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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Christianity/Catholisim
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 276 - 300 of 476, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/10/2009 02:05:19 PM · #276
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Doc, I won't quote all of that mainly because my iPhone won't let me so I'll just answer here. How can you be open minded when you offer up hypetheticals that are suppose to make me believe that somethings are unanswerable. How in your limited existence on this planet (let alone humanity's) do you come to such a conclusion? If thats not close minded I don't know what is.


Maybe it makes more sense if I approach it this way. Some of us believe in a dual nature. The natural world isn't all there is. People who only believe in a natural world tend to ask, "where's the proof in that?". My question to you is, what would that proof look like? It would look like an unsolvable problem that we cannot answer (the "moving lampshade" or consciousness or abiogenesis or the anthropic principle or something). As we progress along answering questions we come across, every one is possible proof for this alternate reality. Most of the questions we've come across, so far, are not that proof. Certainly none of the ones we have satisfactory natural answers for. But it only takes one and that question will not look any different than any other question until we realize we just can't answer it.

Someone tells you that some quarters have a smiley face stamped on the back instead of the usual "tails". Every quarter you come across looks the same on the heads side and you flip them over and it's always the usual tails. Using the information you have so far, can you be assured that the next one you flip isn't going to have the smiley staring back at you?


I think you are disproving your own point here. I had a highly religious but still open minded professor (who taught anthropology, go figure) that explained faith to us like this (because many people in the class claimed they had none)

"When you sit in a chair... is that not faith? You have faith that that chair was made properly and will hold up your body."

Basically, you were not there, you didn't make the chair, but by the virtue of the fact that almost all, if not all, of the chairs you've sat in in your life have held you up, you think this one will too.

No one would have a reason to believe that a smiley would be on the back of the coin. Could it be? Well sure. Just like your chair could break. But why would I go around believing things so contrary to what I know just because it "could" happen? And why would you believe the one person who said there would be over your own common sense, common knowledge, knowledge of coin printing, etc? I sure would be a million times more neurotic than I am now if that were the case. If I believed every nut job thing people told me "could" happen.
04/10/2009 02:08:27 PM · #277
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it.


We don't? Seems to me there's an awful lot of that going on, actually...

R.
04/10/2009 02:09:13 PM · #278
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Doc

If someone told me that I'd be skeptical. Your point? If I told you I am god will you consider that a possibliity?


No, I already have enough evidence against that theory. ;)


Close minded heathen!

04/10/2009 02:10:18 PM · #279
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it.


We don't? Seems to me there's an awful lot of that going on, actually...

R.


On a grand scale, we don't. We wouldn't have the things we do, have the advances we have, etc. if we didn't.

Granted, there is a lot of it going on, but overall, we're generally good at moving on when we have to.
04/10/2009 02:11:34 PM · #280
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say.

I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....

What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?

The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible.


Oh no no! I think you misunderstand me. As I said, I'm pro choice. What I meant was that I understand how some people might think that a fetus from the beginning, or at some point in the womb (some say when the heartbeat starts) is no longer "her body" but a separate entity and is worth trying to protect just as any other human life. I'm not saying I agree, just that I understand where they are coming from as far as a moral debate goes. I am DEF NOT saying the father or any other man should be the one calling the shots. The "entity" I spoke of was the fetus, not the father.
04/10/2009 02:15:35 PM · #281
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.

Direct quote from the video that you either haven't watched or can't seem to grasp:
"Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. Believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded, but it can be a sign that you're more gullible."
04/10/2009 02:19:33 PM · #282
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.

Direct quote from the video that you either haven't watched or can't seem to grasp:
"Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. Believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded, but it can be a sign that you're more gullible."


You miss that I don't "believe" in them. I'm just saying they COULD be there. I also think they COULD NOT be there.
04/10/2009 02:23:13 PM · #283
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it.


We don't? Seems to me there's an awful lot of that going on, actually...

R.


On a grand scale, we don't. We wouldn't have the things we do, have the advances we have, etc. if we didn't.

Granted, there is a lot of it going on, but overall, we're generally good at moving on when we have to.


Thanks largely to the select few who drag, push, pull the masses from the boxes they frequently find themselves in. DPC is an example of that.
04/10/2009 02:24:10 PM · #284
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.

Direct quote from the video that you either haven't watched or can't seem to grasp:
"Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. Believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded, but it can be a sign that you're more gullible."


You miss that I don't "believe" in them. I'm just saying they COULD be there. I also think they COULD NOT be there.


