User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 163

  1. #131
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post

    Religion does have standards. I believe Joseph Campbell stated some standards to judge how effective a religion is. Apart from that though, most religions actually give standards for how they are to be judged. For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.

    Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.
    Bible basically says: "sex before marriage immoral. you'll live a better life without it".

    how is that something thats "falsifiable" (to religious people)? even if i gather empirical evidence that shows that people can have happy marriages with sex happening before the marriage, will you admit that part of the bible to be flawed? no, you wont. Because you'll simply explain that data away with "they are just giving into the flesh/arent REALLY happy living of the flesh/think how much happier they MIGHT be" etc etc.

    Prayer, there HAVE been empiracal studies to show wether or not it works.

    yet you can just explain it away with "God didnt want to help, because then he'd be lowering himself to ur selfish desire for proof". again, no matter what evidence we gather on wether prayer works or not, how moral self identified christians actaully behave in comparison to non believers, how many bad things happen to believers vs non believers etc its all explained away with "God works in mysterious ways" or "He's just testing the believers". Unfalsifiable.


    Basically, the religious standard is:
    1. how useful is it to society to adopt these ideas?
    legitimate: but see "dark ages"

    2. how does it make you feel? (do you "feel good" when following jesus)
    not legitimate: feelings mean nothing when talking about truth and non truth.

    Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.
    thats the problem! people give religion a free pass because they mistakenly believe it to be "separate". this just simply isnt true. adopting a religious world view leads to different conclusions about A LOT of political, moral, legal, social and scientific issues.

    example: if people (avg joe people) weren't religious, would they honestly have ANY reason what so ever to be challenging evolution? Dont you think there'd be scientists (you know, professionals) lining up the wazoo for their chance at a nobel prize by disproving the "clearly flawed" theory? You really think NO scientist would have any interest in winning that nobel prize? Religion IS affecting the realm of science, because they both have far reaching implications

  2. #132
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    The lack of verification on the basis of other models is irrelevant. Either the process is flawed or it is not. If it is flawed, and you can demonstrate such, then you ought to do so. The scientific community would be greatly in your debt.
    Ok this makes no sense. How do you know that radioactive dating is the right model if it doesn't agree with any of the others. It's picked arbitrarily.


    Name one thing that religion addresses that is in no way relevant to science.
    Morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle
    Bible basically says: "sex before marriage immoral. you'll live a better life without it".

    how is that something thats "falsifiable" (to religious people)? even if i gather empirical evidence that shows that people can have happy marriages with sex happening before the marriage, will you admit that part of the bible to be flawed? no, you wont. Because you'll simply explain that data away with "they are just giving into the flesh/arent REALLY happy living of the flesh/think how much happier they MIGHT be" etc etc.
    If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.

    On the other hand you've ignored my point in the previous post. The Bible gives falsifiable criteria. Just follow the criteria and then you'll know.

    Science also gives falsifiable criteria. The problem I have with science is when it doesn't follow it's own criteria. People in this thread have been saying "no need to test our ideas about the past". I say yes, science should be falsifiable. We should test whether or not the ideas are true. Ideas which are not falsifiable are simply bad science.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #133
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.
    What about all the other main messages that other people profess it to have instead?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  4. #134
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Ok this makes no sense. How do you know that radioactive dating is the right model if it doesn't agree with any of the others. It's picked arbitrarily.
    Yes; it came down to element-based dating or tea-leaf reading, but scientists decided on the former by flip of the coin.

    That you genuinely believe this sort of bunk is symptomatic of the psychology you possess that allows you to buy into religion.

    Morality.
    Ah yes, the "without religion why be good?" chestnut. The question of why human beings behave toward one another in the manner that they do is related to our evolution as a social species, which is certainly a question of science.

    Also, you keep saying religion has falsifiable criteria, so out with them already. What are they?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  5. #135
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.

    On the other hand you've ignored my point in the previous post. The Bible gives falsifiable criteria. Just follow the criteria and then you'll know.

    Science also gives falsifiable criteria. The problem I have with science is when it doesn't follow it's own criteria. People in this thread have been saying "no need to test our ideas about the past". I say yes, science should be falsifiable. We should test whether or not the ideas are true. Ideas which are not falsifiable are simply bad science.
    oh no! not another "i only read the new testament"

    fine then, if the rules dont matter, then the main point of the bible would be: "telepathically tell jesus that your sorry, and you'll get a glorious new body".

    how in the world is telepathy and post-death transformation falsifiable???

    The Bible gives falsifiable criteria.
    -earth 6000 years old? false
    -creationism? false

    Ancient civilizations
    The Bible mentions many ancient civilizations that no longer exist today. If any archaeologist can show that any of those ancient civilizations never existed, then the Bible is shown to be false. In the nineteenth century, many scoffers maintained that no such civilization as Assyria exists or existed. Then archaeologists discovered Nineveh, the ancient capital city of Assyria, and the first of many monuments of that civilization and many of its most prominent rulers.
    Ancient prophesies

    The Bible predicts many events centuries before those events came to pass. If any one of them did not come to pass exactly as predicted, then the Bible is shown to be false. Again, many have tried; all have failed. Many have suggested that the prophecies of the Bible were all written after-the-fact. This is false; the Dead Sea Scrolls contain manuscripts of many prophetic works, all of which predict events that have come to pass often centuries later. Never once in any such case has anyone shown that an event did not come to pass.
    Historicity of Jesus

    Main Article: Historicity of Jesus

    Jesus Christ is the best-attested Figure in all of human history. If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresents any part of Jesus' story.
    the main problem with all of these claims to being falsefiable is that they are relying on two things:

    -lack of negative evidence, rather than relying on positive evidence:
    "until someone can show that these ancient societies didn't exist, then the Bible is true!"

