04-26-2002, 08:34 PM | #961 |
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Yes, science sometimes may be wrong. But we are humans that are using science, and humans are the most skilled at making mistakes, as you have so greatly exposed with "we are all sinners". Science, however, is able to change. In science, you are able to discover there is something else that holds more truth than the previous - in other words, you are able to change what was written.
Religion, however, cannot change, can it? Religion does not allow you to rewrite what was written. In conclusion, this makes religion a pointless merry-go-round you cannot jump off of. If there are contradictions in science: it can be changed and/or corrected. If there are contradictions in religion: it can never be changed, leaving you with a enigmatic labyrinth of confusing questions never to be answered through clarity and truth. So, tell me again, which is more trustable, truthful and relevant? |
04-27-2002, 01:19 AM | #962 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
It may be pointless for you, but then, it's not very useful to judge the utility of spiritual beleifs for other individuals. As for what might be trustable, truthful and relevant, I can only answer nothing, because the context is always changing. Trust what to do what? Truthful about what and when? Relevant to what? If you place all your trust in any one thing, and follow it uncritically, expect dissapointment sooner or later.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
04-27-2002, 06:25 AM | #963 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Epistemology i've always found to be over-rated.
Sort Of pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence So ALL we no KNOW is that something exist either we can know the thing in itself or we can't if we can't ultimately know it, get over it Try as best as we can to do so. and what really annoys me is " science can't explain everything" as if saying so somehow automactically gives some super credence to what they wish to believe Just because science is based on empirical data does not necessitate that there is a NON- empiracl world. ( for the sake of argument say in future times there is a time machine if we could back to the beginning or before the beginning why couldn't we study it empircally Is there any reason why god or gods can't be detected? (ooh ya its the OTHER side) just a tad miffed today
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
04-27-2002, 09:34 AM | #964 | ||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
Look at the way the beginnings of the two accounts are similar; with one big contradiction... Wherever we see Satan directly interacting with humans, it is mentioned. It doesn't matter who wrote the account, or what language they spoke. His name is always mentioned. It is mentioned prior to this "babylonian influence", and after. So your theory about ultimate cause does not hold. Perhaps you can submit some examples of this "babylonian influence"? We must ask, what excatly is the nature of God's divine inspiration? Does he transmit thoughts into the minds of his proposed (free-will robbed) authors, which are then recorded in such a way that it makes sense specifically to those people. Where is the thought in that? What about the rest of us? Can you give a reason for the "several century" wide gap between the two accounts? When you say : Quote:
What do you mean by "allowed it"? Are you saying that the actions of the devil are either constrained or unconstrained by the God, showing that he will either allow Satan to exercise his free will, or disallow it? So much for free-will. By the same token, we can say that everything any free will being does, is "allowed" by God. Following this reasoning, it is not me who is typing this message out, it is God. He is allowing it. He is the ultimate cause. Utter nonsense, and a demonstrable refutation of your free will theory. Last edited by Andúril : 04-27-2002 at 10:17 AM. |
||
04-27-2002, 12:45 PM | #965 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-27-2002, 12:56 PM | #966 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
[QUOTE]
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming that perceptions are purely subjective stretches the meaning of the word. Fire is hot. I have sensed this phenomenon. Is it subjective? Do I just think it is hot? It is utter nonsense to think that the truth is immutable and unattainable by subjective sensory perceptions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it? oddly enough, peple thought it was utter nonsense that the earth revolved around the sun, because they percieved quite clearly that the sun moves across the sky. As for truth being immutable, I'm afraid that's your interjection. My point is that it's merely unobtainable unless you are willing to grant certain assumptions. Do you agree that the earth revolves around the sun, or is it just a perception? The fact that the true nature of the earth's relation to the sun was discovered proves the truth was obtainable. I guess the assumptions would be that we can perceive. I'm sorry, but I have examined your theory and found it less useful than others, subjectively speaking.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
04-27-2002, 01:00 PM | #967 | |
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Quote:
As for science being trustable, truthful, and relevant - when I believe so surely in something brought up by science (say, the origins of writing began in Mesapotamia) and it's proven wrong (the origins of writing began in Egypt) I'm not disappointed. I'm just enlightened. And, I had put my entire trust into it. There's no point in being disappointed by everything. I take it religion teaches you this? |
|
04-27-2002, 03:34 PM | #968 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-27-2002, 04:39 PM | #969 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
... Earliest writing, I think originated from china? Not sure on that, though. Earliest mathematics is surely Sumeria, earliest example of monotheism comes from Egypt, and earliest laws/jurisdiction, come from the mesopotamian area....