The disconnect is that you believe that people are talking about you personally ;)

I'm pretty sure that what is the main argument here is how often religion can end up becoming a belief in having moral authority to have power and control over those without religion, as opposed to how often science ends up becoming that. That's how I'm seeing it. It's also a crazy, crazy side-track from the original intent of the thread to begin with.
04/10/2009 02:34:20 PM · #285
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.

Direct quote from the video that you either haven't watched or can't seem to grasp:
"Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. Believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded, but it can be a sign that you're more gullible."

You miss that I don't "believe" in them. I'm just saying they COULD be there. I also think they COULD NOT be there.

Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. It's a willingness to accept new ideas when evidence is presented. In your hypothetical boxcar example, as well as belief in supernatural beings, no evidence is offered.
04/10/2009 03:00:17 PM · #286
Originally posted by scalvert:

Open-mindedness isn't about believing things. It's a willingness to accept new ideas when evidence is presented. In your hypothetical boxcar example, as well as belief in supernatural beings, no evidence is offered.


That's very true. In the boxcar we find there is no getting out of it. The intellectually honest thing to do is to say everything outside the boxcar is "unexplained" and leave it at that. But you know as well and I do that nobody does that. We all like to ask questions about what's "out there" and it's natural to fall on one side of the coin or the other. I don't fault people for doing that and I really don't fault people for falling on either side of the coin. That last statement is why I consider myself open. I think it's arrogant to assume that the side you've chosen MUST be the correct side and not be open to the realization that there are very smart people who fall on the other side and that they might be correct after all.

Message edited by author 2009-04-10 15:00:56.
04/10/2009 03:41:27 PM · #287
Doc

There's a huge difference between saying something is unexplained vs saying something is unexplainable. Your boxcar example can only be fathom when you accept the role of an outside observer, (ex like the role god plays)). In regards to the real world you seem to put yourself in the same role, that is you speak of things such as claiming there are unknowable things which only an outside observer could possibly know. That's not being open minded that's jus being imaginitive.

Message edited by author 2009-04-10 15:47:53.
04/10/2009 03:47:21 PM · #288
Originally posted by yanko:

Doc...you speak of things such as claiming there are unknowable things which only an outside observer could possibly know.


That makes no sense.If you're aware you're in a box, and you're aware that whatever you share the box with constitutes the entirety of your "knowable reality", but you sometimes *hear* activities taking place outside the box, it seems reasonable to me to assume there is a reality outside the box, and that much, if not all, of that reality is unknowable from within the box.

For me, the really closed-minded people are the ones that extrapolate from their inside-the-box knowledge and assume it absolutely *must* be applicable outside the box. They can't know this.

R.
04/10/2009 03:51:18 PM · #289
Originally posted by yanko:

There's a huge difference between saying something is unexplained vs saying something is unexplainable.


This is obviously true, but tell me how you tell the difference when you come across one or the other?
04/10/2009 04:00:25 PM · #290
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

Doc...you speak of things such as claiming there are unknowable things which only an outside observer could possibly know.


That makes no sense.If you're aware you're in a box, and you're aware that whatever you share the box with constitutes the entirety of your "knowable reality", but you sometimes *hear* activities taking place outside the box, it seems reasonable to me to assume there is a reality outside the box, and that much, if not all, of that reality is unknowable from within the box.

For me, the really closed-minded people are the ones that extrapolate from their inside-the-box knowledge and assume it absolutely *must* be applicable outside the box. They can't know this.

R.


What must be applicable outside the box? Where did I say I knew the nature of what is outside the box? I confess ignorance on which I don't know. Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural. I'd accept that too when actual evidence is presented. So far all we keep getting are thought exercises. Where's the sounds that you speak of coming from the outside?
04/10/2009 04:06:55 PM · #291
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

There's a huge difference between saying something is unexplained vs saying something is unexplainable.


This is obviously true, but tell me how you tell the difference when you come across one or the other?


The same way I treat pi. I don't assume that the decimals in pi will form a pattern of 1s and 0s. It might but I don't know at this time and place so why believe it will?
04/10/2009 04:15:28 PM · #292
Originally posted by yanko:

What must be applicable outside the box? Where did I say I knew the nature of what is outside the box? I confess ignorance on which I don't know. Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural. I'd accept that too when actual evidence is presented. So far all we keep getting are thought exercises. Where's the sounds that you speak of coming from the outside?


I didn't mean to imply that you were making such assertions. I was branching out from the first statement, with the second. I hear people say that (or a variant of it) often; to me, those are the closed-minded people. Not you, Richard :-)

R.
04/10/2009 04:27:31 PM · #293
Originally posted by yanko:

Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural.