    "until someone can prove that my martian ice cream truck never existed, then the flying spaghetti monster is TRUE!"


    -The Gone With the Wind Fallacy:
    if people dig up and prove that Atlanta was a real place in 2000 years, that in no way proves that Gone with the wind was a true story. even if suddenly people actually found less dubious evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus, it doesnt prove that anything written about him is true.



    Further:
    -the egyptains took METICULOUS records of their kingdom, and have shown no remorse for recording embarrassing things, and yet there is no egyptain evidence for exodus.
    -if you actaully go look for these supposed "attesting to jesus records" there isnt much as far as 3rd party historians... Josephus is the best thing they have, and even that is...shaky...at best.

  6. #136
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    @Babylon Candle: Are you even replying to me anymore? You seem to be arguing with a person that you've created. Should I assume that you have no answer to my points, and you'd rather argue against a straw man that you've created?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Yes; it came down to element-based dating or tea-leaf reading, but scientists decided on the former by flip of the coin.

    That you genuinely believe this sort of bunk is symptomatic of the psychology you possess that allows you to buy into religion.
    Yes I believe in mathematical models, and I also believe they become more credible when independent models agree. I suppose you classify that sort of thing as "voodoo" or "witchcraft" in the similar vein that you refer to the use of formal logic.

    Ah yes, the "without religion why be good?" chestnut. The question of why human beings behave toward one another in the manner that they do is related to our evolution as a social species, which is certainly a question of science.
    Heh, you remind me of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "Every word comes from Greek. Let me trace back kimono...." You can make all questions root back to science in the same way.

    Also, you keep saying religion has falsifiable criteria, so out with them already. What are they?
    I already did. See post 127.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  7. #137
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    @Babylon Candle: Are you even replying to me anymore? You seem to be arguing with a person that you've created. Should I assume that you have no answer to my points, and you'd rather argue against a straw man that you've created?
    ur response to me previously amounted to: "the bible IS falsifiable."

    The "strawmen" were used only because you refused to bring forth your own examples of falsifiable claims made by the bible (thus i had to go look for them).


    In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it.
    ...so then i try and bring in some of his teachings and how we could test them... (ie premarital sex really being all that bad) and you flipped a bitch!

    please give an explicit example of something that is falsefiable in the bible by means other than "there has been no negative evidence discovered yet"

  8. #138
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.
    And if it doesn't work, its because you weren't trying sincerely enough?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  9. #139
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Yes I believe in mathematical models, and I also believe they become more credible when independent models agree. I suppose you classify that sort of thing as "voodoo" or "witchcraft" in the similar vein that you refer to the use of formal logic.
    Methods and models stand or fall on the basis of their own merits. It's certainly reaffirming when independent models buttress one another, but this is not a requisite. Carbon-based dating, for example, relies on the accuracy of the believed half-life for carbon and the procedures by which the presence of carbon is detected in objects. If you can demonstrate that either the manner in which the half-life of carbon has been arrived at is flawed or that the manner in which the presence of carbon is detected is inaccurate, you will have a good case on your hands. Constantly alluding to "mathematical models" does not accomplish this. All you are doing is drawing irrelevant tangents into the proceedings, a basic logical flaw.

    Secondly, I have not referred to formal logic as "voodoo". What I have, accurately, stated is that you have as of yet failed to divulge the premises and logic upon which you have based your beliefs. Rather, you've stated, in so many words, that you believe in God because "[you] can feel his presence" and whenever I've pushed you to state your premises and outline your logic, you've airily alluded to formal logic this, mathematics that, and otherwise evaded the duty.

    It is this which makes you no different from every shaman in the course of man's history who duped his gullible fellow-villagers into bringing food to his hut, freeing his time up to snack on the local hallucinogen, by invoking an "other form" of understanding which defies ration and expression and which, incidentally, he possesses. (While, meanwhile, the men of ration were discovering that planting seeds resulted in harvests.)

    Heh, you remind me of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "Every word comes from Greek. Let me trace back kimono...." You can make all questions root back to science in the same way.
    "Irrelevant humor" is classified as an informal fallacy. Thank you for this excellent demonstration of it.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #140
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    I think we should launch a petition to have ANYONE posting things that boil down to "prove it *isn't*" publically shamed and pelted with wet noodles and rotten veggies. I'll sign it.

    People guilty of this - it isn't a valid argument. It never was, and it never will be. This is not my personal opinion, it is the truth. Stop doing it. Please, for the love of all that is good and right.

    I am enjoying the carbon dating argument, though. Not that there is an argument, of course. Mycroft, I have no idea how you maintain your tone and at the same time maintain your cranial integrity. My head would have exploded pages ago.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

Similar Threads

  1. What type do you think a majority of mafia/mobsters would be?
    By swordpath in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 11:05 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:08 AM
  3. Which Natural Disaster would be most interesting to see?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 04:00 AM
  4. [NF] If you've ever wondered what a world of NFs would be like...
    By wwbeachbum161 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 09:13 PM
  5. A fig by any other name would be a Newt!
    By TheNewt in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO