| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2009 05:30:52 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
One thing Shannon does, which is a good debating maneuver, is to lead you to assume that all unlikely events are equally unlikely. This is, of course, not true. So while it does seem really unlikely that Smurfs exist, it cannot be used as a universal proxy for all unlikely events. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 05:33:46 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason is doing the opposiite that is he claims to know that there is something else besides the natural. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
I believe something exists outside the natural, but I also realize that in a lot of situations, it's much better to keep my position on this to myself. I cannot prove what I believe,but neither do I feel any need to either prove it, or have others see it the way I do as I feel it's a part of my personal journey in many ways.
What drives me nuts are those who are convinced they have the answer to your/my situations and questions when they don't know the first thing about us.
Yet they think they have the inside track to what we should be doing.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 05:37:47 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing Shannon does, which is a good debating maneuver, is to lead you to assume that all unlikely events are equally unlikely. This is, of course, not true. So while it does seem really unlikely that Smurfs exist, it cannot be used as a universal proxy for all unlikely events. |
It is about degrees to me.....I'm a lot more likely to believe that there may be moles outside the boxcar if I feel the boxcar is in the ground......but I won't be sure 'til I see something more concrete.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:14:43 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Yes, no, because you didn't think it through, and likewise, in that order. Any form of communication with the "real" world inside the boxcar from the outside (literal hearing or otherwise) opens the possibility of investigating the outside in a scientific sense.
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 18:33:32. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:32:07 PM · #305 |
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. |
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. |
I agree. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:41:42 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Any form of communication with the "real" world inside the boxcar from the outside (literal hearing or otherwise) opens the possibility of investigating the outside in a scientific sense. |
So the "possibility" of scientific investigation is your litmus test? And you STILL don't see the circularity of this? C'mon, man...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 08:08:22 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So the "possibility" of scientific investigation is your litmus test? And you STILL don't see the circularity of this? C'mon, man... |
Nope. Achoo's example was supposed to be a situation where you've reached the limit of knowledge- a point where scientific inquiry no longer applies. Any form of actual communication (sound, light, vibration, etc.) would breach that barrier since you would then have a source of information to study the other side, sort of like a gravitational lens that allows you to see galaxies that would otherwise be too faint to detect. Without a source of information, there is no basis for making any claims of knowledge beyond that barrier. You can't have it both ways... either there is a verifiable flow of information (subject to real world study) or no information can cross the barrier and you therefore have no basis to assume the intentions or specific instructions of beings imagined to reside there. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 08:14:00 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...either there is a verifiable flow of information (subject to real world study) or no information can cross the barrier and you therefore have no basis to assume the intentions or specific instructions of beings imagined to reside there. |
Your circularity lies in this statement. Think it through, Shannon...
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 08:17:33 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...either there is a verifiable flow of information (subject to real world study) or no information can cross the barrier and you therefore have no basis to assume the intentions or specific instructions of beings imagined to reside there. |
Your circularity lies in this statement. Think it through, Shannon... |
I getcha Bear. I've tried to show this to Shannon, but it's the hemineglect thing again. To ask for Scientific proof concerning a non-scientific world is an oxymoron. If the natural tools could access it, the object would be natural. If an object is not natural, natural tools will be of no use to explore it. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 09:07:07 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...either there is a verifiable flow of information (subject to real world study) or no information can cross the barrier and you therefore have no basis to assume the intentions or specific instructions of beings imagined to reside there. |
Your circularity lies in this statement. Think it through, Shannon... |
I getcha Bear. I've tried to show this to Shannon, but it's the hemineglect thing again. To ask for Scientific proof concerning a non-scientific world is an oxymoron. If the natural tools could access it, the object would be natural. If an object is not natural, natural tools will be of no use to explore it. |
So Doc which halucengenic drugs do you recommend for reaching this non scientific world you speak of? :p seriously what tells you such a place exists?
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 21:09:04. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 09:08:36 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Any form of communication with the "real" world inside the boxcar from the outside (literal hearing or otherwise) opens the possibility of investigating the outside in a scientific sense. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So the "possibility" of scientific investigation is your litmus test? And you STILL don't see the circularity of this? C'mon, man...
R. |
Wait! That's *ALWAYS* the litmus test.....the possibility of scientific investigation. The open-mindedness is when you also accept that science very well may not have the answer.
Which is also a possibility.
The whole thing is a case of being reasonable and open to possibilities, yet also using your head as well.
It's like my belief in God. For the most part, it's just plain flat irrational. But I still believe. That doesn't mean that I use my belief in God for everything I cannot understand.
Edited to make sense......8>)
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 21:10:26.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 09:53:17 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's *ALWAYS* the litmus test.....the possibility of scientific investigation. The open-mindedness is when you also accept that science very well may not have the answer.
Which is also a possibility.
|
Here is my twist on this. I have faith in science. I believe that science may not have the answer now, but it will. That which we don't understand is only because we don't have the tools right now. Newton said "If I have seen further that others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". We just need a few more giants, and we will be able to see over the next horizon.
Oddly enough faith is very unscientific. But remember that Newton finished up his life writing on faith, and Darwin may have been in conflict with the COE' but he saw himself as a believer in God. These are not opposite ends of of a single spectrum, though people who know too much of one and little of the other do tend to see them that way. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 10:44:11 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So Doc which halucengenic drugs do you recommend for reaching this non scientific world you speak of? :p seriously what tells you such a place exists? |
You should watch Horton Hears a Who. It's on in the background and it's nice encouragement for those of us all poo poo'd on these threads... :) |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 12:08:09 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...either there is a verifiable flow of information (subject to real world study) or no information can cross the barrier |
Your circularity lies in this statement. Think it through, Shannon... |
To ask for Scientific proof concerning a non-scientific world is an oxymoron. If the natural tools could access it, the object would be natural. If an object is not natural, natural tools will be of no use to explore it. |
It's not circular, it's an either/or proposition. The only way to know ANYTHING about another world or dimension is if it interacts with this one in some perceptible way. If it doesn't, then there's zero basis for claiming insight into the specific instructions or "will" of those who exist there (you can believe all you want, but it's only your own imagination). If there IS interaction with this dimension, then as Doc suggests it would be possible to investigate with natural tools.
Open-mindedness does NOT mean unconditional acceptance of every idea as a possibility. It's about willingness to consider new ideas (even if you reject them). If you believe that God might exist, and someone else believes He doesn't, those positions themselves are not a problem because no actual claim has been made. However, when someone claims to know what "God would want," or asserts that a particular view of God is the "right" one, then that person is effectively making a claim of knowledge in the same breath as saying it's not possible to know. It's like running into a police station asserting that Bugs Bunny is guilty of the aforementioned burglary and having the inspector roll his eyes. Who's really being closed-minded in that situation? The investigator considered the claim and rejected it out of hand because there has never been one shred of evidence that ANY cartoon character could interact with our universe. He might change his mind if you offered some evidence that would make it plausible, but until then he'll keep looking. The rejection of animated suspects as a possibility does not make him closed-minded (he's still open to leads). The claimant OTOH has already stopped looking for alternative suspects because he "knows" the answer, and therefore rejects any other possibility.
Anyone who embraces one religion or denomination while scorning others is in the same position: mystery "solved," case closed, no need to look for any other suspects. Until I see evidence that's more compelling than mere claims that fictional beings might actually be real, I'm content to leave the mystery unresolved. You're free to believe whatever you like... just don't expect me to agree with laws or arguments based upon what Bugs would want. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 12:13:26 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
So Doc which halucengenic drugs do you recommend for reaching this non scientific world you speak of? :p seriously what tells you such a place exists? |
You should watch Horton Hears a Who. It's on in the background and it's nice encouragement for those of us all poo poo'd on these threads... :) |
No smurfs tonight? :P Sorry must be the smoke talking. I'm visiting my mom near Fort Worth and there is this smoke haze from all the wildfires plus she's a chain smoker. If I debate religion with her I just get smoke blown my way. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 05:35:02 PM · #316 |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 06:04:25 PM · #317 |
No system of belief can contain within itself the proof of its correctness. I'll leave it up to others (for pedagogical purposes) the discussion of why this is so, and the history of this thought. It's not original with me, that's for sure :-) Shannon's circularity lies in this area, and it is the greatest weakness of those who believe "science" is the ultimate answer. Personally, I find that arrogant, but I'm in a minority here and I realize that.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 06:52:13 PM · #318 |
nice! I quite enjoyed that. I have tried to express just what that article several times but words are not always my friend. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 07:30:33 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
nice! I quite enjoyed that. I have tried to express just what that article several times but words are not always my friend. |
"We so seldom say 'I love you,' and then it's too late. or love goes, so when I tell you that I love you, it doesn't mean I know you'll never go, only that I wish you didn't have to..."
ΓΆ€” Mason Williams
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 07:35:39 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No system of belief can contain within itself the proof of its correctness. |
I quite agree. For that we require evidence, and where none exists no correctness may be claimed. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 07:39:06 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
nice! I quite enjoyed that. I have tried to express just what that article several times but words are not always my friend. |
"We so seldom say 'I love you,' and then it's too late. or love goes, so when I tell you that I love you, it doesn't mean I know you'll never go, only that I wish you didn't have to..."
ΓΆ€” Mason Williams
R. |
:) Nice quote but I think the "Jesus loves you" sentiment mentioned in the article is meant for when its said in a condescending way. At least that was my interpretation. Like the bumper stickers that say "Jesus loves you but everyone else hates you" or something of that sort, only drop off the ending. hah. Or perhaps "Jesus loves you so you better love him back!" only drop off the ending. But I'm sure there are people that really do say it with love and joy in their hearts. But those usually aren't the ones telling atheists to shut up. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 08:21:57 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
:) Nice quote but I think the "Jesus loves you" sentiment mentioned in the article is meant for when its said in a condescending way. At least that was my interpretation. Like the bumper stickers that say "Jesus loves you but everyone else hates you" or something of that sort, only drop off the ending. hah. Or perhaps "Jesus loves you so you better love him back!" only drop off the ending. But I'm sure there are people that really do say it with love and joy in their hearts. But those usually aren't the ones telling atheists to shut up. |
Sometimes "Jesus loves you" is just "Jesus loves you"... |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 09:19:18 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
:) Nice quote but I think the "Jesus loves you" sentiment mentioned in the article is meant for when its said in a condescending way. At least that was my interpretation. Like the bumper stickers that say "Jesus loves you but everyone else hates you" or something of that sort, only drop off the ending. hah. Or perhaps "Jesus loves you so you better love him back!" only drop off the ending. But I'm sure there are people that really do say it with love and joy in their hearts. But those usually aren't the ones telling atheists to shut up. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes "Jesus loves you" is just "Jesus loves you"... |
And sometimes, to some people, that *IS* an inappropriae statement.....even if it's well meant.
I thought that was an interesting, and sadly true, article.
Message edited by author 2009-04-11 21:19:53.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 09:22:26 PM · #324 |
I was having an interesting conversation with my boss today. As I understand it, the Old Testament is the story of the Jews, correct?
And they were "The Chosen" correct?
Then Jesus comes along, and Christianity, with Jesus as the Lord our God, is now the Chosen Way.
So....does this mean that basically the Jews are now kicked to the curb?
Is the God, who is Jesus, now not considering the Jews as his children any more?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 09:35:38 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I was having an interesting conversation with my boss today. As I understand it, the Old Testament is the story of the Jews, correct?
And they were "The Chosen" correct?
Then Jesus comes along, and Christianity, with Jesus as the Lord our God, is now the Chosen Way.
So....does this mean that basically the Jews are now kicked to the curb?
Is the God, who is Jesus, now not considering the Jews as his children any more? |
Well, strictly speaking, the core of the Jewish faith is belief in the Messiah. When Jesus came along, he was positioned as the Messiah by his followers. Orthodox Judaism didn't/doesn't accept him as the Messiah. Depending on who's right, Jews are winners or losers in this debate. More or less. This is an extremely simplified version, LOL.
R.
|
|