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
04-27-2002, 05:00 PM | #970 | ||
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Quote:
I beg to differ it is science in the BROAD sense of the word. linguistics and history ARE sciences Quote:
i JUST read something about the chinese writing system not going back as far as once thought
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
||
04-27-2002, 05:21 PM | #971 | ||
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
||
04-28-2002, 01:18 AM | #972 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
Or have you managed to think of a way to get data out of a singularity? Or past the edge of the "visible" universe? So before you toss it all off as some kind of easy out for people who like to point out that there are limits to what types of empirical data we can gather, you should take note. As for what people believe, why the hell should someone care what anyone else believes? Other than another believer. You want to believe there's nothing there? Go right ahead. I'm an agnostic, I have the sense to say I don't know, and leave it at that. Miffed? Eat more bran.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
04-28-2002, 01:24 AM | #973 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
The thread topic is particularly interesting however. I find people who take a position for or against something that can't be known interesting, in that they obviously have a vested interest for doing so either way.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
04-28-2002, 01:29 AM | #974 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
Whether that's because of cultural bias, or researcher bias, or political machinations, usually depends on a number of factors. It might be nice if it was an objective science, but history unfortunately involves studying humans, and we seem to have a tendancy to waffle when studying ourselves. Just ask any psychologist.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
04-28-2002, 05:23 AM | #975 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
I find that people who claimed not to have an opinion may have a hidden agenda. It's pbvious that you haven't read the entire thread (who could blame you), but you have a mistaken impression of what I think. Either that or you just want to argue about someting you claim to be indifferent about. There has been relentless criticism on both sides, so valid and some less so. I have consistantly argued against belief based on theories and mysticism. Absolutisms like "everything is subject" or "can't be known" fall into that category. To say that theories are invalid unless every possible fact can be known is pointless in that it works to level all ideas to the lowest level of validity. The idea that usefullness is a measure of the accuracy of a idea or theory. My problem is with the uncritical dismissal of ideas because they may may theoretically have a subjective element or that is is posible to point to some aspect that is unknown and say that it invalidates the whole theory. There have been very few posts that proclaim belief of theories. Some of the theists have stated that faith is a critical element, for them, with regards to their religion, but have used historical elements and theories contrary to those held by atheists. many of the theists have agreed with the atheists of some points That a theory is not a fact doesn't invalidate the facts on which it is based. Most of the discussions have been the details af the facts behind the theories of theism and atheism. I would hope that you might have some comment regarding these facts instead of harping on the "subjectiveness" and "unknowness" of either point. The fact that someone favors one concept over another does not mean they believe it unquestionably. Give us a little credit. The "I know you are but what am I" statement that I am interested in semantic debates when I have stated clearly otherwise is a fairly ham-fisted bit of sophistry. I doubt I missed the point of uncritical acceptance being a problem since I have posted about this topic well before you began posting. I don't like the ad hominem tactic but I'll give back what I get.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-28-2002, 08:54 AM | #976 | ||||
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
again naught but "pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence" however i should have added, tedious, dull, boring,dreary, monotonous, mind-numbing, wearisome, wearying, I could go on but I don't wanna repeat myself for all of your erudite spewing all you have said is tantamount to sticking out your tongue and going " you can't know that neh neh neh" again and again yes there may be limits to our knowledge get over it but your relentless hue and cry will not make it any more true I feel like paraphrasing yoda " once you turn to the path of epistemological addiction forever it will dominate your path" A beautiful woman ( or man if that floats your boat) approaches BH obviously interested, X " Hi, how are you?" BH I don't know? Maybe I really don't exist. Maybe I just a hologram, or brain in a vat... X Dude did you shag her? BH I don't know maybe she really didn't exist. Maybe she was just a hologram or maybe.... Did I EVER claim that UOTE]Or have you managed to think of a way to get data out of a singularity? Or past the edge of the "visible" universe? [/QUOTE] I'm not gonna stifle myself with the utter impracticality of perpetual thoughts along that endevor Hmmm did my alaram clock go off? Do I really have a job to go to? I am really typing at entmoot? EPISTEMOLOGY TEST Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position. Quote:
Hmmmm I guess what other believes doesn't affect your life What the president believes what he should do doesn't affect you I guess the al-queda beliefs don't affect anyone Too bad all orc are like you Is that really army of Calaquendi or is that a subjective one I guess your orcish pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence is full of bran I feel so much better now
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
||||
04-28-2002, 09:45 AM | #977 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
hey BoP here's some info for you
The oldest written language in existence is said to be Sumerian. The first records in Sumerian have been traced to 3100 BC, in southern Mesopotamia. The earliest examples of Chinese writing date to the late Shang period (ca. 1200 BC). These are the so-called Oracle Bone Inscriptions (jiaguwen) which were found at the site of the last Shang capital near present-day Anyang, Henan province.
