User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 79 of 79

  1. #71
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    Read John 14. If Jesus' own words can't be trusted, then we can't have a discussion.
    It was only in the second half of the second century that people began to accept the gospels as authoritative, and the canon of what would be gospels was undetermined for the entire second century. The gospel attributed to John was written around the year 100, when the aspostle John was long dead; it is also anti-Jewish, while the apostle John was a Jew. For about the last two hundred years, most critical Bible scholars have agreed that the Gospel of John was not written by an apostle. There is no mention of John in the text either.

    So, no, the words allegedly spoken by the figure called Jesus in the Gospel of John cannot be trusted.

  2. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Haven't read most of the thread, but did watch the video and looked at the first 10-15 posts. The woman in the video was an absolute idiot, and I do fear the odd combination of absolutism and relativism as practiced by these conservative christians. When it all comes down to it, though, this is largely a reaction against the complete dominance the scientific establishment possesses when it comes to the "truth".

    It only takes a few key observations for this kind of phenomenon to appear:

    1. It is a fact that scientific paradigms shift, so what is taught today will probably not be considered the (whole) truth 100 years from now. Hell, at CERN, the previously inviolable speed of light was just violated. Time to rewrite the science books. Thomas Kuhn had a legitimate point, so there's actually some solid philosophical backing behind a skeptical position toward the scientific establishment.

    2. Scientists are fallible. The favorite of the anti-global warming crowd was the Time magazine cover from the 70s declaring that scientists believed we were about to enter a potentially catastrophic period of global cooling. In the last year or two, Russian scientists have still been arguing that this is the case. When you read about things like this, and recognize what Kuhn was pointing to, it makes you question a bit more the current scientific consensus.

    3. Scientists are dependent upon funding, and sometimes that funding is dependent upon the perpetuation of a certain position. This is the one that really gets people on both sides of the issue rankled up, because the "pro-science" camp gets their panties all in a bunch that scientists could possibly be considered partial to their position, and the "anti-science" camp can't believe that the "pro-science" camp can't understand that scientists could be considered partial to their position, when it comes to their job, livelihood, family, and other reasons of personal self-interest. The ClimateGate scandal certainly didn't help the "pro-science" camp, in this regard, and, at least for the moment, it gave the "anti-science" camp all the fuel it needs to burn its fire for at least another five years. And, strictly from a philosophical perspective, if you don't think scientists are capable of allowing their personal self-interest leak into their take on things, I think you're either stupid, or you're lying to yourself. They are humans before they are scientists, and certain conclusions start seeming a lot more realistic when they are what puts the food on the table.

    4. Science is increasingly getting a stake in political questions, particularly surrounding issues like global warming, and, when you consider the above three observations, and that they all basically point to the fallibility of the current scientific consensus, it's a bit more understandable why people are expressing a degree of skepticism toward the scientific establishment.
    I think these are good points. @Giggly alluded to them earlier (although not referring to Kuhn, etc.).

    I think the topic of "questioning science" would be a great topic to discuss, and probably a more enjoyable way of spending time than wading through political rhetoric (which I admittedly contributed to). I will start another thread.

    As far as this thread goes. I just wanted to find out if the strategist shown in the spot was mainstream, or not.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #73
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    As far as this thread goes. I just wanted to find out if the strategist shown in the spot was mainstream, or not.
    Did it even show her name?

    I mean, I've never seen her before...

    Maybe she's a "strategist" in some local, rinky dink elections.

    She just seemed like a dumbass christian school mom, if you ask me.

    I can't imagine a prominent Republican strategist not realizing she was being mocked by the Daily Show.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

  5. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Did it even show her name?

    I mean, I've never seen her before...

    Maybe she's a "strategist" in some local, rinky dink elections.

    She just seemed like a dumbass christian school mom, if you ask me.

    I can't imagine a prominent Republican strategist not realizing she was being mocked by the Daily Show.
    She's Noelle Nikpour. She has been on Fox News and MSNBC also.

    Here she was in April: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4V085Lhes
    [YOUTUBE="Cy4V085Lhes"]Noelle Nikpour on Fox News[/YOUTUBE]

    Here is an opinion piece she did on SunSentinel.com saying Bush should get credit for the Arab Spring:
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opi...6149392.column

    I don't know if she is mainstream. I hope her views on science aren't mainstream.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #76
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Is it just me, or does she also seem to be a fake-breasted Christian?

    Cuz, you know, Jesus would definitely want you spendin that money on ur tits, not on helping the needy.

    Alternately, maybe she's right, cuz if they're real, God sure gave her one fantastic rack.

    / inferior Se

  7. #77
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Is it just me, or does she also seem to be a fake-breasted Christian?
    Cuz, you know, Jesus would definitely want you spendin that money on ur tits, not on helping the needy.
    maybe she plans to feed the world with those things...

    Alternately, maybe she's right, cuz if they're real, God sure gave her one fantastic rack.
    the Lord provides in mysterious ways.

    It is a fact that scientific paradigms shift, so what is taught today will probably not be considered the (whole) truth 100 years from now. Hell, at CERN, the previously inviolable speed of light was just violated. Time to rewrite the science books. Thomas Kuhn had a legitimate point, so there's actually some solid philosophical backing behind a skeptical position toward the scientific establishment.
    Realistically, though, the scientific method IS a skeptical method, inherently! It is meant to be challenged, it's designed to evolve and adapt to new discoveries. So this really means nothing to me, to be "skeptical" of science. Science encourages challenge of its own ideas.

    This is a big difference, though, between it and organized religion / revelational faith. Spending all those years within the religious culture, skepticism was not encouraged by the establishment, and dissenting voices / challenges to the current belief system often resulted in alienation and exclusion from the community. Nowadays, with the Gen X's as leaders, there has been more of a shift toward admitting when life is not matching up with your idea of what you thought faith would be -- a welcome change -- but STILL, realistically, you're taught to believe and not give up believing no matter WHAT new experiences you happen in life that challenge your belief system. Faith is tenacious by nature, and you're supposed to fight to keep the faith you have. Which makes sense in a way -- because if you already have the "truth" at your disposal, any change to that truth has to be a mistake.

    I see this as a huge difference between faith and the scientific method, in their very essence.

    Also, as far as "mistakes in the science," I think what we see is very small changes and tweaks of science thought that don't really impact one's daily life. I mean, the speed of light? We're talking about something that no one will ever experience in their daily life -- the very fringes of reality and on such a small, micro level. It's not like electricity suddenly doesn't work, or we discover the world is flat, or gravity ceases to behave in the general typical ways that much of our macro technology and science is based on. all these discoveries and tweaks seem to be occurring in very very specialized settings that cost trillions of dollars and years to create, that otherwise no one would have ever realized the mistaken thought of the speed of light -- we would never have experienced it and it simply wouldn't have mattered to anyone practically speaking.

    On the broad scale, science has weeded out a lot of the overt mistakes. Maybe Pluto gets recategorized, but again, is that something with relevant impact? In its interface of daily life, science is pretty darn dependable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    It was only in the second half of the second century that people began to accept the gospels as authoritative, and the canon of what would be gospels was undetermined for the entire second century. The gospel attributed to John was written around the year 100, when the aspostle John was long dead; it is also anti-Jewish, while the apostle John was a Jew. For about the last two hundred years, most critical Bible scholars have agreed that the Gospel of John was not written by an apostle. There is no mention of John in the text either.

    So, no, the words allegedly spoken by the figure called Jesus in the Gospel of John cannot be trusted.
    I agree, this is the general historicity of gospel evolution. Taking the words of Jesus as true here is really a faith matter, not a "fact" issue like if you would read about something happening today in the news.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That is so pathetic.
    Welcome to our world (in the US).

    But I'll be honest -- even with my natural desire to challenge things, I believed in Young Earth Science until I was in my early 20's and then finally got exposed to a lot of the challenges to it and realized it was ridiculous. The problem was that I was in an environment where I simply did not have access to all the information or even understood what challenges were out there; they teach you this stuff young, as a matter of faith, and there's enough internal logic within the faith to support the claim until you get access to outside info.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #78
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Like @Zarathustra said, the skeptical attitude towards the scientific establishment is understandable. It just seems like these people took a bad reading of Kuhn or Feyerabend and applied it for purposes of political convenience.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #79

    Default

    @Orangey @Jennifer, any thoughts to add this thread also:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...27#post1735327
    or was that all you wanted to say on the matter of questioning science?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. please tell me someone is inventing this (i don't see why they wouldn't)
    By prplchknz in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-28-2014, 08:57 PM
  2. Started my own religion. This is the telling of the first week in the universe.
    By Chimerical in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 11:51 PM
  3. Please tell me how it feels like to use your primary functions in everyday life
    By Lightyear in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 09:49 PM
  4. Could someone please tell me how to become more "healthy"?
    By Queen Kat in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 11:43 AM
  5. [MBTItm] Could someone please tell me what the 'strength of preference percentage' means?
    By Lindaxo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 03:54 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