example, I don't believe in the trinity. I don't think about it, I don't consider my belief, but when asked, that is my answer. It is not part of my world view, it just is. Demanding I explain something I give little thought to is pointless. I don't believe in angels. Why? I don't know, I never really considered it. But I can give you a dozen explanations if you need one. My point is that God is a central part of your life. You believe in it because you do. God is not a part of Scalvert's life. Just because its not. It doesn't have to be tied to anything else, just as you previously stated that your belief in God comes from nothing. Demanding he explain himself when you don't adequately explain yourself to him is just rude.
01/30/2009 07:52:50 PM · #525
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon is being quiet again.

Shannon was offline, as he was the last time you said that.

Scientific method probably could, and essentially has, been used to prove its own validity. Setting up empirical, objective experiments designed to be measurable and verifiable alongside others without those qualities would quickly demonstrate the reliability and veracity of the former method.
Pages:   ... ... [69]
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 04:18:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 04:18:15 PM EDT.