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
04-28-2002, 12:53 PM | #978 |
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
I have a proposal.
I think it would be interesting if we examine the bible book by book, going through all the verses in a critical manner. In our current environment, christians and others have the ability to respond to the criticisms, and this should generate a lively debate, perhaps answering theological and philosophical questions, as well as those pertaining to other fields of study. Now, being aware that there are two threads open (Anti-theist and Theism), if my proposal is accepted (which I have no doubt it will by the non-theists here), I will post an invitation on the opposing thread, calling for respondents to our criticisms. Anybody interested? One affirmative response will be sufficient. Last edited by Andúril : 04-28-2002 at 12:58 PM. |
04-28-2002, 01:30 PM | #979 | |||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So are you stating that everything can't be know is an absolutism? In which case do you beleive the opposite, everything can be known? Which is an absolute also you know... Perhaps you remember the earlier statements I made? If however, you want to say, I don't know if everything can be known, or not known, then that's acceptable. Are you arguing against beliefs based on theories or against beliefs based on mysticism? Or both? In which case perhaps your not as far away from agnosticism as I thought. Beleif based on mysticism are fine with me, as long as they aren't presented as fact. The same thing with beleifs based on theories. As long as they aren't presented as fact, that's fine. Quote:
[quote] The idea that usefullness is a measure of the accuracy of a idea or theory. [/quuote] What? Usefullness is the only measureable value of an idea, or theory. If it fits the known facts, and allows us to predict future occurances, that's whats referred to as usefullness. What other kind of measure are you going to use? You can't compare it with a "known" example of reality. Quote:
Quote:
Theories, are not based on "facts". Theories are based on other succesful theories. This applies to ethical, scientific, and metaphysical theories. Favoring one concept over another isn't what I see happening. Though I take your point, I shall extend credit. However you will just have to accept that I have the tendancy to be bombastic, especially when I'm trying to get a point that I find important across. [quote] The "I know you are but what am I" statement that I am interested in semantic debates when I have stated clearly otherwise is a fairly ham-fisted bit of sophistry. I doubt I missed the point of uncritical acceptance being a problem since I have posted about this topic well before you began posting. I don't like the ad hominem tactic but I'll give back what I get. [QUOTE] I think you mistook the points I laid out as semantic argument, which is understandable, since I wasn't going to spill the beans about where I was going until a few terms were agreed upon. A semantic argument (in the usual sense it is used) is quibbling about semantics with no point. There was a point, I just chose not to stick it at the front of my diatribute. And I would expect no less than for you to give back as good as you get. Otherwise you aren't going to be any fun to discuss ideas with.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... Last edited by Blackheart : 04-28-2002 at 03:01 PM. |
|||||||
04-28-2002, 02:01 PM | #980 | |||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's correct. What they believe does NOT affect anyone. The fact however that they ACT on their beliefs as FACTS does. Beliefs don't harm anyone. Actions, on the otherhand have impact. At least, I believe they have impact.... Hehehee. Acting as if it were a fact however, locks me into a single path of behavior. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... Last edited by Blackheart : 04-28-2002 at 02:12 PM. |
|||||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Religious Knowledge Thread | Gwaimir Windgem | General Messages | 631 | 07-21-2008 04:47 PM |