Does it make you feel better to know I say I choose to believe there is something else besides the natural? I'm not claiming my position is assured truth.
04/10/2009 04:37:08 PM · #294
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you're aware you're in a box, and you're aware that whatever you share the box with constitutes the entirety of your "knowable reality", but you sometimes *hear* activities taking place outside the box, it seems reasonable to me to assume there is a reality outside the box, and that much, if not all, of that reality is unknowable from within the box.

N/A. If you can hear things outside the box, then it's no longer a barrier to scientific investigation. OTOH, if you imagine you hear things outside the box, then we're back to imagination and the equal possibility (and unlikelihood) of Smurfs.
04/10/2009 04:40:56 PM · #295
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural.


Does it make you feel better to know I say I choose to believe there is something else besides the natural? I'm not claiming my position is assured truth.


What would make me feel better is if you acknowledged my godliness you nonbeliever. :p Seriously I get that and I respect it. My only issue of course is when that choice is forced upon the unwilling (ex Prop 8).

Message edited by author 2009-04-10 16:41:57.
04/10/2009 04:41:40 PM · #296
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural.


Does it make you feel better to know I say I choose to believe there is something else besides the natural? I'm not claiming my position is assured truth.


Ah yes. And if that is true, than this is the VERY important distinction between the Christians I respect and the ones that leave me running for my hermit shack in the woods.

I think much of the arguing you and I have been doing in this thread and the other is based on my observations of the type of people that will NEVER admit that they COULD be wrong or that they choose to believe, not that they "know" or have the "truth". This is not to say that you are any less stubborn, just less delusional. ;P Stubborn I can deal with, I've got a lot of that going on myself. Delusional, there is no fighting with that.

If a man thinks he's being spied on by the CIA and anything you say just PROVES it to him more (like... the CIA sent you). That is delusional. But if a man thinks there is a God, and you saying there isn't just PROVES it to him more (like... the devil sent you), with unshakable certainty... that is what? Faith? No. That is also delusional. Faith is when you know you could be wrong, but you believe anyway. That is respectable to me.
04/10/2009 04:48:28 PM · #297
Originally posted by yanko:

What would make me feel better is if you acknowledged my godliness you nonbeliever. :p Seriously I get that and I respect it. My only issue of course is when that choice is forced upon the unwilling (ex Prop 8).


Come on. That's such a two-way street. At the end of the day, conflict is going to exist.
04/10/2009 05:20:44 PM · #298
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Obviously we'll never understand EVERYTHING, but that analogy is an analogy of closed-thinking. Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it. I'm also now lost again on where exactly you're going. Are you saying 'we can't explain everything, therefore there must be a god'? Or are you just now arguing for the sake of arguing?

What he said. If you dug up every square inch of the boxcar, you would have a complete understanding of your environment- its size, shape, hardness, texture, etc., but anything beyond simply remains unknown. It would not in any way validate an assertion that mermaids or Smurfs lie just beyond the barrier. Believing that they do in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.


Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.

But it would be sensible to think that it's unlikely since Smurfs are an animated TV cartoon character, and through all the years that the mermaid conceopt has been floating around, one has yet to emerge. Doesn't make it impossible, but very unlikely.
04/10/2009 05:26:21 PM · #299
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you're aware you're in a box, and you're aware that whatever you share the box with constitutes the entirety of your "knowable reality", but you sometimes *hear* activities taking place outside the box, it seems reasonable to me to assume there is a reality outside the box, and that much, if not all, of that reality is unknowable from within the box.

N/A. If you can hear things outside the box, then it's no longer a barrier to scientific investigation. OTOH, if you imagine you hear things outside the box, then we're back to imagination and the equal possibility (and unlikelihood) of Smurfs.


Do you REALLY believe that? Don't you see how circular that reasoning is? Why do you think I put "hear" in quote marks, anyway? I expected better from you, Shannon.

R.
04/10/2009 05:27:25 PM · #300
Originally posted by escapetooz:

ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....

What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?

The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible.


Originally posted by escapetooz:

Oh no no! I think you misunderstand me. As I said, I'm pro choice. What I meant was that I understand how some people might think that a fetus from the beginning, or at some point in the womb (some say when the heartbeat starts) is no longer "her body" but a separate entity and is worth trying to protect just as any other human life. I'm not saying I agree, just that I understand where they are coming from as far as a moral debate goes. I am DEF NOT saying the father or any other man should be the one calling the shots. The "entity" I spoke of was the fetus, not the father.

No, I didn't misunderstand....I wanted to throw that in because I didn't want to see this go down the life/choice path without that salient point being brought up.

That's the thing......for me, I'm pro-choice simply because I think it's a choice to be made by a woman, her conscience, her doctor, and her God.....and nobody should have any right to tell her otherwise.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 12:25:09 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: 08/27/2025 12:25:09 PM EDT.